UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ANTHONY MAIO, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
VS. : CIVIL NO. ____________
:
CITY OF NEW HAVEN, :
DEPARTMENT OF POLICE SERVICE, :
CITY OF NEW HAVEN, JAMES LEWIS, :
JOANNE PETERSON, MAX JOYNER, :
RACHEL ROSS and :
NEW HAVEN POLICE LOCAL 530, :
Defendants. : SEPTEMBER 14, 2010

COMPLAINT

COUNT ONE

1. This is an action for money damages to redress the deprivation by the

defendants of rights secured to the plaintiff by the Constitution and laws of the United

States and the State of Connecticut. The plaintiff is a Police Officer within the defendant

Department of Police Service, City of New Haven. The defendants and each of them

subjected the plaintiff to false arrest, malicious prosecution, and deprivation of his

constitutional rights to equal protection, the due process of law, the right to counsel and

the right against compelled self incrimination.

2. The defendants have further unfairly punished and disciplined the plaintiff and

have denied him rights and employment opportunities within the defendant Department
of Police Service, which opportunities have been afforded, and which discipline and

punishment have not been imposed upon similarly situated Police Officers.

3. By and through their conduct as stated herein, the defendants have violated

the rights of the plaintiff to be free from false arrest, malicious prosecution, unlawful

search and seizure and compelled self incrimination, and have deprived the plaintiff of

his right to counsel, equal protection and due process of law, as guaranteed to him by

the Constitution of the United States, and enforced through the provisions of 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983.

4. By and through their actions described hereinafter, the defendants have

violated common law rights secured to the plaintiff by the laws of the State of

Connecticut, as their actions against the plaintiff constitute a failure to supervise and

the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

5. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under the provisions of Title 28 United

States Code §§1331, 1343(3) and 1367(a), and Title 42 United States Code §§1981A,

1983, 1988 and 2000e-5(f).

6. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the plaintiff was and is an adult

citizen of the United States, residing in Durham, Connecticut.

7. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendant City of New

Haven was and is a municipal corporation and the employer of the plaintiff.

8. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendant Department of

2
Police Service, City of New Haven (hereinafter “Police Department”) is an agency of the

defendant City of New Haven.

9. The actions of the defendant Police Department as stated herein were and

are approved, sanctioned, taken upon the direction of and adopted by the defendant

City of New Haven. As such, the defendant City has incurred liability for the actions of

this defendant.

10. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendant James Lewis

was the Chief of Police of the defendant Police Department, and an employee, officer

and agent of the defendant City of New Haven, acting in his official capacity. The

defendant is sued in his individual and official capacities.

11. The actions of the defendant Lewis as stated herein were and are approved,

sanctioned, taken upon the direction of and adopted by the defendant City of New

Haven. As such, the defendant City has incurred liability for the actions of this

defendant.

12. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendant Joanne

Peterson was and is an officer in the defendant Police Department, and an employee,

officer and agent of the defendant City of New Haven, acting in her official capacity.

The defendant is sued in her individual and official capacities. The defendant Peterson

is a white female.

13. The actions of the defendant Peterson as stated herein were and are

3
approved, sanctioned, taken upon the direction of and adopted by the defendant City of

New Haven. As such, the defendant City has incurred liability for the actions of this

defendant.

14. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendant Max Joyner was

and is an officer in the defendant Police Department, and an employee, officer and

agent of the defendant City of New Haven, acting in his official capacity. The defendant

is sued in his individual and official capacities. The defendant Joyner is a black male.

15. The actions of the defendant Joyner as stated herein were and are

approved, sanctioned, taken upon the direction of and adopted by the defendant City of

New Haven. As such, the defendant City has incurred liability for the actions of this

defendant.

16. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendant Rachel Ross

was and is an officer in the defendant Police Department, and an employee, officer and

agent of the defendant City of New Haven, acting in her official capacity. The defendant

is sued in her individual and official capacities. The defendant Ross is a white female.

17. The actions of the defendant Ross as stated herein were and are approved,

sanctioned, taken upon the direction of and adopted by the defendant City of New

Haven. As such, the defendant City has incurred liability for the actions of this

defendant.

4
 18. During all times mentioned in this complaint, the defendants Lewis,

Peterson, Joyner and Ross were acting under color of law, that is, under color of the

Constitution, statutes, laws, rules, regulations, customs and usages of the State of

Connecticut.

19. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendant City of New

Haven was, and is, an employer with more than 100 employees. The defendant is

sued in its official capacity.

20. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendant Department of

Police Service, City of New Haven is an administrative department of the defendant City

of New Haven. The defendant Police Department is sued in its official capacity. The

actions of the defendant Police Department as stated herein were and are approved,

sanctioned, taken upon the direction of and adopted by the defendant City of New

Haven. As such, the defendant City has incurred liability for the actions of this

defendant.

21. The plaintiff is a fifteen year veteran police officer of the defendant Police

Department. The plaintiff has an excellent employment record and is a loyal and

valuable employee of the defendant.

22. On or about April 18-19, 2008, the plaintiff was engaged in a duty

assignment in the course of his duty as a New Haven police officer.

23. On or about that time, two patrons of the establishment to which the plaintiff

5
was assigned falsely accused the plaintiff of criminal conduct.

24. On or about June 4, 2008, the defendants Joyner, Ross and Peterson

prepared and submitted an Affidavit in Application for Arrest Warrant to the Superior

Court.

25. As a result, the defendants obtained a warrant for the arrest of the plaintiff

on the charges of sexual assault and unlawful restraint.

26. In obtaining the arrest warrant, the defendants intentionally, or with reckless

disregard for the truth, made material false statements or omissions in the warrant

application.

27. The material false statements or omissions of the defendants were

necessary to the finding of probable cause.

28. A neutral magistrate would not have found probable cause if the application

was corrected to remove the false statements or to include the material omissions.

29. On or about June 4, 2008, the plaintiff was arrested pursuant to the warrant.

30. No probable cause existed for the arrest.

31. The defendants acted with malice in initiating or procuring the initiation of

criminal proceedings against the plaintiff.

32. On or about August 12, 2009, after trial by a jury, the plaintiff was acquitted

of all criminal charges against him.

6
 33. While the criminal matter was pending against him, the defendants

compelled the plaintiff to give a statement about the criminal allegations.

34. The defendants threatened to terminate the plaintiff’s employment if he

exercised his constitutional rights to not be compelled to give a statement.

35. Defendant Lewis brought charges against the plaintiff to terminate his

employment. Lewis based his discipline, in part, upon the false criminal charges

against the plaintiff.

36. Defendant Lewis brought such charges in part in retaliation for the plaintiff’s

exercising his constitutional rights, and despite the fact that defendants had

successfully coerced the plaintiff into giving such a statement.

37. During the prosecution of the plaintiff, the defendants attempted to terminate

the plaintiff, or to coerce the plaintiff to leave his employment position.

38. The defendants placed the plaintiff on administrative leave, and unlawfully

compelled him to use his accrued sick time.

39. Although the plaintiff was acquitted of all criminal charges against him, the

defendants persist in attempting to discipline the plaintiff for conduct based upon the

false allegations.

40. Despite the plaintiff’s acquittal of all criminal charges, the defendants persist,

to the present, to attempt to subject the plaintiff to discipline, forfeiture of sick time and

to the deprivation of process due to him.

7
 41. The aforesaid actions of defendants, as described herein, constitute

violation of the rights of the plaintiff to be free from false arrest, malicious prosecution,

unlawful search and seizure and compelled self incrimination, and constitute

deprivation of the plaintiff’s right to counsel, equal protection and due process of law, as

guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the United States.

42. As a result of the actions of the defendants, the plaintiff has suffered loss of

his constitutional rights; humiliation and ridicule; economic losses, including but not

limited to extensive attorney fees, loss of income and employment benefits; loss of

employment opportunities, advancement and training; loss of self esteem, peace of

mind, emotional and physical well being; loss of reputation and standing in the Police

Department, in the eyes of prospective law enforcement employers and in the public at

large; and has suffered severe emotional and mental distress.

COUNT TWO

1-41. Paragraphs 1-41 of Count One are hereby made Paragraphs 1-41 of

Count Two.

42. The defendant City and/or defendant Lewis is/are the highest policy setting

authority on matters related to the instant complaint, including, inter alia the hiring,

training, supervision, investigation and discipline of its police personnel, including the

plaintiff and all defendants.

43. A municipal policy, practice or custom exists in the defendant City of New

8
Haven regarding inadequate training and supervision, inadequate investigation and

inequitable discipline of its police personnel.

44. By and through its failures, the defendant City exhibited deliberate

indifference to the constitutional rights of others, including the plaintiff.

45. The policies and procedures of the defendant Department are severely

outdated. As stated in the New Haven Police Department Assessment Draft Report,

prepared by the Police Executive Research Forum, dated August 20, 2007:

Departmental directives including General Orders, Training

Bulletins and Rules and Regulations have not been updated for years.
Some are over 20 years old. Some directives contain information that is
no longer relevant or applicable to the department. Failure to update and
publish policy exposes the department to unnecessary liability and is an
internal visible sign of disorder. Outdated policies become irrelevant and
send the message to employees that compliance to directives is not
important or even expected. The department should immediately update
all policies and procedures using CALEA standards as a guide. All
directives should clearly include the date that it was reviewed and
adopted. An annual review should be conducted of all directives. Those
revised should clearly identify the revision date. Training on each new
directive should accompany the revision. Each employee should be held
accountable for receipt and reading each directive. . . .
The lack of written, contemporary guidelines combined and a
shortage of “permanent, official” trained mid mangers and supervisors
have led to development of inconsistent, informal processes and
procedures. . . .
In many areas the Department does not currently meet basic
standards for written directives that govern how it polices New Haven.
Presently, the department cannot consistently claim that its officers are
guided by policies and procedures rooted in the best professional
standards.

46. The management and supervision of the defendant Department is similarly

9
inadequate:

The department lacks an adequate management and supervisory

structure due to City fiscal shortages. Until recently, no promotions to
lieutenant or sergeant had been made for over five years. There have
been no Captain promotions since 1998. The current union/management
dispute over the lieutenant’s promotional examination has prevented the
proper allocation of ranking supervisors throughout the Department., [T]he
current distribution of ranks does not meet the standards of a well
structured organization.
Vacant management and supervisory positions have been filled by
personnel in an “acting” capacity. No formal process was used to make
these appointments so “acting” supervisors and managers have not
demonstrated whether they have the knowledge, skills, or ability to
supervise or manage through a competitive promotional process. No
training has been provided for those in acting positions. Because they
may revert to their previous rank at any time they may be unwilling to
make “hard” decisions and they may lack respect and formal authority.
This process has all the elements of unpredictable management,
contributing to insinuations of favoritism.

47. The defendants are similarly aware of the inadequacy of the Internal Ethics

and Values department, which investigated and pursued the claims against the plaintiff:

[There is a] need for revisions in the operations of the Internal

Affairs function is described. By creating the Professional Standards
bureau at the level described above, the focus on reform can be
maintained without compromising the ability of the unit to conduct needed
investigations. Also described in this report is the need to completely
revamp the department’s written directive system. As with reforming
internal affairs operations, this new position will serve to maintain a focus
and consistency for the written directive project. . . .
There is no current policy that describes the duties, functions, and
expectations of internal affairs personnel. No formal process is used to
select the members of the unit. . . .
Case format was inconsistent, reports of investigation varied
widely, some were undated, others had unnumbered pages, typos were

10
 not uncommon, and case closures were not always identified by closure
type. . . .
Only an informal process is used to match penalties to violations.
The outcomes of old cases are reviewed to determine approximate
matches of violations to sanctions but no formal process is used and
perceptions of inequity exist. . . .
Although named Internal Ethics and Values, the department
apparently has no written statement of ethics or organizational values that
are guidelines for behavior or to anchor employee actions.

48. The defendants had actual notice of their failures as detailed herein prior to

the harm suffered by the plaintiff, yet they failed, refused or neglected to remedy the

myriad of problems in the defendant Department.

49. The actions and conduct of the defendants City of New Haven and

Department of Police Service evidence an official policy or custom which has caused

the plaintiff to be subjected to denial of one or more of his constitutional rights.

50. As such, the defendants City of New Haven and Department of Police

Service have incurred municipal liability.

51. The actions of the defendants City of New Haven and Department of Police

Service constitute the adoption of a policy of discrimination, and constitute a failure of

those defendants to adequately screen, hire, train and supervise their employees,

officers and agents, including the named individual defendants.

52. As a result of the actions of the defendants, the plaintiff has suffered loss of

his constitutional rights; humiliation and ridicule; economic losses, including but not

limited to extensive attorney fees, loss of income and employment benefits; loss of

11
employment opportunities, advancement and training; loss of self esteem, peace of

mind, emotional and physical well being; loss of reputation and standing in the Police

Department, in the eyes of prospective law enforcement employers and in the public at

large; and has suffered severe emotional and mental distress.

COUNT THREE

1-51. Paragraphs 1-51 of Count Two are hereby made Paragraphs 1-51 of

Count Three.

52. The conduct alleged, resulting in the arrest and prosecution of the plaintiff,

arose out of the plaintiff's employment as a police officer.

53. The plaintiff was acquitted of all criminal charges against him.

54. Pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes Section 53-39a, the defendant

City of New Haven has incurred liability for all economic loss sustained by the plaintiff

as a result of the prosecution, including, but not limited to lost wages and all legal fees

and costs.

55. As a result of the actions of the defendants, the plaintiff has suffered loss of

his constitutional rights; humiliation and ridicule; economic losses, including but not

limited to extensive attorney fees, loss of income and employment benefits; loss of

employment opportunities, advancement and training; loss of self esteem, peace of

mind, emotional and physical well being; loss of reputation and standing in the Police

Department, in the eyes of prospective law enforcement employers and in the public at

12
large; and has suffered severe emotional and mental distress.

COUNT FOUR

1-51. Paragraphs 1-51 of Count Two are hereby made Paragraphs 1-51 of

Count Four.

52. The actions of the individual defendants were intentional and malicious.

53. The aforesaid actions of the defendants are extreme and outrageous.

54. In so acting, the defendants knew or reasonably should have known that

their actions would cause the plaintiff severe emotional distress.

55. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the defendants as

described herein, the plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress.

56. The actions of the individual defendants constitute the intentional and

negligent infliction of emotional distress.

57. As a result of the actions of the defendants, the plaintiff has suffered loss of

his constitutional rights; humiliation and ridicule; economic losses, including but not

limited to extensive attorney fees, loss of income and employment benefits; loss of

employment opportunities, advancement and training; loss of self esteem, peace of

mind, emotional and physical well being; loss of reputation and standing in the Police

Department, in the eyes of prospective law enforcement employers and in the public at

large; and has suffered severe emotional and mental distress.

13
COUNT FIVE

1-51. Paragraphs 1-51 of Count Two are hereby made Paragraphs 1-51 of

Count Five.

52. At all times relevant to this action, the defendant New Haven Police Union

Local 530 (hereinafter “Local 530"or “Union”) was and is a Connecticut union,

representing employees of the defendants City of New Haven and Department of Police

Service, including the plaintiff.

53. At all times relevant to this action, the defendant City of New Haven was and

is an employer as that term is defined by law.

54. The plaintiff has been employed by the defendant City, in the defendant

Police Department, for fifteen years. At all times relevant hereto, the plaintiff was a

member of, or covered by the representation of the defendant Union Local 530,

pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. The defendants Union and City of New

Haven were parties to the collective bargaining agreement.

55. As a member of the defendant Union, the plaintiff has the right to have union

representation.

56. Pursuant to this right, the plaintiff contacted the defendant Union and

requested said representation as result of the conduct of the defendants.

57. Despite his requests to the defendant Union, adequate representation was

not provided to the plaintiff.

14
 58. Despite the plaintiff’s steadfast assertion of his innocence of the criminal

charges against him, the defendant Union pressured the plaintiff to resign from his

employment and to withdraw his complaints against defendant City.

59. The defendant Union permitted the plaintiff to be subjected to interrogation

by the defendants during the pendency of the plaintiff’s criminal matters.

60. Even after the plaintiff’s acquittal, the defendant Union agreed with the

defendant City, and pressured the plaintiff to agree, to the imposition of discipline upon

the plaintiff for conduct for which he was acquitted.

61. The defendant Union and the defendant City further agreed, and pressured

the plaintiff to agree to the forfeiture of sick time.

62. The defendant Union and the defendant City further agreed, and pressured

the plaintiff to agree to the forfeiture of his rights to due process under the law and the

contract.

63. To the present, the defendant Union has refused to pursue or resolve the

plaintiff’s grievances concerning the events arising out of his improper arrest.

64. As such, the defendants acted in a concerted manner to unfairly punish,

discriminate against, retaliate against, degrade and harass the plaintiff, in breach of the

collective bargaining agreement.

65. The defendant Union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily or in bad faith in failing

or refusing to provide the plaintiff with union representation to which he was entitled.

15
 66. The actions of the defendant Union constitute a breach of the duty of fair

representation.

67. The actions of the defendant City constitute breach of contract.

68. As a result of the actions of the defendants, the plaintiff has suffered loss of

his constitutional rights; humiliation and ridicule; economic losses, including but not

limited to extensive attorney fees, loss of income and employment benefits; loss of

employment opportunities, advancement and training; loss of self esteem, peace of

mind, emotional and physical well being; loss of reputation and standing in the Police

Department, in the eyes of prospective law enforcement employers and in the public at

large; and has suffered severe emotional and mental distress.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff claims judgment against the defendants as follows:

A. A temporary and permanent injunction requiring the defendants immediately

to provide and restore lost back pay, benefits, seniority, vacation days, sick days and

rank to the plaintiff;

B. A temporary and permanent injunction requiring the defendants immediately

to cease and desist any and all harassment, retaliation against and disparate treatment

of the plaintiff so that he may carry out his employment duties;

C. Compensatory damages, including but not limited to back pay, lost overtime

pay, lost vacation pay, lost seniority and other employment-related benefits; and

16
compensation for other economic losses, including but not limited to emotional distress,

physical illness and attorney's fees and costs;

D. Punitive damages;

E. Costs of this action;

F. Reasonable attorney's fees;

G. Such other relief as this Court shall consider to be fair and equitable.

CLAIM FOR JURY TRIAL

The plaintiff claims trial by jury in this case.

THE PLAINTIFF

BY____________________________________
WILLIAM S. PALMIERI
Federal Bar No. ct14361
Law Offices of William S. Palmieri, L.L.C.
129 Church Street, Suite 405
New Haven, CT 06510
(203) 562-3100
(203) 909-6006 (fax)
wpalmieri@hotmail.com
His Attorney

17