Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Amended Complaint

Amended Complaint

Ratings: (0)|Views: 166|Likes:
Published by URBNAnthony.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Anthony McKnight Sr. 19, 2012 Plaintiff, v. State of Connecticut ET. AL., Defendants, Amended Complaint

DATE: April

FILE NO: 3:10cv1471(MRK)

1.) The defendant, State of Connecticut public officials, were negligent in their fiduciary obligations created through plaintiffs entitlements to 5-142(a) benefits {As enacted 1993}. The defendants unlawfully terminated plaintiffs employment. 2.) The Malfeasance on behalf of the defendant State of Co
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Anthony McKnight Sr. 19, 2012 Plaintiff, v. State of Connecticut ET. AL., Defendants, Amended Complaint

DATE: April

FILE NO: 3:10cv1471(MRK)

1.) The defendant, State of Connecticut public officials, were negligent in their fiduciary obligations created through plaintiffs entitlements to 5-142(a) benefits {As enacted 1993}. The defendants unlawfully terminated plaintiffs employment. 2.) The Malfeasance on behalf of the defendant State of Co

More info:

Published by: URBNAnthony.com on Apr 20, 2012
Copyright:Public Domain

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/20/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
 Anthony McKnight Sr. DATE: April 19, 2012Plaintiff,v. FILE NO: 3:10cv1471(MRK)State of Connecticut ET. AL.,Defendants.
Amended Complaint
 1.) The Defendant, State of Connecticut public officials, were negligent in theirfiduciary obligations created through plaintiffs entitlements to 5-142(a) benefits {As
enacted 1993}. The defendants unlawfully terminated Plaintiff’s employment.
 2.) The Malfeasance on behalf of the Defendant State of Connecticut was the
 proximate cause of Plaintiff’s loss of property and other liberties and rights guaranteed
Plaintiff pursuant to the Constitution of the United States and its Statutes and the laws of the State of Connecticut.
3.) The Defendant State of Connecticut violated the Plaintiff’s civil and statutory
rights when public officials terminated the Plaintiff while the Plaintiff was out of work due to inmate related, hazardous duty, work compensable injuries.
Background
 1.) The Plaintiff, an African American, was hired by the Defendant State of Connecticut in a Hazardous Duty capacity on April 3, 1987{See First AmendedComplaint}.2.) The Plaintiff suffered career ending disabilities on April 26, 1993 where it was
determined by Defendant, and Plaintiff physicians’ that the Plaintiff was, in fact, no
 
 
longer able to perform the duties of a corrections officer due to the injuries sufferedduring an altercation with dangerous inmates while in the employ of the Defendant Stateof Connecticut. Department of Corrections {See Appendix, Miles}.3.) Unlike similarly situated injured Caucasian corrections officers, the Plaintiff was unlawfully terminated by the Defendant State of Connecticut, while absent fromwork due to his inmate related, work compensable injuries {See termination doc lettersetc.}.4.) The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant State of Connecticut/SEBAC
Agreements(IV,V,2011) violated Plaintiff’s rights as it
fosters and promotesdiscrimination through fraud and artificial reductions of African American correctionsofficers Disability Compensation Entitlements through the its unfunded policies carried
out by its’ agencies.
5.) The Connecticut Legislature on March 6, has approved the ambiguity and
fraudulent language in Attachments “D” and “H” the Agreement in favor of the
Defendant public officials which violates African American corrections officers CivilRights to Equal Protections of the Law as it relates to those benefits received by whitecorrections officers similarly situated..
Damages
1.) As Damages the Plaintiff requests equitable benefits to those issued to similarlysituated injured Caucasian Corrections Officers qualifying for 5-142(a) benefits.2.) The Plaintiff requests $500,000.00. In damages to replace the houseconstructively seized by the Defendant State of Connecticut through its Department of Revenue Services, Economic And Community Development, Department of Corrections

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->