MATTHEW THOMASSEE VERSUS LAFAYETTE PARISH SHERIFFS OFFICE, MICHAEL NEUSTROM, individually and as Sheriff, ROB REARDON, individually

and as Director of Corrections, DEPUT(IES) JOHN DOE, individually and as Deputy Sheriff(s), XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants

CIVIL DOCKET NO. 2011-2573G 15TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE STATE OF LOUISIANA

JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR DAMAGES

The petition of MATTHEW THOMASSEE (hereinafter referred to as petitioner), a person of the full age of majority, and a resident of Youngsville, Lafayette Parish, Louisiana, respectfully submits to this Honorable Court his first amended petition, accordingly: 1. Made defendants herein are: A. LAFAYETTE PARISH SHERIFFS OFFICE, a political subdivision duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Louisiana and the Parish of Lafayette. B. SHERIFF MICHAEL W. NEUSTROM, an individual of full age of majority, resident and domiciliary of the Parish of Lafayette, State of Louisiana. Upon information and belief, Michael Neustrom was the duly elected Sheriff of Lafayette Parish and was serving in that capacity at the time of the events out of which this action arises. This action is brought against Michael Neustrom individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Lafayette Parish. C. ROB REARDON, based upon information and belief, an individual of full age of majority, resident and domiciliary of the Parish of Lafayette, State of Louisiana. This action is brought against Rob Reardon individually and in his official capacity as Director of Corrections for the Lafayette Parish Sheriffs Office. D. JOHN DOE, based upon information and belief, an/all individual(s) of full age of majority, resident(s) and domiciliary(ies) of the Parish of Lafayette, State of Louisiana. This action is brought against Deputy(ies) John Doe in both his/their individual and official capacities. The petitioner reserves their right to supplement and amend their Petition once the true identity(ies) of any other party(ies) involved is/are ascertained.

E. XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY, an unknown insurance company, duly licensed and doing business in the Parish of Lafayette, State of Louisiana, and providing insurance coverage for the acts and/or omissions of the defendants. 2. The petitioner shows the he was hired by the Lafayette Parish Sheriffs Office on July 28, 1999. 3. The petitioner shows that prior to May 7, 2010 his personnel folder did not contain any evidence of any employee misconduct or performance deficiencies. 4. The petitioner shows that his annual performance evaluations have never indicated any employee misconduct or performance deficiencies. 5. The petitioner shows that he served as a supervisor with the Lafayette Parish Sheriffs Office from December 3, 2001 until May 7, 2010. 6. The petitioner shows that he served as the Accreditation Manager for the Lafayette Parish Correctional Center from October 1, 2004 until June 30, 2008. 7. Upon information and belief, sometime between September 16, 2004 and May 5, 2005 the petitioner believes Rob Reardon may have committed a violation when he witnessed him sign a document entitled Staffing, Space, Equipment Assessment Review dating it January 6, 2003. Deputy Brian McCarley presented the document to Director Reardon at which time Director Reardon stated did I do this? I dont remember doing this. Deputy McCarley responded by saying It is needed for the A.C.A. files. Director Reardon remarked well in that case, signed the document and handed it to Deputy McCarley. Lafayette Parish Correctional Center Policy 01-0100 Facility Administrator required an annual review of staffing, space and equipment in order to demonstrate compliance with American Correctional Association (A.C.A.) standards.

8. The petitioner shows that on or about January 25, 2008 he reported by e-mail employee misconduct by Sgt. Sonia Guilbeau to Director Rob Reardon, Capt. Mike Rules, Lt. Cher Holland, Lt. Freddie Laque, Lt. Joseph Miller, Jr. and Lt. William LeFevre. The e-mail message contained an attachment of scanned images of what the petitioner believes was more forged documents. Upon information and belief, an administrative investigation into the alleged misconduct was not conducted, a criminal investigation into the alleged illegal activities was not conducted and Sgt. Guilbeau did not receive disciplinary action. 9. The petitioner shows that between January of 2010 and March of 2010 he was asked on several occasions by Rob Reardon to purchase a ticket to the Sheriffs Steak Dinner Election Campaign fundraiser while at work with the Lafayette Parish Sheriffs Office. Rob Reardon solicited contributions from Corrections Supervisors during a monthly staff meeting. Rob Reardon, while in the office and presence of Capt. Myra Mouton asked the petitioner to contribute and the petitioner refused. Rob Reardon

approached the petitioner while in the office he shared with Sgt. Gregory Mitchell and in his presence and asked the petitioner to contribute. The petitioner stated that he would think about it. Rob Reardon responded you better think about it.

10. The petitioner shows that on or about March 15, 2010 the plaintiff was interviewed by Sergeant Kevern Stoute, investigator for the Lafayette Parish Sheriffs Office - Internal Affairs section, in reference to an internal investigation (I.A. Case # 1006) regarding the falsification of documents at the Lafayette Parish Correctional Center. Based on information and believe the investigation was a result of allegations indicating that Lt. Michael Carriere had instructed Deputy John Lapointe and Deputy Lawrence Mossier to alter documents so that they would be in compliance with A.C.A. standards. During that interview the petitioner informed Sgt. Stoute that he was aware of individuals that had falsified documents at the agency in the past. Sgt. Stoute did not question the

petitioner regarding the identity of those individuals. The incident was not forwarded to an impartial agency for investigation and criminal prosecution. 11. Upon information and belief, on or about March 25, 2010 Captain Myra Mouton contacted the petitioner while he was off-duty and advised him that Lt. Michael Carriere was being re-assigned from Shift Lieutenant of Security Shift A to a newly created position of Video Visitation Lieutenant following the conclusion of an internal investigation regarding the possible falsification of records at the Lafayette Parish Correctional Center. Capt. Mouton advised the petitioner that he would need to meet with Lt. Carriere and provide him with information regarding the operation of the Video Visitation Center. Capt. Mouton advised the petitioner that although Lt. Carriere would be overseeing the video visitation center his main job duties would consist of conducting foot patrols of the premises and issuing parking citations to parking violators around the compound. The petitioner expressed to Capt. Mouton his disappointment in the disciplinary sanctions taken and the lack of a thorough investigation into others employees who may have falsified records. The petitioner informed Capt. Mouton of his intention to notify outside sources of those acts which petitioner believed could have possibly been illegal. 12. Upon information and belief, on April 21, 2010 the petitioner was called to provide a statement in an internal affairs investigation (I.A. Case # 10-36) regarding the alleged falsification of records at the Lafayette Parish Correctional Center. The petitioner met with Lt. Todd Credeur on the second floor of the Lafayette Parish Sheriffs Office Administrative Building and was escorted to a criminal investigation

interview/interrogation room. Prior to the interview the petitioner asked Lt. Credeur who would be on the board reviewing the case. Lt. Credeur stated that Rob Reardon and other division heads would likely be selected to review the investigation. The petitioner informed Lt. Credeur of his belief that Rob Reardon may have falsified records at the Lafayette Parish Correctional Center. The petitioner advised Lt. Credeur of his fear that reprisals would be taken against him if he were required to make that statement on the record and Rob Reardon were allowed to review that statement. The petitioner advised

Lt. Credeur that he could produce a copy of one document that he believed Director Reardon may have falsified. Lt. Credeur advised the petitioner that due to the length of time that had passed it would be hard to investigate. Lt. Credeur advised the petitioner that he was not under investigation in this matter, that he needed to be honest about everything and that he had received advanced approval from the Sheriff to polygraph any employee suspected of lying to him. A taped interview was conducted and during that interview Lt. Credeur made several inquiries into the petitioners work habits while serving in the capacity of Corrections Accreditation Manager and his personal relationship with co-worker Captain Myra Mouton. During the taped statement Lt. Credeur did not make any inquiry into the matter concerning whether or not Rob Reardon had falsified documents despite the petitioner previously reporting the misconduct to him. Prior to the end of the interview the petitioner again advised Lt. Credeur of his belief that Director Reardon may have falsified records and advised him that he had concerns about reprisals being taken against him. Upon information and belief, the petitioner had previously informed Capt. Myra Mouton, Lt. Cher Holland and Sgt. Greg Mitchell on his belief that Rob Reardon may have falsified documents and believes that Lt. Credeur may have already been aware of this information prior to the interview. 13. The petitioner shows that at the time of his statement to Lt. Credeur the Lafayette Parish Sheriffs Office had in effect a policy; General Order #103 Complaint Handling / Internal Investigations which states the following: A. Fair and impartial investigations of all complaints shall be conducted. B. All complaints against the Office and its employees will be documented and investigated, including anonymous complaints C. All Sheriffs Office employees are charged with the responsibility of courteously receiving all complaints that may be lodged against the Office or any employee, regardless of nature. D. Interviews shall be conducted in the investigation authoritys office unless the seriousness or urgency of the allegations requires otherwise. E. Each employee shall be advised in writing of the nature of the nature of the investigation, the names of the complainants, if not anonymous.

F. Complaints that involve criminal violations are referred to the appropriate investigation section with the approval of the Sheriff or his designee and should run concurrent with administrative investigations. G. Upon completion of the investigation and approval of the Sheriff or his designee, the complainant shall be notified in writing of the results of the investigation. The petitioner shows that these procedural guidelines were not followed. Upon information and belief, despite the allegations made by the petitioner an administrative investigation into the possible misconduct of Rob Reardon was never conducted. Upon information and belief, the incident was not forwarded for criminal persecution or investigation by impartial agency. Upon information and belief, the only inquiries made by Lt. Credeur into the complaint of possible misconduct by the petitioner against Rob Reardon were directed to Lt. Cher Holland. Lt. Credeur did not conduct any follow-up with petitioner, did not request any additional details that may have been needed to further investigate the allegations and did not ask the petitioner to produce any evidence substantiating the allegations. 14. The petitioner shows that on May 7, 2010 an employee review board selected by Lt. Todd Credeur and consisting of Rob Reardon, Michael Patin and Francis Green was impaneled to review information obtained during the course of the investigation mentioned in paragraph 12 and to make recommendations on employee discipline. Sheriff Michael Neustrom also participated in the decision making process. Lt. Credeur and Jules Broussard also attended the meeting. 15. The petitioner shows that on May 7, 2010 the plaintiff was issued a written notification of the findings of the employee review board by Captain Jules Broussard. Capt. Broussard informed the petitioner that he was not under investigation in this matter. Capt. Broussard indicated that he was the disciplinary authority in this matter and stated that the employee review board reviewing the case felt that the petitioner should be disciplined in this matter due to a performance of duty violation while he was the Accreditation Manager (October 2004 through June 2008). The petitioners discipline

consisted of demotion from the rank of Lieutenant to Deputy, re-assignment from Corrections to Human Resources and probation for one year. The petitioner made a verbal request to review the investigation and Capt. Broussard advised the petitioner that his request would not be honored. The following individuals were also disciplined for performance of duty violations as a result of the internal investigation and received the following sanctions, all of which were less severe than that of which the petitioner received even though the sanctions were for similar policy violations as said petitioner was claimed to have violated. A. Capt. 1 Demotion from Captain to Sergeant, re-assignment within the Corrections Division and 365 days of probation B. Lt. 1 7 days suspension, remedial training and 365 days of probation C. Lt. 2 7 days suspension, remedial training and 365 days of probation D. Lt. 3 7 days suspension, remedial training and 365 days of probation E. Lt. 4 7 days suspension, remedial training and 365 days of probation F. Lt. 5 7 days suspension, remedial training and 365 days of probation G. Sgt. 1 5 days suspension, remedial training and 365 days of probation H. Sgt. 2 5 days suspension, remedial training and 365 days of probation I. Deputy 1 letter of reprimand, remedial training and 180 days of probation The following individual was disciplined for unsatisfactory performance violations as a result of the internal investigation and received the following sanctions, which were less severe than that of which the petitioner received even though the sanctions were for similar policy violations as said petitioner was claimed to have violated. A. Lt. 6 4 day suspension 16. The petitioner shows that at the time the internal affairs investigation previously cited as being conducted the Lafayette Parish Sheriffs Office had a policy in effect; General Order #103 Complaint Handling / Internal Investigations, which list performance of duty violations as being level II offenses. Under this same policy complaints regarding level II offenses will be accepted up to one year after the date of occurrence and are punishable by a range of discipline which includes letter of

counseling through suspension without pay, not to exceed 180 hours. The sanctions imposed on the petitioner were clearly outside the range of disciplined established by the agency for the offense. 17. The petitioner shows that on May 10, 2010 the personnel action form authorizing his demotion and re-assignment was authorized and signed by Rob Reardon under the authority of the Sheriff. 18. Upon information and belief, around May of 2010 following the conclusion of Lafayette Parish Sheriffs Office Internal Affairs investigation #10-36 Director Reardon and Capt. Colby Barbier conducted a review of the A.C.A. files. Those files have since been destroyed. 19. The petitioner shows that he was subjected to disparate treatment and of at least ten other employees subjected to disciplinary action in the aforementioned matter, none faced penalties as severe as him. 20. The petitioner shows that on May 11, 2010 he filed an appeal of the disciplinary action taken against him based on several procedural guidelines that were ignored in deciding the discipline taken against him. 21. The petitioner indicates that on May 17, 2010 he was summoned by Michael Patin to meet with him in his office. Mr. Patin advised the petitioner that he needed to let go of what happened and move on. The petitioner feels this was an effort to persuade him not to seek a redress of grievances. 22. The petitioner shows that on May 31, 2010, Lt. Michael Carriere was transferred back to the position of Shift Lieutenant of Security Shift A. 23. The petitioner shows that on June 2, 2010 he met with Lt. Todd Credeur who provided him with an opportunity to review the disciplinary recommendations made by

Francis Green, Rob Reardon and Michael Patin. The administrative insight comments section on the forms signed by Rob Reardon and Michael Patin were left blank and did not provide any reasoning for the recommended disciplinary action. The administrative insight comments section on the forms signed by Francis Green read: Lt. Thomassee was in charge of the ACA accreditation process between 2004 and 2008. He left over 1,100 proofs needed to complete the audit process. His position was turned over to Lt. Holland with less than a year to complete the audit requirement. His actions or lack of actions concerning obtaining the required proofs was evidence of incompetence, laziness or dereliction of duty. His inability to communicate in an effective manner with other employees regarding what proofs were required and where to obtain them was probably one of the contributing factors in justification of other employees forging proofs. The petitioner had previously provided over 60 e-mail messages to Lt. Todd Credeur for inclusion in the investigation case file demonstrating that monthly updates and other communication between other managers and his supervisors was continuous and that all parties were aware of the status of the accreditation process at all times. The petitioner shows that the reasons provided justifying discipline being taken against him are clearly under false pretext. 24. The petitioner shows that on June 2, 2010 he met with Art Lebreton to discuss his appeal. Major Lebreton indicated that he did not see a performance of duty violation. He indicated the he felt the petitioner was just caught up in the wake of another investigation. He stated that the appeal decision would ultimately be left to Sheriff Neustrom and that he would be preparing a report and forwarding a copy to the Sheriff for review. The petitioner informed Major Lebreton that he would be submitting a written request to meet with the Sheriff before he rendered a decision in the matter. 25. The petitioner shows that on June 2, 2010 he hand delivered a written request to the Sheriffs Administrative Assistant Suzanne Eason asking to meet with the Sheriff regarding his appeal before a final decision was reached. Despite the Sheriffs open door policy, to date petitioner has not been afforded the opportunity to meet with Sheriff

Neustrom regarding the matter aside from the course of this litigation, nor has the Sheriff responded or acknowledged receiving the petitioners request. 26. The petitioner shows that on June 22, 2010 he met with Major Lebreton. Major Lebreton asked the petitioner if he had the opportunity to meet with Sheriff Neustrom. The petitioner advised Major Lebreton that he had not met with Sheriff Neustrom. Major Lebreton delivered the final findings to the petitioner indicating that his appeal was denied and that the discipline taken against him was going to remain the same. 27. The petitioner shows that in or about June of 2010 an internal affairs investigation was conducted into allegations that Lt. 7 was illegally obtaining money from the agency through getting double compensated by working extra security details for additional money while being compensated for his regular work time. Upon information and belief, those incidents were not forwarded to an independent agency for investigation and criminal prosecution by an impartial agency. 28. Upon information and belief, on or about September 7, 2010 Sgt. 3, a Patrol supervisor with the Lafayette Parish Sheriffs Office, received disciplinary action for falsifying Taser training records. Sgt. 3 did not receive penalties as severe as the petitioner. 29. The petitioner shows that on October 15, 2010 he was approached by Virginia Veazey who indicated that the two Corrections Clerks positions were being eliminated and replaced with a single deputy position entitled A.C.A. Compliance Deputy. Part of the job duties for this position include: Collect documentation for and maintain the accreditation files. This job duty previously was not contained in the existing A.C.A. related job descriptions. 30. The petitioner shows that on or about October 22, 2010 Michael Patin met with the petitioner concerning additional assignments he wished for the petitioner to begin performing. Mr. Patin indicated that he felt the petitioners work performance has been "great" and several others have commented in the same manner. Mr. Patin indicated that he was surprised with the level of cooperation the petitioner had received from others in the performance of his job duties. Mr. Patin stated that Major Art Lebreton had spoke to

him regarding the petitioner assisting him with conducting job analysis and workload assessments in his area. Mr. Patin stated that he did not know if the petitioner would ever be able to return to Corrections due to Director Reardon and what had transpired. Mr. Patin also thanked the petitioner for not harboring any resentment over the situation. Mr. Patin indicated he would be willing to talk to the Sheriff about getting the petitioner into another position in the future. 31. The petitioner shows that in or about October of 2010 an administrative investigation was conducted into the misconduct of Robert Lawrence and other employees of the Lafayette Parish Sheriffs Office for racing in a Patrol vehicle and ultimately submerging it into a pond. The patrol unit received damage. The incidents were not forwarded to an independent agency for investigation and criminal prosecution.

32. The petitioner shows that on or about March 14, 2011 the Corrections Accreditation section was transferred from the supervision of the Corrections Division and Director Rob Reardon and merged with the Sheriffs Office Accreditation Section under the supervision of the Human Resources Division and Director Mike Patin 33. The petitioner shows that on or about April 19, 2011 he sent letters to Sheriff Michael Neustrom and Rene Judice, Risk Manager for the Lafayette Parish Sheriffs Office, attempting to resolve the dispute over the disciplinary action taken against him without proceeding to litigation and requested to be re-instated to the rank of Lieutenant, provided with back pay and have records of the disciplinary action removed from his personnel folder. 34. The petitioner shows that on April 20, 2011 Rene Judice requested to meet with him. Mr. Judice indicated that he had received the petitioners letter mentioned in paragraph 26 and had provided Sheriff Neustrom with a copy. Mr. Judice informed the petitioner that Sheriff Nesutrom requested that he meet with him to discuss the letter. During that conversation Mr. Judice indicated that he had been discussing with Mike the possibility of the petitioner working in the Risk Management section and ultimately

replacing him eventually. Mr. Judice indicated that he didnt think that it was going to a possibility any longer. 35. The petitioner shows that on or about May 10, 2011 he submitted a letter to the Louisiana Office of the State Inspector General requesting an investigation be conducted related to the forging of documents by members of the Lafayette Parish Sheriffs Office in order to deceive the A.C.A. The petitioner further explained by maintaining A.C.A. status through deception the agency was avoiding regular audits by the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections for compliance with the Louisiana Basic Jail Guidelines, allowing the agency to house state prisoners and receive state funds. 36. The petitioner shows that on or about June 5, 2011 he submitted letters to the American Correctional Association, National Commission on Correctional Healthcare, and Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies regarding the falsification of records at the Lafayette Parish Sheriffs Office. To date no one from the A.C.A., N.C.C.H.C. and C.A.L.E.A. has responded or contacted the petitioner regarding these allegations. 37. Upon information and belief, on or about September of 2011 allegations were made that Lieutenant 8 was illegally obtaining money from the agency through getting double compensated by working extra security details for additional money while being compensated for his regular work time. These incidents were not forwarded to an independent agency for investigation and criminal prosecution.

38. Upon information and belief, on or about October of 2011 allegations were made that Deputy #2 had drugged and sexually assaulted a female. Previous allegations had been made against Deputy #2 alleging that he had assaulted and held another female at gun point. Upon information and belief, these incidents were not forwarded to an independent agency for investigation and criminal prosecution.

39. Upon information and belief, on or about December of 2011 allegations were made that Deputy #3 was introducing contraband into the Lafayette Parish Correctional Center. Deputy #3 was previously investigated regarding similar allegations. Upon

information and belief, these incidents were not forwarded to an independent agency for investigation and criminal prosecution.

40. The petitioner shows that on or about February 2, 2012 he submitted a letter to the Lafayette Parish Sheriffs Office requesting permission to inspect and obtain copies of the three Internal Affairs cases cited above related to the falsification of records by employees of the Lafayette Parish Sheriffs Office. On or about February 18, 2012 the petitioner received an unsigned and undated letter on Lafayette Parish Sheriffs Office letterhead indicating that his request was denied due to the files containing confidential data that may be harmful and could violate deputies privacy rights and also may be privileged and not subject to Public Information Requests. 41. Upon information and belief, on or about May of 2012 allegations were made that Deputy 4 had sexually assaulted a male prisoner in custody at the Lafayette Parish Correctional Center. Upon information and belief, that incident was not forwarded to an independent agency for investigation and criminal prosecution.

42. The actions of the defendant caused much emotional and mental stress on the petitioner resulting in mental injury. 43. Upon information and belief, the defendants actions complained of herein were made with malice and/or reckless indifference to the petitioner federal and state constitutionally protected rights, constituting a violation of those rights. 44. The misconduct alleged above occurred under color of state law. 45. Upon information and belief, the defendants actions were in violation of La. R.S. 23:967 and La. R.S. 42:1169, which protect employees who in good faith report violations of law from reprisals. 46.

At all times herein, the defendants were acting out of and in the course and scope of their employment with the Lafayette Parish Sheriffs Office thereby invoking the doctrine of respondent superior. 47. On the dates of these incidents, defendant Lafayette Parish Sheriffs Office had a policy of liability insurance with defendant, Xyz Insurance Company, which covered them for incidents complained of herein. 48. The petitioner declares that as a result of the adverse employment action taken against him, the defendants are liable to him for damages which consist of the following: A. Suffering injury to his reputation; B. Pain and suffering; C. Mental anguish and emotional distress; D. Humiliation and embarrassment; E. Inconvenience and interruption of lifestyle; F. Loss of enjoyment of life; G. Loss of wages; and H. Any other particulars that may come about at a trial of this matter. WHEREFORE, petitioner prays that the defendants be served with a certified copy of this petition for damages and cited to answer same, and after legal delays and due proceedings had, there be judgment rendered in favor of the petitioner and against the defendants, for all sums that are due and as allowed by law, including all court costs, attorneys fees and expert fees, including legal interest thereon, until paid and for all general and equitable relief deemed appropriate by this Honorable Court under the circumstances.

Respectfully submitted: L. CLAYTON BURGESS, A P.L.C. 605 West Congress Street Lafayette, Louisiana 70501 Telephone: (337) 234-7573 Facsimile: (337) 233-3890

______________________________ L. CLAYTON BURGESS (22979) Attorney for Plaintiff

Please Serve: LAFAYETTE PARISH SHERIFFS OFFICE Through its attorney of record Greg Guidry 1200 Camellia Boulevard, Suite 300 Lafayette, LA 70502 SHERIFF MICHAEL W. NEUSTROM Through his attorney of record Greg Guidry 1200 Camellia Boulevard, Suite 300 Lafayette, LA 70502 ROB REARDON Through his attorney of record Michael D. Skinner 600 Jefferson Street, Suite 810 Lafayette, Louisiana 70505