COMPLAINT 1, The Respondent, the Hartford Police Department employs approximately 400 employees. 2. The Respondent discriminated against me on the basis of my race, I have been humiliated and have lost substantial amounts of income and my future earning capacity has been diminished. 3. My;name is Neville Brooks. Tama resident of the town of 00088 with an Ne ESE ERTIES, 4, Lam over the age of 18, 5. I believe in the obligations of an oath. 6. Tam an American citizen of Jamaican and Cuban descent. 7. I state that I have been the subject of discrimination on the basis of race, as more particularly set forth herein, 8. Tam an employee of the City of Hartford, specifically the City of Hartford Police Department, which employs more than fifteen people. 9. I began my employment in 1994. 10. During my employment I have been assigned to the following jobs and duties. a. Patrolman 1994-1999, included both basic patrol and street crime unit; b. Detective Major Crime Division 1999-2000; c. Sergeant; i. Patrol Division Supervisor 2000; ii, Major Crime Division Supervisor 2000; iii, Commander K9 unit; iv. Intemal Affairs, Supervisory Investigator 2000-2003;v. Vice and Nareoties Division Supervisor 2003-2004; vi. Developed first K9 specific handler selection process; vii. Warrant Unit Supervisor; viii, Court Liaison Supervisor 2004-2007; d. Lieutenant i, Warrant Unit Supervisor; ii, Court Liaison Supervisor; ‘ io iii... Commander Detention Divisiog 2007-200: iv. Officer Involved Shooting Team Supervisor; vy. Intemal Affairs Professional System Administrator; vi. Commander, Internal Affairs Division (“IAD”) 2008-Present; (A more particular description of my job duties is attached in the resume designated as Exhibit A) 11, As Commander of the Intemal Affairs Division, it was my duty to conduct internal investigations of claimed misconduct by Hartford Police Officers in a manner which upheld the integrity and reputation for faimess and honesty of the Department. I was charged with ensuring that all investigations were conducted within the guidelines of the federal and state labor law, and the Hartford Police Department/Hartford Police Department Union Collective Bargaining Agreement. 12. The Internal Affairs Department is responsible for investigating and making recommendations to the Chief of Police concerning allegations of impropriety made against members of the Hartford Police Department.13. The method in which these investigations are processed is governed by the written procedures of the Hartford Police Department, and subject to the requirements imposed by the laws, regulations and decisions made by the government of the United States and the government of the State of Connecticut. 14. On December 28, 2009, at Chief Daryl K. Roberts’ request, I submitted my resume for consideration for one of the promotions to be made by the Chief in the near future. In 2010 the Hartford Command Structure included the following individuals. Daryl K. Roberts, an African American, Chief of Police, appointed by Mayor Eddie Perez; b. Assistant Chief Lester McKoy, an African American, Chief of Support Services, achieved his rank as a result of an outside search; ¢, Assistant Chief Neil Dryfe, a Caucasian, Chief of Detectives, appointed by Chief Roberts in August 2007; 4. Assistant Chief Brian Heavren, a Caucasian, Chief of Patrol, appointed by Chief Roberts in August 2007; ©. Deputy Chief Paul Hammick, a Caucasian, appointed by Chief Roberts in 2006; f, Deputy Chief John Horvath, a Caucasian, appointed by Chief Roberts in 2007; 15. At the time I submitted my resume, Assistant Chief Neil Dryfe and Deputy Chief Paul Hammick had both resigned. In submitting my resume I identified interest in the Deputy 3Chief position, However, I was eligible for either the Deputy Chief or the Assistant Chief position. In fact Assistant Chief Heavren had been appointed to his job skipping the rank of Deputy Chief. 16. In 1969 an action was initiated in Federal District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging that the Hartford Police Department had carried out an improper pattern of conduct directed at minorities based on their race or ancestry. 17. As part of the resolution of that action, the City of Hartford agreed to continue and improve its affirmative action plan to recruit policemen in the appropriate labor market in order to reflect properly the minority community. 18. The City of Hartford claimed to have sought to develop job eligibility and promotion criteria in the Department that are free of racial or ethnic bias and solely related to job performance. The City of Hartford promised that eligibility requirements will be changed or modified upon a showing that they have an invidious discriminatory effect that is not based on job related criteria, 19. In January 2009, the Hartford Police Department held a promotional test for Captain. At the time the test was given I was not eligible to take the test, and either was Lieutenant Emory Hightower, also a minority. We were not eligible because the Hartford Police Department had a rule which required two years in the rank of Lieutenant before taking the test for Captain, Once a test is given, the list remains in effect for two years. The practice of the Hartford Police Department has uniformly been to ask for and receive an extension for another year.20. At the time the test was given, the Hartford Police Department had no minority Captains. By giving the test at a time when we were not eligible, the Department ensured that we could not become Captains for another three years. 21. There are no minority Captains in the Hartford Police Department. 22, In 2010, more than forty years after the suit was brought, the City of Hartford still has no criteria or printed eligibility requirements for the promotion to the five top leadership jobs directly under the Chief of Police. ‘The Chief of Police in 2010 did not publish any requirements, criteria, or standards before he started the process to select Assistant Chief, or Deputy Chief. He did not require the applicants to take an exam, interview, or be subject to the same set of standards. 23, In February 2011, Chief Roberts met with me and told me that I would not receive the promotion because I did not have the educational degrees needed. 1 believe this excuse was simply a pretext, as there had been no listing of any specific educational degree for the promotions, and the extensive practical background I had far outweighed any such arbitrary requirement. At the time Chief Roberts requested that I submit my resume for the promotion, he was aware that I did not have a Bachelor’s Degree. In discussing how the individual was promoted, Chief Roberts stated that he gave credit for being a Captain. As stated above, the arbitrary requirement concerning length of service combined with the timing of the Captain’s ‘exam and the length of time the list remains had guaranteed that I could not be a Captain at the time of the appointments.24. In February 2011, Chief Roberts made the appointments to Assistant Chief and ‘Deputy Chief in the following manner; (see photos attached as Exhibit B) a, Paul Ciesinski, a Caucasian, was appointed to the position of Deputy Chief; . Scott Sansom, a Caucasian, was appointed to the position of Deputy Chief; c. John Horvath, a Caucasian, was appointed to the position of Assistant Chief. 25. Inaddition, Chief Roberts made the following appointments in February 2011; a. William Long, III, a Caucasian, was promoted to the rank of Captain; b. James A. Bernier, a Caucasian, was promoted to the rank of Captain; c. Robert F. Davis, a Caucasian, was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant; 26. Since taking over as Chief of Police, Daryl Roberts has had the opportunity to appoint seven individuals to the top positions in the Hartford Police Department. In each and every instance he has chosen a white male, In each and every instance he has made the appointments without specifying the criteria upon which the candidates will be judged. In each and every instance he never required a written exam, and never created a panel to interview the candidates, In each and every instance, the Chief never posted the positions, did not allow an open competition for the positions, and never promoted a member of any minority to a top positions. 27. Despite not being promoted, I continued in my role as head of internal affairs. 28. In my role I was obligated to investigate complaints, no matter who was involved as either a witness or as a subject. In my term as commander, I conducted investigations of over250 complaints, with no one ever filing any complaint that the investigation was motivated by bias, prejudice or other improper motive, or that any improper tactics were used during the process. 29. Police officers were routinely advised of their contractual and constitutional rights during the conduct of internal affairs investigations. In order for the department to function, the police officers were compelled to provide information, even if that information could prove problematic in a later criminal investigation. To ensure faimess, officers were advised that while their cooperation was mandatory, the evidence adduced would not be used against them in a criminal proceeding. The recitation of these rights, known as Garrity rights, was a procedure taught to me in the many courses I took and routinely applied. 30. While investigating a type A complaint, it came to my attention that Deputy Chief Paul Ciesinski was attempting to circumvent the normal IAD procedures and conduct his own investigation of an incident involving an officer. 31. While investigating hostile work environment case, information concerning Assistant Chief Brian Heavren had to be obtained. Since I was aware of photoshopped pictures. ‘The Assistant Chief was interviewed concerning those photos. 32. Inaddition to the Ciensinski and Heavren related investigations I was required, as part of my official duties to investigate a case in which Assistant Chief John Horvath was involved, In that matter the Assistant Chief himself was a potential subject because of the ‘manner in which he conducted an investigation, outside of proper channels. 33. In March 2010, after the promotions of Assistant Chief Horvath, Deputy Chief Paul Cisenski, and Deputy Chief Scott Sansom, I was wamed by a high ranking officer that the “new Chief's guys” were out to get me.34. On April 11, 2011, I was called into the office of Chief of Police Roberts. In his office were Assistant Chief Lester McKoy, and Deputy Chief Paul J. Ciesinski. Before the meeting I was not told of the nature or purpose of the meeting. I was never advised that the meeting was to investigate whether I was expanding the scope of directions given to me by the Chief in L-File investigations, or any other form of complaint concerning my job performance. 35. At the meeting I was never advised of my Garrity or Weingarten rights, the interview was not recorded, and I was not afforded the opportunity to obtain either union or personal representation, 36. Immediately the interview began with false claims that 1 had improperly conducted investigations. Multiple false accusations were made including: a. That I had been rude and unprofessional in the manner in which I tried to set up necessary interviews of Deputy Chief Scott Sansom. A copy of the emails I sent are attached hereto as Exhibit C. There is no way that these emails can be viewed as anything other than professional and respectful. b. That I had excessively questioned Assistant Chief Brian Heavren during the investigation, In fact I had asked only two questions, and my investigator had ce that I should have limited the asked five questions. The Chief seemed to b interview to one question. In my professional opinion, asking one question in the matter which was being investigated was not sufficient. c. That I should not have read Garrity rights to the Assistant Chief before interviewing I have been taught to read these rights to all persons37. been held. 38. interviewed, as the interview might take unexpected tums and reveal disciplinary problems which were unknown at the beginning of the interview. |. Chief Roberts apparently had told Assistant Chief Heavren that he would only be asked one question before the interview, and felt that the interview should not have been conducted in the IAD complex before witnesses. Chief Roberts informed me that before I decided to ask additional questions I should have cleared the questions with him. There has never been a procedure to my knowledge, in which, the number of questions has been limited before an interview is conducted. I believe it improper to discuss the interview with the person being interviewed before the interview is conducted, and do not know why Chief Roberts contacted the Assistant Chief. I have never previously had to clear the questions I was going to ask with the Chief, and was not advised in this case that I should follow this new procedure. I believe that such a procedure would inhibit the search for truth. I would also consider such a procedure as setting up a conflict in the role of the Chief, as the Chief has to decide, in an unbiased manner, on whether to accept the recommendations of IAD. In fact the Heavren interview was held in the same manner all investigations have Chief Roberts asked me, in the presence of Deputy Chief Ciesinski, and Assistant Chief McKoy to review all the steps I had taken in the investigation of another anonymous complaint. This investigation necessarily included inquiries of another Assistant Chief, because that individual acted in an improper manner in the way in which he conducted the investigation. 9The questioning concerning the investigation and the manner in which investigations were conducted became hostile, with Deputy Chief Ciesinski demanding answers to hypothetical questions. 39. A third investigation which the Chief had told me to open involved issues which touched on the methods and orders issued by the Chief himself, an Assistant Chief, and another high ranking officer of the department. I was conducting this investigation on the specific orders of the Chief. 40. The Chief then told me that in the conduct of an investigation which concerned his management team, either Assistant Chiefs, or Deputy Chiefs, I was required to treat them far differently than any other investigation involving a regular officer. He told me that these chiefs had an exalted status, so that the usual protocols did not apply. I respectfully differed with that methodology; it has not been approved of, to my knowledge, in any text or course on the topic of conducting investigations. Such a manner of investigation would lead to the potential of a cover- up of any improper conduet by a senior officer. 41. After the interview, I returned to my normal job duties. On April 15, I was told by Assistant Chief McKoy that I was the subject of an internal affairs investigation regarding my way of conducting IAD. He then handed me a one page memo from Deputy Chief Paul Ciesinski, I was then “perp walked” out of the building. My keys, password and computer were seized, including my keys to get into the police headquarters. 42. Inall of my years as a Hartford Police Officer, I have never seen a swom officer of the department treated in this manner. The “perp walk” was specifically observed by Chief 10Roberts’ secretary. The only notice of charges I have received is one line description in a one that Lt. Brooks misused his page memo, attached hereto, as Exhibit D, “The allegation i position for personal gain.” No one has explained to me what that personal gain might be, or how T allegedly misused my position The manner in which the charges are framed is specifically designed to make it impossible for me to respond. 43, Thave been humiliated and embarrassed in front of the entire department. My reputation has been greatly tamished by unfounded charges. I was immediately replaced by one of the recently promoted Caucasian lieutenants, a lieutenant so new to his position that he is in fact on probation. 44. The individual who made the recommendations to Chief Roberts to remove me from my position in the manner described above is Paul Ciesinski, who was at the time of the recommendation himself a subject of an IAD investigation into improper use of his position. 45. All of the individuals who were the subject of the intemal investigations, Heavren, Horvath, Ciesinski and Sansom, the leadership team, are Caucasians. The person who replaced me at IAD is a Caucasian, one of the groups of Caucasians who were recently promoted. This individual, because he is so recently appointed, is a probationary employee who can be easily demoted by the Hartford Police Department if he displeases his superior officers. 46. I was transferred to Special Events Coordination as the Commander, two days before the UConn parade in which more than 40,000 people came to Hartford to celebrate the National Champion Men’s Basketball Team. I believe that this transfer was made so close to a ‘major event, in an attempt to have me fail at my new position and to cause me stress and anxiety. a47. After transferring me to Special Events Coordination, the Chief removed from my supervision the bike patrol, further sullying my reputation and causing me to lose an opportunity to receive overtime pay. 48, The actions of the Hartford Police Department in denying me a fair opportunity at a promotion to either Deputy Chief or Assistant Chief, harassing me concerning the manner in which I conducted interviews, fabricating claims of improper conduct, removing me from my post at Intemal Affairs, removing me in the manner in which I was removed, assigning me to the Special Events post so soon before a major event, and then limiting my authority, were done as part of an improper and illegal scheme to discriminate against me on the basis of race. In particular, the four Caueasian supervisors directly over me in the command structure because they felt I did not give them sufficient deference and agree to hold them to a different set of standards and refused to ignore their acts in doing my job, have attempted to destroy my good name and excellent reputation, Ihave been harmed both economically and have sustained non- economic injuries, as I have been humiliated and degraded at work. Thereby swear to the truth of all of these statements. sutenant Neville Brooks th ‘Subscribed and sworn before me this 24 day of April, 2011 wy its + UBIBI0EXHIBIT ALieutenant Neville A. Brooks Commander, Internal Affairs Division December 28, 2010 Chief of Police Daryl K. Roberts Hartford Police Department Chief Roberts, Lam writing in response to your request for my resume in consideration for the Deputy Chief position. I have over 24 years of progressively increasing responsibilities and achievements. My attached resume highlights my career success. I continue to demonstrate a commitment to your leadership motto of Service, Relationship and Safety. My strong leadership style has an emphasis on making those around me successful. Demonstrated, over the years, my proven ability to manage staff, including development, performance management and growth. I have built and maintained positive relationships both internally and externally with ‘community advocates, judicial partners, local and federal law enforeement agencies and city officials. I pride myself on my proven characteristies of honesty, integrity and loyalty above all else except honor. In support of our organization, I will continue to utilize my strong communications skills as an ambassador for the City of Hartford and the good of the department. I look forward to the opportunity to continue to work with you to achieve our mission to reduce crime, improve the quality of life and respond effectively to calls, for police service. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely, Lieutenant Neville A. BrooksNeville A. Brooks One Gold Street, Apartment SF 860-761-4878 Hartford, Connecticut 06103 ‘broon001@hartford.gov SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS ‘Results-driven leader with over twenty-four years of progressively increasing respot Decisive and analytical leader recognized for strong communication skills and integrity in defining direetion and ‘mapping out processes for successful conclusion. Proven ability to manage law enforcement personnel, ensuring development and growth, Dedicated work style with a unique combination of skills in leadership, strategy, law ‘enforcement and change management. Strong relationship builder - both internally with varying ranks and exteally ‘with community advocates, judicial partners, local and federal law enforcement agencies, and city officials. Recognized for objectivity, commitment and leadership, particularly during times of fast-paced change. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Hartford Police Department ‘September 1994 - Present Hartford, Connecticut Lieutenant August 2008 - Present ‘Commander, Internal Affairs Division Report directly to the Chief of Police to uphold the integrity and honesty of the Hartford Police Department. Ensure that every employee adheres to the Chief's Standard of Conduct, Hartford Police Department Code of | Conduct and Policies and Procedures, as well as follow all Federal, State and Local laws. Work cooperatively ‘with Hartford City Hall, Corporation Council and the Human Relations Division to ensure the integrity of the investigations presented to the Firearms Discharge Review Board and the Civilian Review Board. Ensure the professional standards are adhered to in all internal investigations and confidentiality is upheld. Ensure that all investigations are conducted within the guidelines of federal and state labor law and the guidelines of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City of Hartford and the Hartford Police Union. Manage the ‘administrative and fiscal elements ofthe Internal Affairs Division. Manage and develop supervisory staf, including training, selection and performance management, Internal Affairs Professional System Administrator “Maintain the case management system dedicated to documenting and tracking citizen complaint history, data input, disciplinary history, and record retention pertaining to both citizen complaints and internal investigations. Officer Involved Shooting Team Supervisor Establish the team responsible for both criminal and administrative investigations of officer involved shooting incidents in accordance with a federal mandate. Constructed the team, identified and obtained training for team members and managed the investigations. Responsible for presenting the completed investigative summary to the Chief of Police, Firearm Discharge Review Board, and State's Attorneys Office.Neville A. Brooks Lieutenant August 2007 - August 2008 ‘Commander, Detention Division Control the staffing, personnel management, site security, operations, adherence to state and federal rules and regulations, Responsible for supervisory oversight problem resolution, assurance of civil rights, personal safety, ‘humane treatment and due process. Court Liaison Supervisor Responsible for department adherence to state and court procedures as it pertains to the Judicial process. “Accountable for subpoena distribution and compliance, case incident reports, testimony, and witness location. Coordinated weekly offsite probable cause hearings with superior court judges. Directed the Court Liaison ‘personnel in their daily activities. Managed the fiscal elements ofthe Court Support Unit. Warrant Unit Supervisor Directly managed the Warrant Unit personnel in their daily operations, which involved arrest warrant service, maintenance of the paperless rearrest system, and hospital and court processing. August 2004 - August 2007 ‘see description under Lieutenant, Warrant Unit Supervisor ‘Commander, K9 Unit Developed the department's first K9 specific selection process for new K9 Handlers and successfully defended ‘the process in litigation, Established the Department's K9 Nareotic Detection Protocol and Controlled Substance Laboratory Certification, recognized by the State of Connecticut and the Federal Drug Enforcement “Agency. Managed K9 Unit personnel, scheduling, resources, budget and equipment. Coordinated fund raising efforts, community service events, and in-house and mandated state police training. Sergeant August 2003 - August 2004 ‘Vice and Narcoties Division Supervisor ‘Managed the division responsible for the narcotic and vice related offenses enforcement. Worked with the State Prosecutors Office on the preparation and execution of search warrants. Coordinated investigations with local, state and federal agencies, to include wiretaps, roundups, and undercover operations. Directly involved in the allocation and monitoring of the department’s investigative funds. Ensured the integrity of the personnel assigned and the credibility of their investigations. ‘Commander, K9 Unit ‘see description under Lieutenant, Commander, K9 Unit Sergeant August 2000 - August 2003 Internal Affairs Division Supervisory Investigator ‘Managed caseload of confidential investigations relating to departmental employees. Conducted long-term investigations into citizen and internal complaints. Interviewed and interrogated sworn and civilian ‘employees, witnesses, accused and complainants relative to case preparation. Collect evidence, such es ‘surveillance and stakeouts, area searches, record searches and multi-agency investigative coordination. ‘Coordinated with State's Attomeys Office to prepare cases for trial. Maintained the standard of training necessary to effectively investigate. ‘Commander, K9 Unit ‘see description under Lieutenant, Commander, K9 Unit