More McHenry County Blog

NOW COMES the PLAINTIFF, by and through Horwitz, Richardson, & Baker LLC., and pursuant to this Complaint at Law, states the following against the above named Defendants,to wit CAPTAIN ANTON CUNDIFF (“CUNDIFF”), LIEUTENANT JOHN MILLER #1431 (“MILLER”), LIEUTENANT WILLIAM LUTZ (“LUTZ”), SERGEANT POPOVITS (“POPOVITS”), and KATHLEEN SIETH, (hereinafter, the “INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS”), KEITH NYGREN (“NYGREN”), individually and in his official capacity as SHERIFF OF MCHENRY COUNTY, and the COUNTY OF MCHENRY.

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. This case is about an individual who spoke out on a matter of public concern,
specifically, against racial profiling activities and policies within the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department. Instead of being commended, he was harassed, demoted, criminally investigated, placed on administrative leave, and eventually terminated. Plaintiff, Zane Seipler, has been deprived of his basic civil rights by government officials whose duties include upholding the law and protecting the civil rights of others.

JURISDICTION

2. The jurisdiction of the court is invoked pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1983; the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §1331 and §1343(a); the Constitution of the United States; and this Court’s supplementary jurisdiction powers.

PARTIES

3. PLAINTIFF is a resident of the State of Illinois and a citizen of the United States.

4. The INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS were at all times relevant hereto employed by and acting on behalf of the COUNTY OF MCHENRY.

5. KEITH NYGREN is, and was at all times relevant hereto, the SHERIFF OF MCHENRY COUNTY.

6. The COUNTY OF MCHENRY is a duly incorporated municipal corporation. The COUNTY OF MCHENRY is the employer and principal of the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS as well as the other officers and/or employees referred to in this Complaint. At all times material to this Complaint, the DEFENDANT OFFICERS were acting under color of state law, ordinance and/or regulation, statutes, custom and usages of the COUNTY OF MCHENRY and the SHERIFF OF MCHENRY COUNTY.

FACTS

A. Background

7. Plaintiff was an employee of the SHERIFF OF MCHENRY COUNTY and the COUNTY OF MCHENRY.

8. PLAINTIFF was hired on or about October 25, 2004 to be a Sheriff’s Deputy for the SHERIFF OF MCHENRY COUNTY and the COUNTY OF MCHENRY.

9. During his training for employment with the SHERIFF OF MCHENRY COUNTY, PLAINTIFF witnessed what was, in essence, a “Code of Silence.” PLAINTIFF was told that he was not to speak out against fellow employees of the SHERIFF OF MCHENRY COUNTY.

10. PLAINTIFF, by his words and actions, made it clear to his supervisors and fellow officers of the SHERIFF OF MCHENRY COUNTY that he would not condone a “Code of Silence” if it meant compromising his professional and personal integrity or violating the law.

11. PLAINTIFF, by his words and actions, made it clear to his supervisors and fellow officers of the SHERIFF OF MCHENRY COUNTY that he would not condone practices involving racial profiling and subsequent cover-ups of such incidents. PLAINTIFF voiced his objections to such incidents and made it known he would not participate in such behavior.

12. Prior to his employment as a McHenry County Sheriff’s Deputy, PLAINTIFF was a deputy in the Cook County Sheriff’s Department for approximately five years. PLAINTIFF left his employment with the Cook County Sheriff’s Department on good terms.

13. During his employment with the SHERIFF OF MCHENRY COUNTY, PLAINTIFF has received multiple commendations and has been appointed to various duties pursuant to his excellent performance. Specifically, PLAINTIFF has been a member of the SWAT team, a defensive Tactics Instructor, a Field Training Officer, a Medic First Aid Instructor, and a cultural representative to the Guadalupe, Mexico police department.

B. Plaintiff Witnesses Incidents of Racial Profiling

14. On or about December 21, 2006, PLAINTIFF was on patrol and training a fellow officer. PLAINTIFF received a transmission from a Deputy of the SHERIFF OF MCHENRY COUNTY over his police radio directing him to pull over a black male operating a motor vehicle. The sole reason PLAINTIFF was given for effectuating the traffic stop was the race of the driver.

15. PLAINTIFF declined to effectuate the traffic stop.

16. The Deputy who had called for the traffic stop of the black male has since been promoted by the SHERIFF OF MCHENRY COUNTY.

17. On or about January 1, 2007, PLAINTIFF was on patrol with a fellow McHenry County Sheriff’s Deputy. While passing an apartment complex with a large Hispanic population, the passenger Deputy commented to PLAINTIFF that the location was an easy place to make arrests for driving without a valid driver’s license.

18. On or about November 18, 2007, PLAINTIFF was informed by a fellow Deputy of misconduct on behalf of employees of the SHERIFF OF MCHENRY COUNTY, to wit, PLAINTIFF was informed that traffic stops were being effectuated by McHenry County Deputies for “driving while black.”

C. Plaintiff Speaks Out Against the Incidents of Racial Profiling

19. On or about July 28, 2007, PLAINTIFF, along with other employees of the SHERIFF OF MCHENRY COUNTY, was given a Climate Assessment Questionnaire (“Questionnaire”).

20. In his responses to the Questionnaire, PLAINTIFF made the following comments:

“Civil rights violations are rampant,”

“Profiling and civil rights violations are prevalent,”and

“Profiling and civil rights violations are accepted practices among a number of deputies.”

Further PLAINTIFF commented that, “profiling and civil rights recognition” should be added to the training programs of the SHERIFF OF MCHENRY COUNTY. Although it was optional, PLAINTIFF provided his name on the Questionnaire.

21. A few hours after submitting his responses to the Questionnaire, PLAINTIFF was called in to have a closed door meeting with Defendant CUNDIFF.

22. During this meeting, PLAINTIFF explained to CUNDIFF that he believed fellow Deputies were engaging in racial profiling.

23. Later this same day, PLAINTIFF was called in to another meeting with Defendant SIETH, the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer for the SHERIFF OF MCHENRY COUNTY, and POPOVITS. This meeting was recorded. During this meeting, PLAINTIFF again voiced his concerns regarding racial profiling.

24. On or about November 18, 2007, PLAINTIFF wrote a memorandum to his supervisors regarding his concerns based on the information he received (supra ¶ 18). This memorandum expressed PLAINTIFF’s concerns that traffic stops had been effectuated by employees of the SHERIFF OF MCHENRY COUNTY for “driving while black.” Also mentioned in this memorandum were incidents where PLAINTIFF had overheard his fellow deputies making comments involving racial slurs.

D. Defendants Harass and Retaliate Against Plaintiff; Plaintiff Reports to Outside Agencies

25. On or about January 23, 2008, PLAINTIFF had a meeting with SEITH, the individual charged with investigating PLAINTIFF’s claims of police misconduct. During this meeting, SEITH informed PLAINTIFF, in a threatening manner, that one of the deputies PLAINTIFF had mentioned was inquiring about filing a harassment complaint against PLAINTIFF.

26. On or about January 25, 2008, notwithstanding his commended performance as a Deputy, PLAINTIFF received a mediocre evaluation by the SHERIFF OF MCHENRY COUNTY. In this evaluation, prepared by POPOVITS, reference was made to the fact that RLAINTIFF had voiced his concerns about officer misconduct and that the concerns were unfounded.PLAINTIFF rebutted this evaluation. Subsequent to the rebuttal hearing, PLAINTIFF’s evaluation scores were raised five and a half months later.

27. During his rebuttal hearing, PLAINTIFF was ordered by Defendant MILLER and POPOVITS to provide a list of names of fellow Deputies who had knowledge of Deputies engaged in police misconduct. Despite fear of alienating himself among his peers, PLAINTIFF complied with this request in his attempts to aid in the departmental investigation.

28. On our about January 25, 2008, PLAINTIFF found a roster of McHenry Deputies listed in order of seniority hanging in the common area of the patrol room. PLAINTIFF saw that his name had been scratched off of this list.

29. On January 29, 2008, PLAINTIFF was ordered by his supervisors at the SHERIFF OF MCHENRY COUNTY to undergo a psychological evaluation. The stated reason for this evaluation related to a shooting that occurred on or about September 16, 2008; this shooting had been investigated by both the Illinois State Police and the McHenry County State’s attorney and been determined a proper shooting. Further, PLAINTIFF had been cleared for duty by a psychologist pursuant to an examination on September 18, 2006.

30. Also, on or about January 29, 2008 the SHERIFF OF MCHENRY COUNTY issued certified letters to the individuals named by PLAINTIFF pursuant to MILLER’s and POPOVITS’ order of January 25, 2008. Following the issuance of these letters, fellow Deputies of the SHERIFF OF MCHENRY COUNTY became hostile towards PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF was subsequently told by fellow officers that employees of the SHERIFF OF MCHENRY COUNTY have stated that PLAINTIFF is “crazy” and/or “hated” by his fellow Deputies.

31. On or about February 2, 2008, SIETH, during an investigatory meeting regarding PLAINTIFF’s concerns of racial profiling, told one of PLAINTIFF’s co-workers that PLAINTIFF was disgruntled and starting rumors, intimating that PLAINTIFF’s concerns of racial profiling were without merit. During a similar meeting with another of PLAINTIFF’s coworkers, on or about February 5, 2008, SIETH intimated that PLAINTIFF’s concerns were a joke and that she was not seriously investigating them.

32. On or about February 19, 2008, PLAINTIFF was informed that he was no longer acandidate for Range Instructor though he was listed as the top candidate for the position.

33. On or about February 20, 2008 PLAINTIFF informed CUNDIFF in a memorandum that he believed SEITH was not handling the racial profiling investigation in a professional or ethical manner.

34. On or about February 21, 2008, PLAINTIFF contacted a Sergeant Master with the Illinois State Police Internal Affairs Division and related his claims of racial-profiling and the subsequent events stated above.

35. On or about February 22, 2008, the members of the SWAT team were informed by supervisors of the SHERIFF OF MCHENRY COUNTY that PLAINTIFF was untrustworthy. This information was then related to PLAINTIFF by members of the SWAT team during a hostile meeting with his fellow deputies.

36. Further on that same day, Defendant LUTZ informed PLAINTIFF, at his home and in front of his wife and children, that the SHERIFF OF MCHENRY COUNTY was engaged in an administrative/criminal complaint against PLAINTIFF regarding a statement he made while off duty on or about January 6, 2008.

37. On or about February 27, 2008, PLAINTIFF was officially removed from the SHERIFF OF MCHENRY COUNTY SWAT team. On that same day, PLAINTIFF was told by CUNDIFF that there is no validity to his claims of racial profiling and concerns regarding the subsequent investigation.

38. Further, on or about February 27, 2008, individuals other than PLAINTIFF are promoted to the positions of Sergeant, Range Instructor, and the apprehension unit. PLAINTIFF had previously been a top contender for all three positions.

39. On or about February 29, 2008, PLAINTIFF was informed by supervisors that all of his work related actions were under intense scrutiny.

40. On or about March 3, 2008, PLAINTIFF met with a Supervisory Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding his claims of racial profiling and the subsequent events alleged above (supra ¶¶ 14-37).

41. On or about March 24, 2008, PLAINTIF received correspondence from MILLER informing him that his temporary suspension from the SWAT team has been upgraded to a permanent removal.

42. On or about March 30, 2008, during a meeting, MILLER confirmed to PLAINTIFF that supervising employees of the MCHENRY COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT had been making negative comments about PLAINTIFF as a result of his statements regarding racial profiling within the department.

43. On or about March 31, 2008, PLAINTIFF was replaced as a training officer for a standard patrol by a Deputy who was not a certified Field Training Officer.

44. On or about April 13, 2008 and April 14, 2008, a non-certified Deputy was assigned to a standard training patrol for training purposes in lieu of PLAINTIFF.

45. On or about April 15, 2008, PLAINTIFF was informed by Lt. Zinke that CUNDIFF had suspended PLAINTIFF from his duties as a Field Training Officer.

46. On or about April 23, 2008, PLAINTIFF was, yet again, passed over for a promotion and another Deputy is promoted to the position of Sergeant.

47. On or about April 30, 2008, MILLER told PLAINTIFF that he is aware that the retaliation against PLAINTIFF is illegal, but will never state as such in public. MILLER then stated that he was aware that racial profiling was happening but did not know how to stop it. MILLER further stated that, if PLAINTIFF ceased talking about the racial profiling concerns, MILLER would use his influence in the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department to help PLAINTIFF with his “problems.”

48. On or about May 2, 2008, PLAINTIFF filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding his claims of racial profiling and the subsequent retaliation by Defendants, requesting mediation.

49. On or about June 4, 2008, PLAINTIFF was notified that the MCHENRY COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT has denied his requests for mediation pursuant to his complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. That same day, PLAINTIFF submitted writings to CUNDIFF regarding the meeting of April 30, 2008 between PLAINTIFF and MILLER and his suspension from field training. PLAINTIFF also requested a copy of his personnel file.

50. On or about June 5, 2008, PLAINTIFF had a meeting with CUNDIFF and MILLER during which his claims of racial profiling and the subsequent events (supra ¶¶ 14-50) were discussed. At said meeting, CUNDIFF stated to PLAINTIFF, words to the effect of,

"If I give you something will you drop your lawsuit?”

and before PLAINTIFF could answer

“Fuck you! Get the fuck out of my office!"

Several of PLAINTIFF’s co-workers overheard this verbal berating.

51. On or about June 18, 2008, PLAINTIFF had a meeting with CUNDIFF and MILLER. PLAINTIFF was given a written reprimand for his off-duty comment of January 6, 2008 supra ¶ 36).

52. On or about July 21, 2008, PLAINTIFF was placed on administrative leave by the MCHENRY COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT regarding a traffic stop effectuated by PLAINTIFF. Administrative and criminal investigations have been lodged against PLAINTIFF regarding this traffic stop. At this time, CUNDIFF stripped PLAINTIFF of his badge. Further, PLAINTIFF’s personal items, including a notebook containing information of a highly personal nature, were seized. LUTZ conducted this seizure.

53. Following this incident, on July 22, 2008, PLAINTIFF filed another complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

54. On or about July 23, 2008, PLAINTIFF was, again, passed up for a promotion to Sergeant. The eligibility list for Sergeant was then terminated, leaving PLAINTIFF as the only eligible deputy that was not promoted.

55. On July 24, 2008, PLAINTIFF filed a charge with the Illinois Department of Human Rights regarding the aforementioned events, specifically the events of July 23, 2008 (supra ¶56).

56. On or about July 29, 2008, PLAINTIFF was interrogated by MILLER and LUTZ. The subject matter of this interrogation involved a traffic stop where PLAINTIFF issued a violation to a Caucasian individual and used his discretion as a Sheriff’s Deputy to not issue a citation to a Hispanic individual. As of the date of this filing, this investigation is ongoing.

57. At this time, PLAINTIFF was further informed that the MCHENRY COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT intended to instigate further administrative and/or criminal investigations against PLAINTIFF regarding his previous traffic stops. The unofficial basis for these investigations was that PLAINTIFF was racially profiling Caucasians.

58. On or about November 17, 2008, PLAINTIFF was terminated by the MCHENRYCOUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT.

E. Despite Defendants’ Harassment and Retaliation, Plaintiff Consistently Excelled in His Duties as a Sheriff’s Deputy

59. Throughout the period of the aforementioned events, PLAINTIFF received the following commendations by the MCHENRY COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT:

a. February 11, 2008: PLAINTIFF, along with other Deputies, was commended, in
writing, for traffic enforcement by MCHENRY COUNTY SHERIFF KEITH NYGREN.
b. May 7, 2008: PLAINTIFF, along with other Deputies, was commended, in writing, for traffic enforcement by MCHENRY COUNTY SHERIFF KEITH NYGREN.
c. May 21, 2008: Lt. Patenaude commended PLAINTIFF for his stellar performance of May 20, 2008 regarding the level of his work in conducting twenty-one (21) self-initiating contacts (seven seat belt violations, seven warning citations, multiple paper services) along with handling Area Three and responding to calls for service. PLAINTIFF also received a personal call from MCHENRY COUNTY SHERIFF KEITH NYGREN commending him on his performance of May 20, 2008.
d. From approximately May 5, 2008 to May 31, 2008, PLAINTIFF set a record for the MCHENRY COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, issuing 125 traffic tickets, 75 traffic warnings, and effecting two arrests.
e. For the past twelve months, PLAINTIFF has consistently received commendations for traffic enforcement by his supervisors at the MCHENRY COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT every month.

F. The Actions of Defendants Have Caused Plaintiff Emotional and Pecuniary Damages.

60. Pursuant to the aforementioned events, PLAINTIFF has suffered the following damages:

f. PLAINTIFF was permanently suspended from the SWAT team causing PLAINTIFF’s salary to decrease;
g. PLAINTIFF was suspended as a Field Training Officer causing PLAINTIFF’s salary to decrease;
h. PLAINTIFF was suspended from his duties as a defensive tactics instructor causing PLAINTIFF’s salary to decrease;
i. PLAINTIFF has been passed over for numerous promotions/advancements;
j. PLAINTIFF has been stigmatized within the MCHENRY COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT causing PLAINTIFF emotional distress; and
k. PLAINTIFF has been criminally investigated causing PLAINTIFF emotional distress.
l. PLAINTIFF’s family has been intimidated by LUTZ and other supervisory personnel as a result of their unannounced visits to PLAINTIFF’s home causing PLAINTIFF emotional distress.
m. PLAINTIFF has lost his sole source of income as a result of his wrongful termination.

61. At all times relevant to this complaint, the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS were duly appointed police officers and/or employees for the COUNTY OF MCHENRY. The INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS engaged in the conduct complained of in the course and scope of employment and while on duty. This action is being brought with regard to the individual capacity of the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS.

CONSPIRACY ALLEGATIONS

62. Some or all of the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS conspired to cause damage to
PLAINTIFF in the following manner:

a. agreeing to falsely institute administrative proceedings and/or criminal charges/proceedings against the PLAINTIFF;
b. agreeing not to report each other after instigating false administrative and/or criminal charge/proceedings against PLAINTIFF; and
c. generating false documentation and administrative and/or criminal proceedings against PLAINTIFF to cover-up for their own and each other’s misconduct.

63. In connection with the above conspiracy, the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS entered into an express or implied agreement to participate in an unlawful act, namely the deprivation of PLAINTIFF’S First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under color of law in violation of §1983.

64. The INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS’ acts to deprive the PLAINTIFF of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were deliberately commmited in furtherance of a common scheme to harass and silence PLAINTIFF and to deprive him of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

65. The conspiracy between the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS’ was part of a broader custom or practice at the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department and the COUNTY OF MCHENRY and permeated the ranks of the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department employees.

66. As a result of this conspiracy, the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, by and through their conduct, proximately caused PLAINTIFF to, inter alia, suffer injury in the form of lost wages, loss of employment opportunities, emotional distress, humiliation, personal indignity, mental distress and suffering.

MONELL ALLEGATIONS

67. It is the custom, practice and/or police of the supervisors/agents and/or other employees of the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department and the COUNTY OF MCHENRY to perform the following acts or omissions:

a. generate false documentation to cover-up for the misconduct of McHenry County Sheriff’s Department officers;
b. fail to properly discipline officers from said police department who have committed act(s) of racial profiling;
c. fail to properly investigate a complaint of racial profiling perpetrated by McHenry County Sheriff’s Department police officers;
d. allow misconduct to occur in various types and severity such that police officers believe that they can engage in racial profiling without repercussions and/or significant repercussions;
e. fail to provide adequate sanctions/discipline to officers who engage in racial profiling, such that a permissive atmosphere exists among officers wherein they believe that they will not be disciplined (or significantly disciplined) for engaging in such behavior;
f. fail to properly investigate officers who engage in racial profiling, causing said officers to believe that they can engage in racial profiling and to not be disciplined or significantly disciplined for engaging in said behavior, which violates the rules, policies and/or procedures of the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department;
g. fail to take proper remedial measures to prevent and/or correct officers who engage in racial profiling, causing said officers to believe that they can engage in racial profiling and not be disciplined or significantly disciplined for engaging in illegal behavior;
h. fail to provide proper training to prevent officers from engaging in racial profiling and violating the rules, policies and procedures of the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department;
i. stigmatize employees of the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department who speak out against officers of the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department who engage in racial profiling;
j. issue verbal and written reprimands against employees of the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department who speak out against officers of the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department who engage in racial profiling;
k. instigate administrative and/or criminal proceedings against employees of the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department who speak out against officers of the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department who engage in racial profiling;
l. suspend from duty employees of the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department who speak out against officers of the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department who engage in racial profiling;
m. discredit employees of the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department who speak out against officers of the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department who engage in racial profiling; and
n. demote or otherwise retaliate against employees of the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department who speak out against officers of the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department who engage in racial profiling.

68. This practice and/or custom, as alleged above, has gone unchecked and been allowed to exist in the COUNTY OF MCHENRY for a significant period of time, so much so, that police officers for the COUNTY OF MCHENRY recognize that they will not be punished for committing said acts and that, in fact, said acts are either permitted or quietly consented to by superior officers of the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department in order to permit said conduct to re-occur.

69. A code of silence exists between officers of the Defendant Municipality. This code of silence obstructs the legal process (preventing the free flow of honest information with regard to acts of misconduct). This code of silence contributes to the generation of secrets, in the department, regarding police officer misconduct.

70. In an attempt to further strengthen this code of silence, when employees of the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department and the COUNTY OF MCHENRY attempt to break this code of silence, they are retaliated against and threatened with criminal investigations by supervising employees of the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department and the COUNTY OF MCHENRY, such that their employment is threatened, in an attempt to further strengthen this code of silence.

COUNT I

First Amendment Retaliation – Freedom of Speech

71. PLAINTIFF re-alleges paragraphs 1 – 70 as though fully set forth herein.

72. PLAINTIFF had a First Amendment right to free speech during and at all times relevant to this action.

73. PLAINTIFF exercised his right to free speech in the following ways:

n. commenting in the Departmental Questionnaire that he was concerned that civil rights violations and racial profiling were occurring in the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department;
o. making oral and written statements to various supervisors at the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department regarding his concerns of racial profiling;
p. making comments that officers engaging in racial profiling were untrustworthy; and
q. reporting his concerns of racial profiling to outside agencies.

74. The above referenced speech addressed matters of public concern.

75. The DEFENDANTS harassed and retaliated against PLAINTIFF for exercising his First
Amendment right to free speech.

76. As a result of said harassment and retaliation, PLAINTIFF suffered damages. PLAINTIFF’s injuries include lost wages, loss of employment opportunities, emotional distress, humiliation, personal indignity, mental distress and suffering.

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF demands compensatory damages from the DEFENDANTS. PLAINTIFF also demands punitive damages, costs and attorneys’ fees against the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS. PLAINTIFF also demands whatever additional relief this Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT II

First Amendment Retaliation – Right to Petition Government for Redress

77. PLAINTIFF re-alleges paragraphs 1 – 70 as though fully set forth herein.

78. PLAINTIFF has rights secured to him by the Petition Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to exercise his First Amendment right to petition the government for redress.

79. PLAINTIFF exercised his First Amendment right to petition the government for redress by engaging in speech and activities that highlighted his concerns that the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department was engaging in and/or condoning, permitting, or turning a blind eye to racial profiling.

80. The above-referenced speech and activities involved matters of public concern.

81. The DEFENDANTS retaliated against PLAINTIFF for exercising his First Amendment right to petition the government for redress.

82. As a result of said retaliation, PLAINTIFF suffered damages. PLAINTIFF’s injuries
include lost wages, loss of employment opportunities, emotional distress, humiliation, personal indignity, mental distress and suffering.

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF demands compensatory damages from the DEFENDANTS. PLAINTIFF also demands punitive damages, costs and attorneys’ fees against the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS. PLAINTIFF also demands whatever additional relief this Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT III

§ 1983 Conspiracy Claim

83. PLAINTIFF re-alleges paragraphs 1 – 70 as though fully set forth herein.

84. The aforementioned actions of the DEFENDANTS were the direct and proximate cause of the violations of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF demands compensatory damages from the DEFENDANTS. PLAINTIFF also demands punitive damages, costs and attorneys’ fees against the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS. PLAINTIFF also demands whatever additional relief this Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT IV

Conspiracy Claim – State Law

85. PLAINTIFF re-alleges paragraphs 1 – 70 as though fully set forth herein.

86. The aforementioned actions of the DEFENDANTS were the direct and proximate cause of the violations of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF demands compensatory damages from the DEFENDANTS. PLAINTIFF also demands punitive damages, costs and attorneys’ fees against the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS. PLAINTIFF also demands whatever additional relief this Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT VI

Monell

87. PLAINTIFF re-alleges paragraphs 1 – 70 as though fully set forth herein.

88. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and omissions by the COUNTY OF MCHENRY and the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department there existed a custom, practice, policy, and/or pattern, either implicit or explicit, of the COUNTY OF MCHENRY and the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department in which officers were not held accountable for their wrongful and/or illegal acts and were retaliated against for speaking out against said acts.

89. Said custom, practice, policy, and/or pattern of the COUNTY OF MCHENRY and the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department encouraged, endorsed, created willful ignorance of, or otherwise promoted said wrongful acts of its employees.

90. As a direct and proximate result of said custom, practice, policy, and/or pattern, either implicit or explicit, of the COUNTY OF MCHENRY and the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department, PLAINTIFF was injured in a personal and pecuniary manner.

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF demands compensatory damages, costs and attorneys’ fees from the COUNTY OF MCHENRY. PLAINTIFF also demands whatever additional relief this Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT VII

745 ILCS 10/9-102 Claim Against the COUNTY OF MCHENRY

91. PLAINTIFF re-alleges paragraphs 1 – 70 as though fully set forth herein.

92. Defendant COUNTY OF MCHENRY is the employer of the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS alleged above.

93. The INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, as alleged above, committed the acts under color of law and in the scope of employment of the COUNTY OF MCHENRY.

WHEREFORE, should the DEFENDANTS be found liable for any of the alleged counts in this cause, PLAINTIFF demands that, pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/9-102, the COUNTY OF MCHENRY pay PLAINTIFF any judgment obtained against the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS as a result of this Complaint.

COUNT VIII

Supplementary Claim for Respondeat Superior

94. PLAINTIFF re-alleges paragraphs 1 – 70 as though fully set forth herein.

95. The aforesaid acts of the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS were in the scope of eemployment and therefore the Defendant COUNTY OF MCHENRY, as principal, is liable for the actions of its agent(s) under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF demands compensatory damages from the DEFENDANTS. PLAINTIFF also demands punitive damages, costs and attorneys’ fees against the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS. PLAINTIFF also demands whatever additional relief this Court deems equitable and just.

JURY DEMAND

96. Plaintiff demands trial by jury.

Respectfully submitted,
s/ Blake Horwitz________
Attorney for the Plaintiff

Blake Horwitz
HORWITZ, RICHARDSON & BAKER LLC
Two First National Plaza
20 S. Clark St. Suite 500
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Ph (312) 676-2100
Fax (312) 372-7076

Labels: Anton Cundiff, Blake Horwitz Code of Silence, John Miller, Kathleen Seith, Keith Nygren, McHenry County Sheriff, Sgt. Popovits, William Lutz