CHRONOLOGY OF DISCRIMINATORY / RETALIATORY ACTIONS Brian J. Kachaylo V. Brookfield Township F.D. and Local 3443 1972 Keith E.

Barrett gets hired full-time as a Firefighter for Brookfield Fire Department. 1982 Keith E. Barrett gets appointed Fire Chief of Brookfield Fire Department. 1985 Chief Barrett pleads guilty to federal charges (after being investigated by FBI and U.S. Office of Inspector General) for. 1990 I join Brookfield Twp. F.D. as a Jr. Fireman. 1991 Became certified as an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT-Basic). Obtained minimum fire certification required by Ohio to function as a Vol. Firefighter. November 1995 Hired part-time. May 1, 1998 Hired full-time 2000 I voiced concerns with the chief regarding our lack of safety and health policies and procedures, lack of employee manual and policies in general. I expressed my concern that someone was going to get hurt and that it could be prevented. Subsequent to my concerns, I offered to take on the challenge of improving these areas. Chief Barrett said that he’d agree to let me work on safety issues, but only as it relates to Workers Compensation. He said that “the others” would have a problem with me making any changes or policies regarding operations. I told the chief that I understood, but said that someone needs to because that’s just as important. He said he’d look into things. I contacted BWC for guidance and sought advice from part-time Firefighter/EMT John Bauraskas (a full-time Howland Township Firefighter and Howland Township’s BWC administrator). Mr. Bauraskas informed me of an annual BWC conference that the IAFF has every year in Columbus, Ohio.

1

I approached the fire chief and asked permission to attend. He gained approval from the trustees and sent me to the 5 day program. Having no experience in safety/health or BWC, I learned a fair amount but also found some of it to be “over my head.” Mr. Bauraskas reassured me that that was to be expected because BWC is complicated and usually takes years to truly understand. Over the course of 2000, I began working on a comprehensive injury/illness/exposure reporting system. I attended a couple of random safety classes and would report safety issues to the fire chief. 2001 Assistant Chief files allegations with Trustees and attempt to terminate began. He backed off. The U.S. Office of Inspector General was investigating Barrett at the same time but closed their investigation because Asst. Chief Christy wouldn’t cooperate (because they tried to fire him). I attended my second BWC seminar in Columbus. Chief Barrett came to Columbus on one of the nights and took several of us (Mr. Bauraskas, Lance Blair [also of Howland] and myself) to dinner. We discussed some of the safety / BWC issues that I had learned about, including FMLA. The Fire Chief was unfamiliar with FMLA provisions but had a general idea of the concept. Shortly after returning from the seminar, Chief Barrett and I discussed several issues, including FMLA. At some point in 2001, I approached the fire chief and told him that it was time to begin working on some of the safety issues around the station. I exposed several concerns that I felt we should begin working on. I.e. Begin storing MSDS on chemicals stored at the township’s buildings. The Chief informed me that it wasn’t up to me to worry about the other departments. I disagreed and said that if “the other” department’s catch on fire, I think it would be nice to know what is being stored there. I began working on specific safety issues and on several occasions, I’d approach Chief Barrett to seek permission to implement certain changes, etc… August 1, 2001 Brian Zachetti of Ohio BWC met with myself, Officer Ron Mann of Brookfield Police Dept. and Chuck Thompson of Brookfield Road Department. I had previously called and requested his assistance in the development of a Safety and Health program and implementation of any other applicable program(s). As we met, I informed him of my goals as they related to safety and health. He acknowledged that our department was seriously lacking many of the necessary provisions and agreed to help. On August 3, 2007, I received a letter from Mr. Zachetti that provided an overview of our meeting, identified my goals and proposed a process that would help achieve the goals that were being sought. The program (process) would be lengthy and take time, but was drastically needed.

2

I approached Chief Barrett with all of the changes that we were going to begin working on. Over the course of the next few months, I tried to implement several changes and policies, most of which were denied by the chief. He began referring to me as “a pain in the ass.” And would frequently comment that things were fine before and that no serious injuries have ever occurred in the past and referred to my efforts as “more work than they’re worth.” He would also use the excuse, “We’re not governed by OSHA” to deny my requests. Or, “We don’t have the money for that.” Some of the changes that I tried to have implemented; Install a railing around the hole in the second floor that our fire pole passes through. The “hole” literally sits 3 feet away from our bunk room door. There have been numerous times that personnel have nearly fallen down the hole in the middle of the night. I tried to implement a clean air program that would require an exhaust evacuation system to be installed. Every shift, my shift officer would start ALL of our fire trucks at the same time, usually with all of the bay doors closed, or cracked inches, and would let them run for 20 minutes or more. The exhaust fumes were sickening and would literally make our clothing and fire gear stink of diesel exhaust. I had a very serious problem with the toxic environment that was being created. When the chief claimed we couldn’t afford a system (hoses that attach to the exhaust pipes and exhaust outside), I asked that he require the trucks be pulled outside while running. The chief refused. All that Chief Barrett seemed to care about was whether or not the “process” would require me to make and enforce various policies. Of course I informed him that it would. Chief Barrett said that all that would do is upset the other full-time personnel because things have been going just fine without them, they’d have to do more and that they would have a problem with my making and enforcing provisions. When the time came for the next BWC conference, Chief Barrett informed me that the trustees denied my request to attend. He said it was too costly. I told the fire chief that there is no such thing when it comes to safety, and told him that I knew the real reason was because the “others” (including himself) had a problem with what I was trying to do. He denied it of course. I immediately informed him that if the township wasn’t willing to send me to the necessary training, I wasn’t going to continue my safety & health endeavors. I told him that I was tired of being met with resistance by trying to bring our department up to the minimum OSHA required standards. I resigned from the informal position, but agreed to keep the station stocked with injury reporting packets. November 15, 2002 I transported my former step-sister to the hospital as the primary care provider, after her and her fiancé were struck while crossing a freeway in Brookfield. They were pedestrians. My former step-sister was hit by one car (estimated speed 60 plus MPH) and was dragged approx. 100 yards. Ohio State Patrol estimate that at least one other vehicle, likely two, struck her as she lay in the middle of the freeway.

3

She was unresponsive with massive multi-systems traumatic injuries and head injury. While en route to the emergency department, I called for a critical care helicopter to the hospital recognizing that she would need immediate transport to a level-1 trauma center. I had a “back-up” Paramedic from another service assist me through transport since she was so critical. En route, I intubated her, started I.V.’s, tried my best to treat her wounds and control bleeding etc. While transferring her to the emergency department’s bed, I heard my mother talking in the background. As I walked out of the room, I saw my mother standing outside one of the rooms. She was there because my sister was in labor. I struggled with whether I should tell her or not (didn’t want to take away from the joy of my sisters labor), but chose to tell her so that she could see Suzie before she dies (her injuries were nearly incompatible with life). Suzie’s biological mother and brother arrived at the emergency department. Both were and still are close family friends with my family (including my mother). This was a very difficult and emotional time. Minutes later, the emergency room physician came out, told me that the helicopter was not flying due to weather, and asked if I’d take her to St. Elizabeth’s hospital (approx. 25 miles away) which is a level-1 trauma center. Of course I agreed. A nurse from Sharon Regional and I treated her on the way to St. E’s while my partner drove. Minutes after arriving as St. E’s and transferring care to the trauma team, Suzie died. Very difficult time. When I arrived back at the station, my shift supervisor (Captain Coffy) and the other on duty personnel had already been told that the patient was my former step sister. As I sat in the room, they continued to speak graphically about both patients and the call, knowing that she was a former step-sister. After completing my EMS reports, I took the shift supervisor aside and asked if I could go home for the rest of the night. He sarcastically said, “We get off in a couple hours.” He said, “If you leave we’ll be short a medic, can’t you just wait until morning”? Disgusted, I said, “Whatever.” The next time I saw the Chief (I believe it was the following shift), while sitting in the “radio room” with my supervisor and the other on-duty personnel (of course the call was the topic of conversation [without my involvement]) I informed the Fire Chief that the patient was my former step-sister. He said, “Ya, that’s what I heard.” Then he went on with his conversation.

4

I told him that I would likely need to take the next shift off. He said, “Why”? Shocked by his question, I said, “To go to the funeral.” He then said, “Why are you going”? I said, “Why wouldn’t I? I told you she used to be my step sister.” The chief responded by very sarcastically saying, “Well when was the last time she even lived with you”? Very hurt and angry, I immediately left the room. This was said in front of my shift supervisor, Captain Coffy and others that were on duty. I was never offered condolences, never offered critical incident stress debriefing, counseling, empathy, moral support, nor was I recognized for being able to put my personal relationship aside and treat/transport her not once, but twice. Angry, I wrote a letter to the fire chief outlining the egregiousness of his actions and explained how disrespectful and hurtful his actions were. My next shift at work, the Chief casually said, “I’m sorry about what I said the other day.” That was the extent of his empathy. February 2002 Chief Barrett officially retires and is re-appointed the next day. When Chief Barrett “cashed in” his unused accumulated sick-leave, he fraudulently increased his accumulated hours and was overpaid by approximately $600 (a felony). August 9, 2002 I broke my left hand in four places during a softball game. I was off work for a few weeks and returned on light duty for another six weeks. Once my left hand was back to approx. 90%, I began working as a Paramedic/Firefighter again, but the fire department would have a third person ride with me, or have the other crew go on the call with us so that I didn’t have to carry patients, or in case I needed other assistance. I was never required to see a township physician or get a fitness-for-duty exam. I presented a simple “script” that stated I could return, but that wasn’t even required to provide that. September 2003 I was promoted to HIPAA/EMS Operations Officer of Brookfield Township F.D. after my shift supervisor and I wrote a letter to the fire chief outlining concerns that we had about the lack of EMS management and declining operations. I was given a job description (the only job description that exists on the entire department). 2004 Started counseling for depression and was diagnosed with ADHD. The counselor also recognized that I was beginning to suffer from PTSD.

5

I only attended approximately 3 sessions. I stopped because I didn’t feel connected with her and had a difficult time “opening up” to her (Marylin Burns MS).

At the same time that the fire department took possession of a new half-million dollar Seagrave ladder truck, Chief Barrett became an area dealer for them. Chief Barrett immediately began missing an excessive amount of work which dramatically affected the operations of the fire department and created an unsafe environment (due to the lack of policies and procedures, SOP’s, etc.). The fire department free lanced each call now more than ever (which was too often before Barrett began his excessive leaves). January 1, 2005 I was promoted to Lieutenant after the new position was created during contract negotiations. The union and township both agreed that my accomplishments far outweighed their expectations and thus, they felt that it would be appropriate to create the Lieutenant’s position and promote me. Chief Barrett asks township trustees to “keep” his pay-raise. Chief Barrett immediately began boasting about his generosity to the personnel at the fire department in hopes that we would stop “harassing him” about being off so often. It was obvious that he asked them to keep the pay-raise so that it would appear as a token of appreciation for allowing him to essentially come and go as he pleased. The reality (in my opinion) was that he did it so that he could make it appear as though he took a concession for being off an excessive amount of time. By December 31, 2005, fire department records indicate that Chief Barrett took 32 weeks of time off without deducting a single hour from his accrued sick or vacation leave (that he keeps track of himself). May 18, 2005 Beginning of Negligent Hiring/Retention Claim. Ohio Revised Code 2961.02 Person convicted of certain offenses may not serve as public official or employee gets passed. Barrett is a convicted felon, has considerable control over his office and has access to/involved in the same type of business that resulted in criminal conviction. Chief Barrett gets re-hired annually. August 2005 Allegations sent to Trustees (against fire chief) anonymously by part-time employee, Eric D. Gardner. Same board of trustees as 2001.

6

Township trustees refused to investigate the allegations and destroyed the letter (admitted by the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, John P. Schmidt). He stated that the letter was destroyed because it wasn’t signed and thus lacked merit. Trustees approved Chief Barrett’s request to investigate fire department personnel in order to uncover the author of the letter. Chief Barrett began ruthlessly investigating by interrogating personnel and making the environment unbearable. September 6, 2005 Fire chief asked trustees to approve a pay-raise (used as a coercive tactic) for part-time personnel, which was approved by resolution. The approved pay raise was; twenty-five cents (0.25) per hour now and an additional twenty-five cents (0.25) per hour in January of 2006. Shortly After September 6, 2005 Chief Barrett openly used the part-time pay-raises to coerce employees into giving up author of the anonymous letter, but not before the Fire Chief openly accused me (in the presence of my former Union President) of being responsible for the letter. Chief Barrett interrogated and openly coerced part-time personnel by informing them that a trustees approved a pay-raise but that no one would receive it until either the author of the allegations comes forward, or someone reveal the author’s identity. Mid-September 2005 Part-time employee Eric Gardner (my best friend then and now) gets identified as the author by Destry Rush, a fellow part-time employee. Destry Rush openly admitted that he identified Gardner and that he did so because he wanted his pay-raise. After Eric Gardner was identified as the author, again the Fire Chief accused me of assisting Eric with the letter and it’s content. He made this assumption because Eric and I were good friends and would often complain about the same things (including discrimination Title VII, safety and health violations and various other concerns). September 27, 2005 Threatening meeting held to inform part-time of Eric Gardner’s termination, reason and to warn them of the same fate should they make allegations. This was the very first part-time meeting held since the inception of the EMS service in November of 1995. September 28, 2005 Threatening meeting held to inform full-time of termination and warn them of the same fate should they make allegations. January 1, 2005

7

Promoted to Lieutenant (a position that was created after the township and union negotiated the position). The union members argued that I had dramatically improved the operations of the EMS division and deserved to have an officer designation. The township agreed. September 15, 2006 (I file public records request and Chief demands computer) On September 15, 2006, I made an extensive public records request with the intentions of uncovering evidence of past and present unlawful activity, including corruption and discrimination. I knew that I had been discriminated and retaliated against, resulting in failure to promote x 2 so I vowed to uncover the truth. The day that I submitted the written request to Chief Barrett (he knew exactly what I was after), Barrett wrote a letter requesting the department issued laptop computer back. It was obvious that the fire chief made the request for malicious reasons, but I did as I was asked. In the letter, Chief Barrett stated that the reason that I was being asked to return the computer was because I had relinquished my EMS Officer responsibilities. The truth of the matter was that on September 10, 2007, my wife informed my supervisor, Captain David Coffy, that I was temporarily relinquishing my EMS Officer responsibilities so that while I’m on medical leave (being unsure how long my leave would last), I’d be relinquishing accountable of our controlled substances and dangerous drugs. Subsequent to my wife’s notification, Captain Coffy wrote a notice to Chief Barrett informing him of the same. The notice was dated September 10, 2006. It wasn’t until the day that I submitted the written request for public records that Chief Barrett decided to require that I return the laptop. Chief Barrett knew that I did not have computer access without the laptop, and I’m positive that he made the request in order to take my access to a computer. If Chief Barrett had truly wanted the laptop returned because I had relinquished my responsibilities as EMS Officer (temporarily while on medical leave), he would not have waited until September 15, 2006 to make the request. It was NOT coincidence that the request was made the same day I filed my public records request. In order to justify his request, Chief Barrett used the fact that I had relinquished my EMS responsibilities. What I didn’t know at the time was that approximately 1 year later (August 21, 2007) the township would do the exact same thing, except this time they would send police to my home unannounced and without prior notice. See August 20, 2007 (I made a written public records request) and August 21, 2007, two police detectives show up at my home and demand the laptop. Another coincidence? No. January 5, 2006 I transported our 42 y/o Assit. Chief having a heart attach (cardiogenic shock). While on the scene, the Assistant Chief (my “boss” since 1990) was very unstable, stopped breathing once and passed out several times (prior to and while in my care).

8

Several personnel showed up on the scene, recognizing the address. Among them was the Fire Chief. The Assistant Fire Chief died shortly after arriving at the hospital (within a couple of hours). Fire Chief forced me to work mandatory overtime (48 hours straight) to cover Assistant Chief’s vacancy since he died the morning of his shift. Though it would be selfish for me to claim that I was the only one affected by his death (since our whole department was), it was highly irresponsible and actually dangerous for Chief Barrett to force me overtime to cover the man that just died, that I treated and transported. It was obvious that I had more intimate involvement with his medical emergency than the others, and certainly was in no mental capacity to be forced to work another 24 straight hours (48 hrs total). Especially when other full-time were available to work, that hadn’t just worked, nor had been involved in his treatment. The next day, I asked the Fire Chief if he planned to call for a Critical Incident Stress Debriefing Team to begin debriefing personnel affected. He said that there was too much that needed done and that he didn’t think anyone would partake. He said he’d wait awhile to see if it was needed. April 2006 Went to hosp on duty having chest pain; diagnosed as stress/anxiety. 24 hour observation. August 2006 Supervisor/union pres. Secretly sent a letter to trust. Asking them not to promote me to Assistant Fire Chief. September 8, 2006 Was passed over for 2 promotions for much less qualified; started counseling. September 15, 2006 Filed extensive public records request with trustees and chief to uncover discrimination and unlawful activity. After filing request for public records, Chief Barrett drafted a letter (dated Sept. 15, 2007) that ordered I return the laptop because I relinquished my EMS Officer duties (not because I took it home while on sick leave). September 20, 2007 Went to F.D. to deliver laptop, met with Chief Barrett while I was there; In conversation, I informed Barrett that I had taken all F.D. documents off the computer (stored them on disc), then ran a program to wipe the computer clean because I had

9

personal information stored on it. I.e. Banking information, social security number, credit card info, etc… I told him that once I cleaned the hard drive, I reinstalled all of the documents that were created for township use so as to not destroy any public records.Chief Barrett had no issue with me using it for personal use, nor my taking it home. I had done so since he purchased it, and with his permission. He never asked me to leave it at work. After telling him that I cleaned the hard-drive, he said, “You might have thought you did, but there is no way to erase the hard drive.” I then told him that the program I used was Approved by the U.S. Military and was made to do exactly that. I told him that it is even rated for business to use prior to selling or replacing old computers. Chief Barrett said he didn’t know programs like that existed. I showed it to him. I sat the computer beside the chair I was sitting in (in his office) as we spoke. After our meeting (Chief Barrett told I could take the computer back home with me). It was obvious to me that his intentions were to search the computer for malicious purposes, and after leaning that it wouldn’t be possible, he said I could take it home. I took it home and he did not request it again. There were no township records destroyed and the fire chief never contended that there were. In fact, the fire chief (nor trustees or anyone else) had any idea what documents were on the computer. During our meeting, Chief Barrett reiterated that he didn’t promote me because he had “bigger plans for me” that he couldn’t discuss. He assured me that the township had plans that would actually be a bigger promotion than either position. He then said, “Don’t forget, I’m retired and can go any day now.” He said that Montgomery wasn’t a shoe in for his position and that he (Barrett) could get the trustees to approve his requested replacement. Chief Barrett intentionally made me believe that I wasn’t promoted because he would be retiring and was considering me as his replacement. An obvious way to get me to withdraw my public records request and get me to stop challenging the decision and motive. Chief Barrett told me that the public records request I submitted on Sept. 15, 2006 would make it difficult for him to sell the trustees on promoting me and asked me to withdraw the request. Ultimately I agreed to do so, but that I still wanted a copy of the resumes’ and Captain Coffy’s letter to trustees. He agreed. April 4, 2006 Went to the emergency department at Sharon Regional Hospital while on duty because I was having chest pain. I was admitted overnight for observation. I was off for approximately a week. During my leave, I was examined by a cardiologist and given a stress test to rule out cardiac problems. I informed the fire chief (verbally [over the phone]) that my diagnosis thus far was stress/anxiety related chest pain. Having done previous 12 lead ECG’s on myself, or letting students perform them on me, I knew that my ECG did exhibit changes.

10

I told the cardiologist but he felt that the change was not significant enough for concern. I explained this to the fire chief. I told the fire chief that the cardiologist would see me again in several weeks and if the chest pain continued, he said he’d consider doing a cardiac catheterization. At this time though, he didn’t feel that the need for the procedure outweighed the risk associated with the catheterization. Lastly, I told the fire chief that I was released without restrictions and was instructed to contact him if the chest pain continues. The fire chief permitted my return, but not before he changed my shift. He changed my shift (of 9 years) and put me on “C” turn. That was the shift that the former Assistant Fire Chief worked before he died. Chief Barrett articulated that he was putting me on that shift because he needed a township appointed officer on the shift (since the only full-time employee working that shift [Firefighter/Paramedic Matthew Gordon] was not an officer). He also said that he believed my stress was being caused by my supervisor, and that he and I “stress each other out.” I returned to work without having to provide a single piece of paper, no fitness-for-duty certification, no leave certification, and no record that I’m released without restrictions. If ever there were cause for concern and justification to have me either provide verification of my diagnosis and ability to return to work (with or without restrictions), it would be now, and especially under the circumstances. Just over a year prior, our 42 year old Assistant Fire Chief died of a massive heart attach, and he was presumed to be very healthy. For whatever reason, the fire chief felt that there was no cause for concern regarding my return for this type of medical leave, yet would soon require I see the township’s physician for a psychological exam without need for concern. April 14, 2006 I began working my new shift (C Turn). Being a township appointed Officer, the union contract language made me the new Shift Officer. April 20, 2006 Chief Barrett calls Firefighter Matthew Gordon and I into the “radio-room” office to speak with us regarding his (Barrett’s) upcoming vacation. Chief Barrett reminded Matt and I that this would be his last shift with us for nearly a month because he was going on vacation. Chief Barrett said, I want you two to work together. I said, “We’ve been working together well, why wouldn’t we”? Chief Barrett said, “I just want to make sure that you make decisions together and both of you to run the shift.”

11

Chief Barrett then told Matthew Gordon that he was going to continue paying him Shift Officer pay because he had been receiving it since January of 2006 (when his partner, Assistant Chief Christy died). According to the union contract, in the absence of a township appointed officer, the senior most full-time Firefighter will assume the duties of shift officer. I knew immediately where he was going with this. He and Gordon are good friends and after I began working that shift, I had heard that Gordon had a problem with the fact that I was now the Shift Supervisor/Shift Officer. He was upset because prior to my being moved to that shift, he had been the “Acting Shift Officer.” I was well aware of exactly why Chief Barrett made the comments that he did and why he was sure to point out that he was going to continue paying Gordon Officer’s pay, even though it was in violation of the union contract. I knew that I had to address this issue (Chief Barrett attempting to empower Matthew Gordon to the same level as me, ultimately reducing my right to act as Shift Officer) before Chief Barrett left for vacation. My concern wasn’t egotistical, it was a serious safety concern. I told the chief that Matt and I had worked together just fine in the past and would continue to do so, but that he needed to declare a “Shift Officer”. Even though I knew that contractually, I was automatically the Shift Officer, I felt that it was imperative that Chief Barrett officially note that fact before leaving. After telling Chief Barrett that he would need to declare a Shift Officer, he said, “Well you’re both getting Officer wages.” I told him that his generosity was fine, but that it was in violation of the contract, which wasn’t fair to the other Firefighters that weren’t being given Officer’s pay even though they weren’t actually Officers. Just as I knew he would, Chief Barrett got very angry and defensive of Matt, saying, “You have a superiority complex and just have to hear that you’re in charge don’t you”? Very offended, I reminded the chief that this was not an entry-level job and that we weren’t working at McDonalds. I reminded him that we have peoples lives in our hands and that no different than the military, someone has to be in charge. It is imperative and safety demands it. Chief Barrett angrily said that there was no reason we couldn’t work together and “take turns.” I told him that what he was asking us to do was ridiculous and that we’re not deciding who gets to do the dishes after dinner. I said, that would be an appropriate time to “take turns”, but “taking turns” in the fire service would get someone killed. I told him that I wasn’t about to entertain the idea for a couple of reasons. One reason is that I’ve earned my right to be Shift Officer; I have seniority; more experience and training; and the union contract very specifically addresses this issue. I told him that doing it any other way would result in a union grievance for safety and contract violations. Chief Barrett was very angry. Chief Barrett said, “Fine Kachaylo, you’re in charge. Does that make your (expletive deleted) hard”? He said, “That’s all you wanted. You have to hear that you’re in charge so there you go.” I told him that I took great offense to that statement and that it was very unprofessional. I told him to imagine being on a structure fire, one of the two of us think the roof is unstable and wants to pull the firefighters out of the structure fire and go to a defensive mode, while the other

12

believes the roof is stable and completely disagrees with the proposal. I said, this isn’t the time to “negotiate” or to try and remember who is in charge this time. Someone has to make the decision and when someone shows up off-duty to help fight the fire, they deserve to know who is the incident commander without having to see who won the “paper/scissors” contest that day. I also said that he knew as well as I did, that if someone gets killed or seriously injured because someone made a bad decision, I’m the one that is going to be hung out to dry because it is specifically documented in the contract. I said, are you going to explain to the Firefighters child why their parent is dead because two guys were arguing over whether to pull the Firefighters out or not? Still very disgusted and angry, he said, “That’s your problem. You’re paranoid. You always think someone’s out to get you.” He said, “You need help. You need to get this paranoia under control.” I told him that I would not hear another word of his demeaning comments and asked that we just drop the entire conversation. He said, “Sorry Matt, but I’m going home, I’ll see you in a month.” He made it sound as if he was apologizing to Matt for putting me on his shift and for the fact that Matt had to work with me. Matthew Gordon and I talked after Chief Barrett left, and Gordon purportedly agreed with me. He said, “I didn’t think that it was even a question.” He said, “I know the contract says you’re in charge.” I told him that I wasn’t trying to win a power struggle, but it was something that absolutely had to be identified. I said, if I’m going to be the one to be hung out to dry for a bad decision, I at least deserve to have been the one that made the bad decision. He again purportedly agreed with me. I told him that what just happened was absolutely ridiculous and unprofessional and that that was exactly why we had a union contract in the first place. Tensions seemed high after that between Gordon and I, but we got along fine. July 3, 2006 Trustees approve Resolution # M-06-61 by a vote of 3-0 to hire Cones Consulting to “update” township’s policy manual at a cost of $3,000. Per the resolution, “Police and Fire manuals to be updated by department heads at this time.” Ex. 11 C -1 April 2, 2007 Trustees approve Resolution # M-07-39 by vote of 3-0 to approve new “township policy manual.” Ex. 14 As of April 1, 2008, this manual has NOT been disseminated to ANY Brookfield Township Fire Department Personnel, yet I.A.F.F. Local 3443 (F.D. Local) accepted a provision in the new collective bargaining agreement (signed December 28, 2008) effective January 1, 2008 – December 31, 2010 that states collective bargaining members agree to be bound to all of the provisions within the current Brookfield Township Policy and Procedures Manual. Per Union President Hughes (April 1, 2008, none of the full-time personnel [including supervisors]) have EVER seen this manual. Failure to disseminate the policy manual while holding it’s members to the provisions within is a direct violation of the policy itself. Ex. 14 A-1 (pg. 1 of manual) and Ex. 14 A-2 (pg. 2) never disseminated it, nor was it’s existence made known. If there has ever been any other township policy manual, none of the F.D. personnel have been made aware (at least not since I’ve been paid [November 1995]).

13

In August of 2007, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees and Fire Chief would lie to a federal investigator for the U.S. Dept. of Labor by telling her that there was no employee manual and that once one was completed, they would put an FMLA policy in it. Obviously that was deceptive, since not only did the policy exist, it also had an FMLA provision within. June 19, 2007 Chief advises me that I wasn’t even second choice for A/C after I asked him. He said that it was Matthew Gordon. I asked how they could justify that and why? He said, “The trustees just really like him.” He then proceeded to tell me that things are different now, since the trustees had no idea what I did back then, but that they know now. June 25, 2007 While in my office, Chief Barrett came in and sat down. He said that he had a couple of issues that he wanted to talk to me about. He said that while looking over our EMS runs, he noticed that our personnel were getting “too many refusals.” He said that he wanted me to keep a close eye on the refusals and start “flagging” employees if it seems like they’re getting too many refusals. He said, we don’t get paid for refusals and that he felt that they needed to try harder to persuade the patients to go to the hospital. I told him that we’ve been through this before and that he knows we can’t force someone to go to the hospital against their will. I told him that I’m a professional and I carefully review every report. I said that if I saw a refusal that indicated transport regardless of the patients wishes (i.e. a minor or someone that is not of sound mind), I’d be the first to flag them and make them explain, but that other than that, there is nothing that can be done. Chief Barrett disagreed and said that he he’s going to start going on more calls to see why “these guys aren’t taking more people to the hospital.” He then said that he had one other issue. He said that he noticed that certain transports could probably have been made ALS but weren’t. I asked for an example. He said that he didn’t have any one in particular, but that he thought the Paramedics could make more calls ALS by “throwing a heart monitor on or something.” I asked if he was insinuating that our crews were under treating, because if he did, I take offense to that because that would mean that I’m not effectively using the QA/QI system that I developed. He said that wasn’t what he was insinuating. He said that he knows that if they under treat, I’ll flag them. He said that he just meant that some of the other calls that could be justified as BLS could also be justified as ALS, and that he’d prefer they be made ALS because we receive a higher reimbursement rate. He said that he just wanted me to watch for it and if it could’ve been made ALS, to flag the crew and suggest it. This was the second thing that he said that I felt was immoral and unethical. Chief Barrett said that he even thought about flagging the crew himself to ask why they don’t put a heart monitor on or start an I.V. I told him that he shouldn’t even consider it because he had no medical training and the crew would have serious issues with his interference. And that I had a problem with what he was suggesting.

14

I said, “Don’t you know that what you’re asking me to do is illegal”? He said, “How do you figure”? I told him that it was illegal to “bump a call up to ALS” just to get a higher reimbursement rate and that I refuse to take part in anything like that. Chief Barrett was shocked by my response and said, “And you wonder why you weren’t even second choice for Assistant Chief.” He said that he didn’t need me to explain the laws to him and that I was taking what he said out of context. I told him that I knew there was more to the Assistant Chief story and he just proved it to me. He said “whatever Kachaylo.” He reminded me that he was the Chief and that I work for him, then left the office. He walked out the front door, got in his vehicle and left for the day. The rest of the night, I stayed in my office and was very, very angry/depressed. I didn’t know what to be more upset about; the fact that he was asking me to break the law; that he was more or less insinuating that I’m not doing my job to his standards (even though he has no medical training and was already a felon for similar activity); the Gordon comment; or the obvious feeling that I would never be promoted and that my hard work meant nothing. I wasn’t exactly sure what context he meant the “Gordon” comment in; all I knew was that he finally confirmed that he was bias and that that was the reason for the way he treats me (and for passing me over twice). I didn’t know if he meant that Gordon would have done it if he asked him to; if he meant that Gordon wouldn’t question or challenge anything he says, or exactly how he meant it, other than that it was malicious. June 27, 2007 I called Chief Barrett and asked for June 28, 2007 off. I told him that the shift was covered and that I needed off to go to a doctor’s appointment for depression. When I made initial contact with him, he sounded disgusted. But as soon as I told him why I was calling, he seemed over anxious to approve my request. He approved it verbally. June 28, 2007 At the conclusion of my doctor’s appointment with Dr. Reema Taneja M.D., I called Chief Barrett and told him that my physician changed my medication and advised that I take a week off to give the new dose time to take affect. I told him that she believed that my depression/anxiety was related to PTSD and that it would probably take awhile to get under control. I told him that she suggested I start going to counseling again and that I decided to take her advice. June 29, 2007 Chief called and told me that I’d need to bring a copy of my excuse when I return to work on 7/10/07. I said okay. He asked me what my status was. I told him that there was no change from what I told him the day before. He reminded me that this was the third time I’ve been off for depression and then asked me what I was going to do if they can’t get my depression under control. I told him that I don’t let the depression get in the way of my work and that I’d manage. He told me that I didn’t have that much sick-leave and said, “If this keeps up, why don’t you think about filing for disability”? He said that he helped Ron Woodcock get disability and that he (Woodcock) made more on disability than he did working. He said that he could help me file if I decided I needed to. The conversation was odd and I knew that he was more or less suggesting that I apply. I

15

thanked him but said that I didn’t intend on filing disability. I told him that if for some reason my condition continued to worsen, I’d do what I had to but that I had no plans to file disability. I told him that I believed counseling would help. I asked Chief Barrett to keep everything we talked about to himself because it was embarrassing and I didn’t want anyone to know. He promised he would and went as far as to say, “All anyone needs to know is that you’re on vacation.” July 1, 2007 Chief Barrett discussed my leave and violated my medical privacy when he told Captain Coffy all about what we discussed. He told Captain Coffy that I was off for PTSD and depression and said it was because of the calls I ran. He told Captain Coffy that he didn’t know how long I’d be off, but that he thought I was going to file for disability. The same day, while at Captain Coffy’s daughter’s graduation party (being held at the fire department’s banquet hall), Captain Coffy told Captain Hagood the same thing that Chief Barrett told him. I have no doubt that my medical leave and my condition was the topic of conversation at the party (several firefighters were present). July 2, 2007 I was not aware at the time, but Chief Barrett called for an Executive Session meeting w/ trustees and the Assistant Chief to discuss concerns about my return. This was the start of the retaliation and continuing of discrimination. The decision to require that I get a psychological evaluation prior to being permitted back to work was made during this executive session meeting. There was no resolution made during the regular session meeting, and according to the Ohio Sunshine Law, it is unlawful to make any decisions during executive session. According to the law, an employee issue can be discussed, but that administration should not state their decision during the meeting. They are to reserve their decision for the regular session meeting, and a resolution would need to be made and voted on. This did not happen. There was no resolution made during the regular session meeting, making the decision unlawful. Additionally, having Assistant Chief Montgomery present violates Ohio Revised Code 4117.20 Prohibiting Conflict of Interest During Bargaining. The law prohibits any bargaining member from taking part in meetings or sessions regarding other bargaining members, when participating on behalf of the employer. Assistant Chief Montgomery is a bargaining member and therefore cannot represent the employer. To do so would create a conflict of interest because one can’t act on behalf of the employer and also have voting powers within the union. Prior to this meeting, the fire chief had already approved a one week leave and said in order to return, I need only provide a copy of the script that my physician wrote for me to be off.

16

Even if the meeting were necessary, it wasn’t necessary to divulge my medical privacy to township trustees or the assistant chief. The decision as to whether I would be required to attend an appointment with a township physician can be made by the fire chief himself, and does not require the intervention of the trustees. The assistant fire chief has no power (unless the fire chief were absent [obviously he wasn’t] to make such decision. I had not requested new reasonable accommodations that would make disclosure necessary and there was no medical indication for the trustees, chief or supervisors to have concerns about a potential medically related occurrence that would require they have previous knowledge of. The township had not requested any information from my physician, nor had they asked for any medical documentation from my physician regarding my medical condition or fitness-for-duty; therefore, there would be no reason to question the validity or accuracy of my physician’s decision, which would indicate the need for a “second opinion” from a township chosen physician. I have never been reprimanded orally or in writing, there were absolutely no complaints about my performance, no questions about my ability to perform the essential functions (or even the non-essential functions) of my job; no complaints or concerns about any sudden changes in behavior or in any of my actions. Basically, there was absolutely no medical indication to cause concern about my ability to do my job. According to the union contract, the township could have me examined by a physician of their choice if they have reason to believe that I may be a danger to myself, or others. There was absolutely no indication for this concern, and certainly no reasonable medical indications. I asked for one week off because of a medication change, and it was approved. In September of 2006, I was off for the very same thing and was never required to provide a single piece of paper, much less take any of the other steps. The goal was to prevent my return because of the 2005 incident and because of my actions after being passed over for both promotions (he knew I was a threat to the corrupt activity); I immediately claimed discrimination and/or retaliation. I filed complaints with the Union and the Township. At the same time, I put in an extensive written request for public records with the intentions of uncovering the illegal activity that Gardner was terminated for. The Fire Chief and Trustees were well aware of the reason for my request. The Fire Chief’s reaction was to provide false justification for not promoting me (said he had bigger plans for me but couldn’t explain right now) and nearly begged me to return. He only wanted me to return because he knew if I did, I’d drop the issue. July 3, 2007 Chief Barrett called me at home and asked if I could come to the fire station to give one of our newly hired Firefighter/Paramedics his orientation paperwork. I said yes, I’d be up.

17

When I got to the fire station, I gave the employee (Benjamin Esposito). While I was there, I asked Chief Barrett where we stored our old EMS run reports. He told me that they were stored above his office. I asked him if I could get a copy of the reports from my former step-sister’s call. He said yes and asked why I needed it. I told him that I was going to start going to counseling again as I told him previously, and that I wanted to give a copy of the run reports to whom ever I go to. I explained that I would feel like they had a better understanding of the call if they read it for themselves. I told him that I had a copy of the report I did on Assistant Chief Christy and would be using it as well. He said that it would be fine. I asked him to keep that to himself. He said he would. Chief signed am approval for vacation and wrote at the bottom that they’d first exhaust my comp and vacation time, then my sick leave. I asked why he wrote that since I was only off a week and had a lot of time left. He said, in case I need more time off. Chief Barrett gave me letter that orders me to attend a mandatory employee assistance counseling session and get psychological evaluation. I was the first and only employee to EVER have to see a township physician or attend an employee assistance program. I was off for one month in September/October of 2006 for the exact same reason and wasn’t even required to provide a copy of a doctors note upon return, much less the above. I objected to the requirement and noted that I was being asked to do things that no other employee (including myself) has ever been asked to do. I noted that I felt the requirement was being made intentionally to keep me from returning. President Hughes asked Chief Barrett to pay administrative leave since my dr. cleared me and theirs didn’t. Later that evening, Chief Barrett met with Pres. Hughes at F.D. to go over the contract. He asked Hughes if he told me why I was off and Hughes said, “no.” Barrett told Hughes that if he’d think back to September of last year and looks at the type of doctor that the township is sending me to, he should be able to figure it out. He told Hughes that he (Barrett) didn’t trust Mike Taylor and said that Hughes shouldn’t either. He said that Taylor said the township couldn’t hire Montgomery but the last time he checked, Montgomery was still employed there. He informed Hughes that he wanted to have a meeting with Hughes and I on July 6, 2007 to discuss my objections as the informal step of a grievance hearing. He set the meeting for 1300 and asked Hughes to call and tell me. Hughes called me to tell me about the meeting, informed me of the above information and told me that though he didn’t hear it from me, he knew why I was off. When I asked him how he knew, he told me that earlier this day, Captain Hagood called him (Hagood is the Shift Officer but was off this day, he was boating). He said that Hagood was inquiring about what happened with me today. Hughes said that Hagood told him; I was off claiming that I had PTSD because of my step sister and Assist. Chief Christy, that I said I had depression and anxiety, and that I was just doing this so that I could file for disability like my wife.

18

Hughes asked him where he (Hagood) heard that from and Hagood told him that Captain Coffy told him (Hagood) the same thing on July 1, 2007, while Hagood attended Coffy’s daughter’s graduation dinner. He said that Chief Barrett told Coffy about it and that the township had a meeting “yesterday” July 2, 2007. I learned from the Union President that my medical privacy was grossly violated and has become common knowledge among the personnel. I asked Pres. Hughes to call Capt. Hagood and Coffy to demand that they immediately stop disclosing private information about me. Hughes proceeded to tell me that they weren’t the only ones that knew. He said that it had already “spread like wildfire” and that Firefighters from other departments were talking about it. He said that Dennis Greenwood (a Volunteer Vienna Firefighter) knew all about it and that others did as well. Needless to say, I was horrified. I called Chief Barrett and left a message for him to call me. He called me late evening. He said he had just left Quaker Steak and Lube. He told me about the meeting on July 6, 2007 then asked me what I needed. I asked him who he told about my leave and my medical condition. He first said, “I’ve told no one.” I reminded him that he said the decision about my appointments was up to the trustees, so if he told no one, how did they decide? He then admitted to calling an Executive Session Meeting with the trustees and A/C Montgomery on July 2, 2007 to discuss my leave with them. I told him that the entire thing was common knowledge and that Coffy said Barrett told him, Coffy in turn told Hagood, Hagood in turn told Hughes, etc… Chief Barrett denied telling anyone other than the trustees and A/C. I aksed him, if they didn’t have a meeting until July 2, 2007, how on earth would Captain Coffy have found out? He said he had no idea. I said, well it was obviously a member of management and you would’ve been the next to see Coffy. I asked why he lied to me by promising to keep what I told him to himself, then intentionally violated our agreement and my trust. He said he felt that he had to tell them since this isn’t the first time I’ve been off for this. I asked if they would have had any idea that I was off if he hadn’t of told them. He admitted that they wouldn’t. I asked him if Assistant Chief Montgomery had any say whatsoever in the “fitness-for-duty” requirements, the approval or disapproval of my leave, or any other aspect of my current circumstance, and Chief Barrett admitted that he did not. That admission prompted me to ask why he chose to invade my privacy by telling any of them (since he had already approved my leave and knew the circumstances), and especially why he chose to include Assistant Chief Montgomery, who he admits has absolutely no role in this case. Chief Barrett just said “because I thought they should know that you’re off again for psychological reasons.” Chief Barrett and I had a heated discussion, during which I told him that I was tired of keeping my mouth shut, that I had decided my last shift (after asking me to help pad the bills) that I was going to go to the trustees with allegations, but now I’m going to do it much sooner.

19

I told him that I knew what he was up to (preventing my return trying to get rid of me) that it could wait no longer, and that it was time they heard about it again. I reminded him that just a week ago, he asked me to help him break the law and that there was much more to tell. I let him know how irate I was that my privacy had been so violated and especially that it has been talked about as if it was something they heard on the news. I told him that I blame him for the disclosure and my embarrassment because he didn’t have to tell anyone. In fact, he promised not to. During the conversation, Chief Barrett reminded me of what happened to the last two employees that went forward, called me “paranoid”, said I was “f - - ked up in the head, and said, “Go ahead, the trustees will never believe you; they know you’re crazy.” He said, “You better follow the chain of command.” I told him that he was my chain of command and that I just told him. I told him that I wasn’t the others and that I wasn’t going to back down. Ultimately, I hung up the phone. July 5, 2007 I made formal oral allegations to Assistant Fire Chief regarding discrimination Title VII, criminal activity, and serious safety and health violations. I also demanded that a gag order be placed on personnel in regards to my private medical information since I knew it had been being openly discussed among most of the personnel. I explained to him that I was the third employee to make allegations against Barrett and that I was telling him because it was a requirement of Ohio’s Whistleblowing Statute. I asked Montgomery to keep what I told him to himself, except for telling the trustees. He said that he wouldn’t tell anyone. He even noted that he wouldn’t do that especially because he is trying to keep his nose clean. I told Montgomery that I had no doubt that I was being made to take these steps because it’s the township’s way of trying to get rid of me for making prior allegations of discrimination, safety and health violations, and because of the conversation that Barrett and I had on July 25, 2007 (my last shift). Montgomery admitted that he was present at the meeting on July 2, 2007 and said that the only reason the trustees want me to go is because I’ve been off for “this” before and they just want to make sure I’m okay. I disagreed with his philosophy and asked him if anyone has claimed I’m not doing my job or that it is declining. He said no, but that wasn’t why they wanted me to go. He said they wanted me to go for my own sake. At the end of the meeting, A/C Montgomery assured me that he would speak with the trustees and request that they meet with me as I suggested. I told him that I was going to send a letter certified mail to trustees asking them for this meeting.

20

July 6, 2007 Informal meeting called by chief to object to contract violations that occurred on July 3, 2007. After objecting to having to attend the mandatory employee assistance class, Barrett told Hughes and I that it wasn’t up to him. He said that when he scheduled the appointment with Dr. Pecorelli, Mrs. Debbie Morrin, MS told him that the session was a mandatory prerequisite to seeing the doctor. I still objected because it was a violation of the union contract, which says nothing of having to attend such an appointment. I told Chief Barrett that I knew the real reason that I was being forced to take these steps, which was to keep me from returning and because of past issues. Chief Barrett denied that as the reason and said, “The Trustees want you to get a psychological evaluation because this is the third time you’ve been off for depression.” I objected and noted that there were no complaints in my job performance and that I had no decline. I said that despite being depressed, I still do my job well. Chief Barrett agreed with me, as did President Hughes, but Barrett said that they were exercising their right per the contract. I objected to having to go to a Ph.D Clinical Psychiatrist as opposed to going to a medical physician, because the contract says the township could send me to a physician of their choice. I noted several times that there was no question in my mind that Dr. Pecorelli Ph.D was more than qualified to do the exam, but objected on the basis that since I’m on anti-depressant medication, there was a possibility that Dr. Pecorelli could decide that he doesn’t agree with my medication, dosage and/or regimen. I said that if that ended up being the case, Dr. Pecorelli would then have to refer me to a Psychiatrist (M.D. or D.O. medical physician) because a Ph.D is not permitted to make such changes or prescribe medications. I said that if that happened, it would mean that my leave would be extended that much longer and that I’d have to go to yet another appointment, and tell yet another person my “story” which I wanted to avoid. I noted that I was off for the same thing in 2006, had a broken hand in 2002, noted Hughes absence, and others, and that I am the very first person to ever have to go to a township doctor, much less go to an employee assistance program first. Chief Barrett said it was beyond his control, that it was the trustees decision. Chief Barrett said that he would forward my concerns to the trustees and get back to me once a decision is made. July 7, 2007 Sent letter requesting to meet w/ trust. to discuss allegations and show evidence certified mail. July 8, 2007 Chief leaves for yellow Stone for 2 wks either this day or the day before.

21

July 9, 2007 (received deceptive letter & exacerbating letter #1 / 1st ever adverse action) President Hughes called and told me that I had a letter hanging on the radio room door by Barrett and said I should come and get it. The letter was dated July 9, 2007, signed by the Fire Chief and left for me at the fire department. No post mark and Chief was out of town. Assistant chief admitted that he was given the letter by the chief prior to leaving for vacation and was instructed to wait until the date of the letter to give me the letter (ensuring he was out of town). Assistant Chief Montgomery also admitted that the decisions regarding the requirements of the letter were out of his hands, and that Barrett instructed him to call the township clerk the minute I miss an appointment so she could stop my pay. The letter was a response to July 6, 2007 meeting that was called by the fire chief so that I could state my objections to July 3, 2007’s orders. After having called for an “informal meeting” so that I could state my objections (according to Barrett, this was a courtesy to me), I received the response to my objections. The letter denied all of my requests and ordered that I attend both appointments (July 10, 2007 and July 12, 2007). Simply ordering me to attend would’ve been enough, even though I didn’t agree, but instead, the Chief went as far as to threaten to immediately stop my pay if one or both meetings are missed. This was far outside the Chief Barrett’s nature, making it obvious that the threat was being made for malicious reasons rather than for informational purposes. Given the fact that the fire chief left the state on Saturday or Sunday (and our meeting was on Friday), I knew that there was no way that the chief met with the trustees to discuss my objections as he said he would. Consequently, there are no Saturday or Sunday minutes from any township meetings. Obviously the chief made the decision and typed the letter without a meeting. I believe that he probably typed it right after I left the meeting. This letter was caused me to become extremely depressed, to the point that I began having a breakdown. I reacted this way because I knew exactly what the Chief was doing, especially since he’d NEVER made anyone else go to their doctor and certainly never made a threat to stop their pay. The other reality that caused me severe emotional distress was knowing that obviously the trustees supported his actions, since they had in the past and since (according to Barrett), the decision was the Board of Trustees. I honestly thought that if I go about the allegations professionally and involve more people, that the Board would take them more seriously.

22

Having a breakdown, I went straight to my doctor’s office (Dr. Taneja M.D.). I was very emotional when I arrived and she took me right back. She asked me what happened and I tried to explain it to her. I was overwhelmed. I felt as though this was the official beginning of the end of my career. After evaluating me and calming me down, she informed me that there was no way that she was going to let me go back right now. She decided (without my having asked, insinuated or prompting) that she needed to extend my leave further. She wrote me a script to be off until July 21, 2007. She told me that she feels I should begin going to a psychiatrist and that she’d have me set up with one prior to July 21, 2007. She provided me with an extension that simply said, “Off July 9, 2007 to July 21, 2007.” Trustees received the certified letter I mailed on July 7, 2007.

July 10, 2007 Attended mandatory employee assistance “counseling session” with Mrs. Debbie Morrin. The session was a direct violation of the contract. I was quite distraught when I arrived, and I’m sure I stayed that way. I was cooperative and friendly, but was also still very depressed, anxious and angry. I was informed by the counselor that it was not a mandatory session and that she explained that to Chief when he set up the appointment. She also informed me that Chief Barrett contacted her and told her that he felt I had some “paranoia, a problem with authority, and always thought everyone was out to get me.” He also told her that I didn’t seem to have a problem with the calls I ran until after I was passed over for the Assistant Chief’s job. Mrs. Morrin told me that Chief Barrett advised her that I had a problem going to their doctor because they chose him. I proceeded to explain my rationale for my objection. I told her that first and foremost, the objection was my contractual right, and secondly, I had no doubt as to Dr. Pecorelli’s qualifications. I said, in fact, he comes highly recommended from my private physician, Dr. Reema Taneja M.D. I told her that I only had a problem because I was concerned that he may suggest medication changes which would then require me to see another physician since he cant prescribe. She said, “Your exactly right. He may decide that and if he does, he’ll have to send you to a Psychiatrist.” I said, “That’s why I objected.” Mrs. Morrin asked me if I wanted to continue the session. I told her that I really didn’t want to but I had no choice since it was mandatory. Mrs. Morrin appeared quite annoyed by the fact that Chief Barrett made the requirement and blamed it on them (her office). She reiterated that she made it very clear to him that it was Voluntary and that it was NOT a prerequisite to seeing the doctor. She said that she is the one that brought it up in the first place. She said that she told him

23

that they had the program and asked that he extend the offer to me if I choose to partake. But she assured me that he knew it wasn’t mandatory. She said that making such a session mandatory was contradictory to the concept of counseling. She offered to stop the session if I’d like. I said that I would rather, but was afraid that it would be concluded that I wasn’t being cooperative which would result in a pay loss. She assured me that she would call A/C Montgomery (since Chief Barrett was on vacation) and would tell him I attended. Mrs. Morrin had me sign a medical release form which authorized my medical records to be released to Brookfield F.D. I told her that I had major reservations about signing the form because I didn’t think it was any of their business what was discussed, nor did I trust them with the information because of the prior incidents. Again though, I signed because I was afraid that not signing would give them the “in” they were looking for to stop my pay.

July 12, 2007 (deceptive and exacerbating letter #2) I was called in the morning by the Union President and told that there was another letter hanging on the door for me at the fire station. The letter was deceptive letter #2. Like the first one, it was dated for the 12th, signed and not post-marked (but Chief Barrett was in Yellowstone). The letter denied my request for paid administrative leave since. IMPORTANT NOTE (no bearing on this date but come Nov. 14, 2007, it has great importance): In this letter (July 12, 2007), Chief Barrett stated; “The contract calls for the employee to see a physician of the township’s choice after two tours of duty off. There is no way that the township could send you to a physician until you would be released from your doctor as it would not be fair to require you to see our physician until yours released you. “ “The contract also calls for you to be able to use vacation and sick leave when needed and doesn’t mention a paid administrative leave for going to a physician. Therefore, at this point, you will have to use your vacation, comp, or sick time.” One very pertinent reason why Chief Barrett should not have “pre-dated” his letters was for this very reason. I received a letter on July 12, 2007 from a person that was ¾ across the country, yet it wasn’t mailed. In the letter, it acknowledges that I am released as of July 9, 2007 and that as such, I must go to their doctor. It continues on to acknowledge that the township COULD NOT send me to their physician until mine has cleared me because it wouldn’t be fair. The problem is that when he left around July 7, 2007, I was cleared to return by this day. If he had hired an Assistant Fire Chief that was capable of being “Acting Chief” in his absence, he wouldn’t have had to “pre-date letters” instead, he could have left the

24

department and the decisions in the hands of the Assistant Fire Chief. In which case, the Assistant Chief would have been made aware of the fact that my physician had extended my leave, ultimately meaning that this day’s appointment would’ve been canceled since my physician hadn’t cleared me. That is assuming that Assistant Chief Montgomery would have given a similarly exacerbating letter on July 9, 2007. Absent the intentional exacerbation of July 9, 2007, I wouldn’t have had my leave extended. Given the language of this letter and the new extension of my leave (issued after this letter was written), I contemplated not going to the appointment. According to the letter, I didn’t have to since now my physician hadn’t cleared me. The union president told me to go anyhow because he felt that if I don’t, regardless of why, my pay will be stopped as Barrett ordered. I really didn’t have a choice but to go. Attended appointment for psychological evaluation. Doctor Pecorelli, PhD, Clinical Psychologist, met with me to discuss the psychological evaluation. He informed me that he had spoken to Mrs. Morrin and understood there were some “issues.” He immediately noted that he didn’t understand why I was being required to get a psychological evaluation when an M.D. had already cleared me. I explained that per the contract, they could if they felt that it was necessary. Dr. Pecorelli said, “I am not a second opinion doctor.” He said, “I don’t feel comfortable overriding an M.D.’s decision” in an instance that I would fail the evaluation. He said that in his opinion, and M.D. supersedes him and regardless, he doesn’t do second opinions. He asked me why they had sent me to him in the first place. I explained the entire situation with him and showed him the letters and my scripts. Dr. Lockward advised me that by having this exam, I’d likely have to give up my right to privacy since the township was paying the exam. He said that he thought that the township would be permitted to have a copy of the entire exam since they’re paying. I told him that I had a very serious problem with that and explained why. I told him about the privacy disclosures that had already happened to this point, and that they were very careless with private information. Dr. Pecorelli opined that he believed the requirement may be a violation of FMLA. I also showed him a copy of our contract that clearly shows that the first appointment wasn’t permissible and that it states the township has the right to send me to a “physician” of their choice. He said that in some states he is considered a “physician” but in others he was not. He repeatedly said that he just didn’t feel comfortable doing the exam, that he thought that it wasn’t being properly ordered, or to the appropriate physician. Having such reservations, Dr. Pecorelli called Mrs. Morrin into his office. He explained his concerns to her and asked her to contact Sharon Regional Hospital’s legal department for advice.

25

Several minutes later, Mrs. Morrin re-entered the office and said that the legal department advised that he should NOT do the exam. She said that in their opinion, the circumstances of the exam were tpp questionable and to stay clear. Heeding their advice, Dr. Pecorelli refused to do exam. I was okay with the decision, especially since I didn’t want to give up my medical privacy by them having access to my entire chart. He questioned the legality and motive behind Brookfield’s requirement. Legal advised him not to perform the exam. Dr. Pecorelli observed my condition and before I left, he told me that he had a lot of experience with PTSD because he was a military Psychologist. He said it is obvious to him that I’m in distress at this moment and that he hoped I’d seek some help. I assured him that I planned on it. I asked him if he’d be able to take on that role. He said he’d like to but he didn’t know if it would be legal since the township ordered the appointment. July 13, 2007 (VERY 1ST GRIEVANCE EVER FILED AT BROOKFIELD F.D.) Filed grievance for FMLA violation, contract violations and privacy violations. This was 1st grievance EVER filed at Brookfield Fire Department. July 15, 2007 Put allegations In writing and sent certified mail to trustees since I still had not received a response. July 17, 2007 Assist. Chief calls to deny me the right to step 1 grievance hearing in violation of the Union Contract, Ohio employment law (ORC 4117.11 Unfair Labor Practice). He said, “I’m just going to send you a letter saying I agree with the Chief.” After I objected, he said, “Fine, I’ll give you a hearing but I’m telling you right now that I’m not changing any decisions the Chief has made.” He added, “I’m not going to step on his toes.” He said that we were in “step 2” and after I told him that he was incorrect (not before he argued), he said he’d check on that and call me back. He said that he was going to call the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, John P. Schmidt. I said, “Why are you calling him”? He said that he was calling him to “see what he wanted to do.” I told him that he wanted the Assistant Chief job, he has it, and reminded him that if the trustees were supposed to make the decisions when Barrett was gone, they wouldn’t have hired him. I told him that he needs to make his own decision because we are in step 1. I told him that the trustees have no say until step 2. He disagreed and said he’d call me back. While I waited, I called President Hughes to tell him about the incident. I told him that I had a serious problem having the hearing in front of Hays in the first place, because it was unlawful per ORC 4117.20. Additionally, he was obviously not willing to be fair and impartial. I asked Hughes to call him and ask him to recuse himself. Hughes said he would.

26

Montgomery called me back and said that he now realizes we are in “step 1.” He uses the excuse that he is used to the way his union does things. I reminded him that we are not in his union. I insisted on the hearing and asked that he recuse himself for two reasons: 1) He obviously had a bias opinion since he had already made his decision without hearing the facts, and a fair hearing wasn’t going to be possible. 2) Having to present my case to another union member constitutes a conflict of interest and is an “Unfair Labor Practice” per ORC 4117. 20. The union supported my grievance, yet another union member was hearing the grievance and making the decision. He said, “Fine, if you want a hearing, I’ll give you one.” He told me that he wasn’t going to recuse himself and that he’d give me a hearing to make me happy; but not to expect him to change anything. He said that he hasn’t been A/C long enough and wasn’t about to override the fire chief. that since I insisted on having a hearing, he was going to give me what I wanted and declined my request to recuse himself. While speaking with Montgomery, I said, you need to figure something out because the township chosen Psychologist refused to do the exam for the same reasons that I’m objecting. A/C Montgomery said, “Well, I’m pretty sure you went in there threatening to slap everyone with lawsuits.” I informed him that his comment was not only unprofessional, it was ignorant. I told him that he hasn’t known me long enough to make any assumptions about me and I reassured him that it didn’t take threatening anything for their doctor, counselor and attorneys (along with myself) to realize that they were asking me to do things that were questionable. I told him that the only ones that think it is prudent is the township, and I said that I know they don’t even think it is, they’re just doing because they are retaliating. July 19, 2007 Union pres. called to tell me about an incident involving the Assistant Chief and another employee. He advised me that a part-time employee advised him that he overheard the Assistant Chief telling a part-time employee about the allegations I made to him on July 5, 2007. The union president advised me that the environment has become hostile towards me and that the part-time employee that was involved in the conversation with the Asst. Chief told him (the Asst. Chief) that he should “lay Brian (me) the f- - k out” for making allegations; The employee that made the comment (part-time Firefighter/Paramedic Randy Richman) was previously arrested for DUI, was sentenced to jail and was allowed to attend work on a work release program. The fire chief and township trustees agreed to let him come to work from jail, work as a Firefighter/Paramedic and at the end of his shift, return to jail. He was NEVER disciplined orally or in writing. I called my immediate supervisor (Captain David Coffy) and reported the incident. I advised that per the union president, the environment was becoming hostile and that I would like this incident investigated for my safety. I informed him that I had a grievance hearing at the fire department with the Assistant Chief tomorrow (July 20, 2007) and was concerned for my safety.

27

Captain Coffy informed me that Assistant Chief Montgomery had just walked in the door to get ice from the cooler (he was off duty). I asked to speak with him. Assistant Chief Montgomery got on the phone. I casually greeted him and said, “What’s going on”? The question was casual and is one I use to greet people. But, Assist. Chief Montgomery sarcastically said, “I don’t know, you tell me, you’re the one calling.” I asked him if the incident occurred. He said, “First of all, why are you calling me? I’m off duty and you know it.” I said, “The Chief is out of town and when he’s gone, you’re never ‘off duty.’” He said, “I don’t know what you’re talking about.” He then proceeded to tell me that he doesn’t answer to me. I said, “Did it happen or not”? He said, “I don’t remember.” I told him I wanted action taken immediately. I told him that I knew it happened because another employee overheard it and told the union president. He said, “Who”? I said, “Why does that matter”? He said that he didn’t believe me. I told him who informed the union president. It was Scott Williams, the part-time wheelchair van driver. Captain Coffy called me back and said he spoke with Chairman of the Board of Trustees, John p. Schmidt and told him of my concern. He said that Schmidt said that the meeting could take place at the administration building or that if I desired, he’d have a police officer present. Capt. Coffy said I should call the union president to see what he wants to do about the meeting, since he would also be present, and since he was the one that informed me of the event in the first place. I called the Union President, spoke with him about it and we both came to the conclusion that a police officer should be present. He said he’d call Captain Coffy and tell him to have on present. I spoke with the Assistant Chief and asked him about the incident. He said he didn’t know what I was talking about. Essentially denying the incident. I told him that the incident was witnessed by another employee. Sarcastically he asked who overheard it. I told him it was part-time wheelchair van driver Scott Williams. IMPROTANT NOTE: On August 6, 2007, my wife read my letter of allegations in the township meeting. After she read the letter, she asked Mr. Schmidt why nothing was done to the Asst. Chief or Randy Richman for their role in promoting a hostile work environment and the physical threat. Mr. Schmidt said, “I didn’t know anything about that.” Obviously a lie. July 20, 2007 Had grievance hearing with Assist. Chief (Unfair Labor Practice) since Chief Barrett was still out of town. This hearing was in regards to my grievance of July 13, 2007 (FMLA violations). Brookfield Police Officer (Gwen Graham) was present. At the beginning of the meeting, Assistant Chief Montgomery said the he “investigated” my claims and he’d talk to me about it at the end of the meeting. Assistant Chief informed me that the township has scheduled a new psychological evaluation for August 2, 2007 with a physician in the same facility, but this time it would be with an M.D. He said that his wife (a nurse) knows of this physician and that he is really good. He told me that the doctor’s name was Maximo Lockward M.D. (Psychiatrist); He also advised me that the township trustees said they would put me on paid administrative leave until August 2, 2007 since their doctor refused to do the first exam.

28

I thanked him for the paid administrative leave and for agreeing to send me to an M.D. as I originally requested. Several times during the hearing, I told the Assistant Chief that I would go to the appointment on August 2, 2007 as directed. There was never a question as to whether I’d go or not. The grievance hearing commenced and ended without incident. Earlier this day, the Asst. Chief confronted the employee that reported the incident (Scott Williams) to my union president. Assistant Chief Montgomery said the he called Scott Williams into his office this morning and asked him what he overheard. Scott told him that he heard exactly what President Hughes advised. Montgomery said that he asked Scott if he told President Hughes about the incident. He said Scott said he did and that he told Hughes yesterday. The Assistant Chief admitted to the telling Randy Richman about my allegations and to the comment verbatim. IMPORTANT: Minutes from this meeting show that on several occasions, I agreed to attend the new appointment scheduled with a new physician. July 22, 2007 My shift supervisor calls me at home and harasses me regarding my complaint about the physical threat, about my allegations and grievance. He said I was going to “bring the township down” and “take food off of the table of a lot of good men.” He said he couldn’t afford to lose his job and he knew that if I go any further with things, the township is going to get caught and he feared we’d end up being laid off. July 24, 2007 (Fire Chief’s first day back from vacation) Filed written incident report about the physical threat since the township trustees and fire department refuse to take action, even after the Asst. Chief admitted to the incident. He promoted a hostile environment and the other employee suggested he physically harm me, yet they weren’t written up or orally reprimanded. I went to the F.D. to deliver the written incident report and as soon as I walked in, the union president informed said, “Dude, what are you doing here”? I said, “Dropping off this incident report; why”? He said, “You better get out of here quick because we were informed today that you weren’t allowed on the property and if you showed up, we’re supposed to call the police. I said, “Why”? He said, “I don’t know, Barrett told us today and hung a notice on the door.” The union president and his shift supervisor took me to the letter and pointed it out. The letter was posted on the door where the public enters the fire station.

29

I told them that the Fire Chief was retaliating since he’s been out of town and now knows that things aren’t over. The supervisor said, I’ll call the Chief and ask him what he wants me to do. I was upset but calm. He called the Fire Chief and Chief Barrett told him to call the police. He hung up and said he’s supposed to call the police. I said, “Well call them” and he did. I was peacefully escorted off property by Brookfield Police (the officer was also a part-time Brookfield Firefighter/EMT and my subordinate). July 25, 2007 Received letter in the mail from Chief Barrett banning me from property. Letter said; Ex. 23-A “For the safety of all parties concerned, you are prohibited from entering upon the premises of the township fire departments, station 18 or 51 until this matter is resolved. The letter does not specify what “matter” is being referred to. Could be the allegations I filed, the grievance or the safety threat made against me. July 27, 2007 Assist. Chief delivers response to 7/20 grievance hearing; now more FMLA violations. He advised that his decision was to make me go to both doctors, that contacted my physician’s office and sent her some forms to fill out and return (without my permission); he was placing me on FMLA leave and was retroactively applying it to June 28, 2007 (violation), etc… I called the U.S. Dept. of Labor’s Pittsburgh, PA Office and spoke with Judy Anderson. I explained the requirements that Assistant Chief Montgomery had made and action that he had taken regarding my grievance hearing. She informed me that there were multiple violations (which I was previously aware of). I told her that I’d rather not file charges with the DOL if I didn’t have to, and asked her that if I were able to convince the Assistant Chief to call her, if she would explain the laws and violations to him. I said that I hoped it would cause him to revoke the unlawful requirements and would eliminate the need for me to file charges. Ms. Anderson said that she would gladly explain the law to him if he called. She said that she could only advise him of his unlawful activity if he first tells her what he required and/or did, since she wasn’t investigating and since I hadn’t filed a charge. She said that if he inquires, she can answer his questions. I said that would be great and told her I’d try to convince him to call her. She said that since it was Friday and she would soon be leaving, to have him call Monday if he chooses. I called Assistant Chief Montgomery and left a message on his cell phone asking him to call me when he gets a chance. Shortly after leaving the message, Assistant Chief Montgomery returned my call. I told him that I reviewed his response and that there were even more FMLA violations.

30

Assistant Chief Montgomery asked me what violations there were; I told him that there were several but identified a couple. I told him that his having contacted and sent forms to my private physician was unlawful. He disagreed. I told him that retroactively applying FMLA leave was unlawful. He disagreed. I told him that the requirement that I get fitness-for-duty certification from my private physician and from the township’s physician was unlawful. I again explained that per FMLA and the union contract, the township had the right to require I see their physician on August 2, 2007, but not to get simultaneous fitness-for-duty from mine. He asked me if I was going to the appointment with the township’s physician, Dr. Lockward M.D., Psychiatrist. I said that just as I had the two previous appointments, and as I stated during the grievance hearing on July 20, 2007, I’d attend that appointment, but I would not get simultaneous fitness-for-duty from my private physician. I informed him of the conversation that I had just had with Ms. Anderson of the U.S. Dept. of Labor’s Pittsburgh, Pa Office, and asked that he call her Monday. I articulated that this phone call would likely yield acceptable results and would likely keep me from having to file FMLA Charges in order to be afforded protection. Assistant Chief Montgomery said that he had received advice from the Assistant Trumbull County Prosecutor (the township’s regular attorney) and that the decision were made based upon his recommendations. I told him that he was being given incorrect advice, or was misinterpreting the recommendations, since they were not lawful. He said that the township would continue to do what they were advised to do by the prosecutor, and that calling Ms. Anderson and the Dept. of Labor wouldn’t change the prosecutor’s position. I asked him if any action had been taken regarding the incident he and Randy Richman were involved in (threat). He said he spoke with the Chief about it and that the Chief said he didn’t feel any action was necessary. July 28, 2007 President Hughes came to my home to go over my outstanding grievances and just talk about things. While he was at my home, he admitted to me that in his opinion, the reason I was banned from the property was because Barrett had just got back into town, found out what evidence I had and was afraid I’d get more. July 29, 2007 I called Brookfield Police Chief, Daniel Faustino to inquire about the process of filing a police report. He was not in the office. I left a message asking that he contact me as soon as possible. I said that I wanted to file a police report regarding the incident involving the Assistant Chief and Randy Richman so that I had record of my concern for the safety of my family and I.

31

July 30, 3007 Marly Kazinski, reporter for the Tribune Chronicle Newspaper called and said she had just met with Chief Barrett and Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Phil Schmidt asked if she could come over to get my rebuttle to their comments. Expecting her, I agreed. I knew prior to this that she had scheduled a meeting with them. I wish she would’ve met with me first, but regardless, I didn’t want to lose a chance of rebutting. She arrived at my home at 1515 hours. She said that she had just met with Barrett and Schmidt. I showed her most of the evidence that I had to support my allegations and then rebutted their comments. She told me that Schmidt admitted that Chief Barrett was a convicted felon for Medicare Fraud and wasn’t allowed to be involved in billing, which is why they have an outside billing agency. He told her that Barrett has nothing to do with EMS, that it is my job. Phil Schmidt told her that I do a great job as EMS Operations Officer and that I’m the best Paramedic they have. He told her that that was the reason they didn’t promote me. He said they didn’t want to lose me in that position, and if I became A/C, they would. I asked Marly if that made any sense to her and she said, “Not really.” She said, “To be honest with you, they praised you and said you do a wonderful job. Schmidt gave Marly a copy of all of the letters that I’ve filed thus far. I rebutted and gave additional information. I told her that I knew he was a convicted felon but that I didn’t want to comment on it until I had more information. I told her that I was the third to come forward with allegations and the third to suffer this fate. I told her about the discrimination that occurred in September of 2006, showed her some of the things that I’ve accomplished there, and showed her much of the evidence I have to prove my allegations. She said that Schmidt and Barrett denied the allegations and said that I was just angry that I wasn’t promoted. July 31, 2007 I called the township chosen physician’s office to confirm the time of my psychological evaluation scheduled for August 2, 2007. This appointment would be the third township required appointment since July 10, 2007 (2nd with a township physician) since the first appointment (with Dr. Pecorelli, Ph.D) ended with Dr. Pecorelli refusing to do the exam at the advice of Sharon Regional Hospital’s Legal Department. Both Doctors practice at Sharon Regional Behavioral Health and are literally across the hall from one another. I spoke with Mrs. Debbie Morrin to confirm the time of the appointment.

32

I told her I’d be there a half hour early in case there was additional paperwork that needed completed. Chief Barrett calls for an Emergency Meeting to “discuss personnel issues.” Present are Chief Barrett and Assistant Chief Montgomery, with the board of trustees. Again, Assistant Chief Montgomery’s presence is in direct violation of Ohio Revised Code 4117.20, Prohibiting Conflict of Interest. In late July or late August; Chief Barrett posted a notice to all personnel that they were no longer permitted to take the ambulance to the store or to get food, he required that they bring their food to work. He also said that no ambulances were permitted to leave the township for any reason except calls. The union president told me that everyone blamed me for the fact that the fire chief was beginning to make the environment more and more unbearable and that he felt that it was timed intentionally to be just before I was expected to return to work. At one point, I was scheduled for a fitness-for-duty exam on August 2, 2007 and after being denied return, I was next expected to be released around the end of August. I recall the incident occurring just prior to one of my expected release dates but don’t recall exactly when. August 1, 2007 (3rd time within 24 hrs of a twp. Appointment that I receive a threat) I received a letter from the township trustees that threatened to stop my pay because the Asst. Chief told them I’m refusing to go to their doctor tomorrow and that I am using FMLA to avoid the appointment. The last two sentences of the letter addressed the allegations. This was the very first response I received from anyone after making oral and written allegations. The letter said; ”We find the allegations to be old news in that we were well aware of them. We find nothing unlawful or unethical. This opinion was shared in consultation with an Assistant Trumbull County Prosecutor.” That was it. Not one of them met with me and all of them refused to look at my evidence. They wouldn’t even speak with me over the phone regarding my allegations, yet they were able to come to this conclusion without any investigation. I called Assistant Chief Montgomery at the fire station to ask why he told the trustees what he did. I spoke with him briefly. He said that he didn’t tell them that and he can’t help how they took it. I told him he knew damn well what he said and how it would be perceived. He said that all he told Schmidt was that I said I wasn’t going to both appointments. I told him that the truth would come out eventually and that he knows exactly how whatever he said would be taken. I said that I was sure after he said whatever he said, that the trustees and chief responded with some type of statement or reaction. I said that he would’ve known then and there how it was taken. I called President Hughes and told him about the letter. President Hughes expressed his anger for the incident and said, “He knows damn good that you were going. You said it over and over.” I

33

told him that Hays claimed that the trustees must have misunderstood what he meant. Hughes said that he doesn’t believe it and that he was calling Hays himself. Hughes called me right back and said that he jumped Montgomery for telling the trustees what he did. He said he told Montgomery that he knew darn well that I planned on going. He said that Montgomery claimed that I made the statement while talking to him on his cell-phone on August 27, 2007, not during the grievance hearing of July 20, 2007. I told Hughes that that was a completely different story than he just told me. Hughes said he would make sure he told Schmidt when he saw him. Brookfield’s Police Chief Daniel Faustino called in response to my request to file a written police report about the physical threat, since the township refuses to take any action. I explained that I was in fear for my safety and that of my family. The police chief refused to let me file the report. He opined that the “Incitement of Violence” law only covered riots. I said told him that if that was what the law meant, that is what it would say, but it doesn’t. I recited the law verbatim; LAWriter 2917.01 Inciting to violence; (A) No person shall knowingly engage in conduct designed to urge or incite another to commit any offense of violence, when either of the following apply: (1) The conduct takes place under circumstances that create a clear and present danger that any offense of violence will be committed; (2) The conduct proximately results in the commission of any offense of violence. (B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of inciting to violence. If the offense of violence that the other person is being urged or incited to commit is a misdemeanor, inciting to violence is a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the offense of violence that the other person is being urged or incited to commit is a felony, inciting to violence is a felony of the third degree. I told the Chief that the law very explicitly says “person” which is singular, and that I strongly believe that the conduct took place under circumstances that create a clear and present danger that any offense of violence will be committed; I told him that given the circumstances and the nature of the cause for the statement, the fact that two employees voiced concerns about the hostility of the environment towards me, the fact that my union president took it as a serious concern, that people die or get hurt all the time for making charges against a governmental agency, and given the criminal history of the Respondent, I have every reason to believe that he made the statement believing that it needed to be done. I told the Chief that I was not asking that the actual charge be filed. I told him that on the answering machine. I said, “I don’t want to file charges, I just want a police report in case something were to happen to my family or I.” I told him that when I come back to work, it wouldn’t be very hard to decrease my likelihood of making it out of a fire.

34

I told the police chief that he may take it as a joke, or think it is petty, but so have many of those that were seriously injured or killed after making allegations of public corruption. I again asked if I could just file a report in case something happened, noting that the only reason I wanted to file the report was because the township refused to take any action against either party, even though it was an admitted event. The Police Chief said he’d check with the prosecutor but he didn’t see it being permitted. He said he’d call me back after he talks to the prosecutor. The police chief never called me back. August 2, 2007 Went to my appointment with the township chosen Psychiatrist, Dr. Lockward M.D. He determined that I was not fit-for-duty at this time and extended my leave through August 20, 2008. I was not fit-for-duty because the township had continuously retaliated and exacerbated my condition. Including the day before this appointment (with intent). Filed FMLA Retaliation Charges with the U.S. Dept. of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division. Had a union meeting at Jeff Younkins House (a full-time firefighter for another department) since I’m not allowed on the property. The group thought that I wasn’t coming (because I told President Hughes that I didn’t think I would be able to handle arguing with anyone), but I went anyhow. I decided that I have the right to defend myself and I wasn’t going to let any of them bring me down any more than I was already. During the union meeting I said, “Well guys, I have to admit something. I have to give credit where credit is due.” I said, “Much to my surprise, Assistant Chief Montgomery did something I didn’t think he would. He admitted man to man that he told Randy Richman about my allegations and admitted that Randy told him that he should, “Lay him (me) the f - - k out.” I said, “I really thought he’d play dumb and act like it never happened, but I guess I was wrong.” I told the group that on July 20, 2007 he admitted the entire incident to me (at the end of my grievance hearing). A/C Montgomery proudly looked at the group and said, “Hey, I’ll admit when I do something. I did it and I’m not going to lie about it.” I said, “I already know the answer to this but, for clarification, do admit that Richman said what I just said he did”? Montgomery said, “Ya, that’s what he said.” Gordon asked me what it was going to take to get me back to work. I said, you’re asking the wrong person. I told the group to remember that all I did was request one week of paid time off and that it was granted. That was over a month ago. I told him that all it would take is for the township to leave me alone, stop trying to block my return, stop harassing me and to stop discriminating. I told the group that it was obvious that the township was doing whatever necessary to prevent me from coming back to work. I said that they keep making my condition worse, and every time I think I’m starting to improve, they do something else to exacerbate me. I told them that one example was what happened “yesterday” August 1, 2007.

35

Captain Coffy spoke up and said, “You need to start trusting Hays.” He said, “He has fought for you and you need someone you can talk to.” He said, “He admitted he said it, obviously he’ll be straight up.” Coffy said that Montgomery wasn’t as against me as I think. Montgomery followed by telling me that he wasn’t as bad of a “guy” as I thought he was and that he was advocating for me more than I knew. He said that even though I didn’t know it, he saved my job. He said, “I talked the Chief and Trustees out of doing something pretty drastic to you.” I sarcastically said, “What, fire me? On what grounds”? He turned his palms up and shrugged his shoulders as if to say, “Well they were going to do it anyhow.” Just then Captain Coffy spoke up and said, “We won’t let that happen.” I said, “I appreciate that Dave, but in all honesty it’s not up to the union.” I told him that the township could fire any one of us this minute if they wanted to. I said that the union couldn’t do anything about it until it went to arbitration, and by then the average person would’ve lost everything. He said, “Ya, I guess you’re right.” I told the group that there were more things that happened initiating this whole thing than they’re being told. I said that I wasn’t going to involve them, but that if they had any respect for me, they’d know there was more to the story than what they were being told. I told Montgomery that I had a few things to say that were probably going to be offensive to him, but just like he “claims to be,” I’m “straight up too.” I reminded him that behind the “union doors” he has no officers position. I told him that all rank gets left at the door and that we are all on the same level ground. He said that he knew that. I told the group that Montgomery tried to deny my right to a grievance hearing, told them about his comments that he wasn’t going to change the chief’s decisions because he was too new and didn’t want to “step on any toes.” I told them that contrary to what they may think, in my opinion, Montgomery is just as conniving as the rest of the administrative, not only for those issues above, but also for what he told the township trustees and fire chief. I told them that on July 20, 2007, I had my grievance hearing and that during the hearing, I read every single applicable FMLA provision to him. I said that I gave him every tool he needed to justify his reason for “stepping on toes,” but in the end, he didn’t have the guts to do the right thing. I told them that he should have never sat in on the hearing in the first place because it was an “Unfair Labor Practice” per 4117.20, but since he did, the least he owed me as a “Brother” was a fair hearing. He said that he was very fair and that he did things by the book. I told him that I didn’t know what book he was using but it wasn’t a book published by the state or federal government. I told him that he violated FMLA worse after the hearing than the township did before it. I reminded him of our conversation on July 27, 2007. He still insisted that his decisions were in accordance with FMLA. I told him that I wasn’t going to argue, but that obviously he hadn’t because I called the U.S. Dept. of Labor’s Wage & Hour Division and filed a charge. I told him that they took the charge which means that it had merit. I told him that by taking the charge, it didn’t mean that I was right, but it meant that there was enough probable cause. I then told him that he knew as well as I did, that I knew that law like the back of my hand, and if I said it was a violation, it probably was.

36

I told him that we’d just have to wait until the DOL did their investigation. Meanwhile, I told the group that on July 31, 2007, Assistant Chief Montgomery intentionally lied to the township trustees (and either lied to the fire chief or the fire chief helped him come up with his story) but either way, the fact was that it happened. I told Coffy that he (Montgomery) didn’t have my back like he thought, because if he did, he would’ve never went out of his way to cause trouble. I asked Hughes (present for July 20, 2007 hearing) if I agreed to go to the township’s physician on August 2, 2007 or if I refused. Hughes told the group that several times, I said I WOULD go and that I even thanked him for making the appointment with an M.D. as I originally requested. I proceeded to tell the group that despite the fact that I ensured Montgomery several times that I WAS going to the appointment on August 2, 2007, he and Barrett told the township trustees (during an Emergency Session Meeting) held on July 31, 2007 that I refused to go. I told them that not only did they lie to the board by telling them I refused to go to their doctor, Montgomery told the board that I was just trying to use FMLA as a means of trying to avoid going to the appointment. I told them that in the end, I received a letter from the trustees (and noted that it was the first response I ever received), and that just like Barrett’s letters, this one also threatened to stop my pay for my refusal to go to an appointment that hadn’t even arrived yet. I told them that it was obvious that the township (chief, A/C and/or trustees) were intentionally sending me these threatening letters just before my appointments, knowing how damming they were to me. I said that they knew how sensitive I was right now, and that it didn’t take much to exacerbate my condition. I told them that the township’s efforts worked because the township’s doctor denied my return today. He said that I wasn’t fit-for-duty right now. I said that if I hadn’t of received that letter on August 1, 2007, I would’ve passed the exam. Montgomery changed his story a couple of times as I spoke. One minute he said that that wasn’t what he told the trustees. He said he couldn’t help how they took it. First he said that he told Schmidt that after the hearing, all he told Schmidt was that I said I wasn’t going to both appointments and that Schmidt took it wrong. I said, well wait a minute, you told Hughes that I refused to go when we spoke on August 27, 2007 (on his cell), not during the grievance hearing. I said, “Which is it Hays”? I said that it didn’t matter because the damage was done. I told him that he knows good and well what he told them, because we just spoke about it yesterday. I said that he should just let it go, what is done is done, but I wanted the union members to know that he was just as untrustworthy as the others. Captain Gordon, Captain Coffy and President Hughes later offered to give me some of their sickleave if I run out. I thanked them and said that was very kind, but that I had too much pride to use someone else’s time. I said, besides that, the township would never let it happen. Matt Gordon said, well they’ll do a lot more than you think if we stick together. I said, “I agree and I hope you guys remember that because it’s true.”

37

I left the meeting. August 6, 2007 Trustees still refuse to investigate any of my complaints (including allegations) so my wife attended the township’s public meeting and read allegations during the meeting, but not before being told “no” several times by the Chairman of the Board of Trustees after asking permission to read the letter. After being told that she wasn’t allowed to read the letter during the meeting demanded to know why. Schmidt just said he didn’t have to allow it. My wife asked them what they had to hide if they were so confident in their response to the allegations. He continuously told her that she was not permitted to read the letter. As she asked, Chief Barrett was on his cell-phone. He hung up from a call, looked at Schmidt (possibly signaling under the desk) and Schmidt finally said she could read the allegations but if she wanted to read them, she’d have to come in the front of the room, state her name and her address including city (he obviously wanted to highlight that she’s not a Brookfield resident). My wife obliged. My wife read the entire letter of allegations to the members present at the meeting. At the conclusion of the letter, she began to ask questions to the board. She asked several questions, but one was why they wouldn’t investigate. Schmidt said that they’ve known about the allegations and that they were all bologna. My wife noted that none of them ever looked at them or spoke with me. She asked several other questions (see wife’s written statement) including an inquiry as to why the township refused to take any action against the Asst. Chief and the other employee after I making several reports of a physical threat. Chairman Schmidt said he knew nothing about it. Blatant LIE. One of the Brookfield residents (Daniel Suttles) stood up and told the Chairman of the Board that this entire event was making him “uncomfortable.” He said that he felt these were issues that belonged behind closed doors and not in the public. He told the group that he was full-time firefighter for another city and that he just didn’t believe that these things should be brought up in a public meeting. My wife stood up and said, “They’ve been behind closed doors.” She said, “The they’re the ones that made it public.” She also said that after being “behind closed doors for years, nothing has happened, the allegations affect the tax payers, and she has every right to bring them out. My wife asked Chief Barrett why he refuses to hire females and African Americans. He said, “Your husband is the one that got rid of the last female we had.” My wife noted that as the lowest ranked Officer on the department, I have no power to fire. The last female was terminated after having her protocol suspended three times (at my suggestion) because of inferior patient care management only. In fact, this person suffered the exact same fate at other departments. Actually, I gave her three chances (more than anyone else) and personally providing hours and hours of remediation and assigning her as third person for 10

38

additional calls. Bottom line is that my decisions have nothing to do with sex or race, and regardless, I am not an elected official. I can’t hire and fire. Chief Barrett also said that we don’t get female applicants. My wife said, “Are you sure about that Chief”? He didn’t answer. She said, my husband knows females that have applied and weren’t even interviewed. Just as my wife sat down, Eric Gardner, the part-time Firefighter/EMT that was terminated for filing the anonymous letter stood up and asked, “Can you explain to me why it is okay to fire someone for voicing safety and health concerns and reporting criminal activity”? The board completely ignored his question and overtop of him, they made a motion to adjourn to Executive Session to “discuss personnel [me]). Schmidt smacked the gavel and the group walked out. One of the ladies from the public hollered to the Trustees (just before they exited their stage), “Hey, why aren’t you answering his question”? They ignored her as well. August 8, 2007 DOL Investigator has conference with Chairman of the Board of Trustees and Chief; during conversation, Chairman of Board of Trustees makes discriminatory assessment while providing his reason for denying additional paid leave; Per U.S. Dept. of Labor’s Report, “They reasoned that since complainant received another doctor’s note from his doctor on 07/09/07 extending his leave until 07/21/07 that they were not responsible for the additional time used after the initial doctor release date of 07/09/07. They further stated that no one knows for sure if the complainant would have actually returned to duty for his next tour of duty on 07/10/07 or if he would have returned to duty and had a relapse that would require him to see his doctor for additional time off.” The investigator advised that that is a subject that the DOL would not take a position on. By making this statement and assumption, my employer is verbalizing a discriminatory view and using it to justify their refusal to refund paid time they had taken. Also, by making this statement, they are acknowledging that in their mind, they view the need for my leave as being medically justified; so much so that not only are they requiring that I attend several appointments and get second opinions regarding my fitness-for-duty. But have gone as far as to assume that I’m medically unstable and for all they know, I might have had a “relapse while on duty.” But, at the beginning of the townships position statement to the EEOC, they rationalize that my leave was not actually medically necessary, rather it was a result of my being disgruntled about not getting a position and being told that I wasn’t even second choice. They also state that they were not aware of my “disability” until June of 2007, yet in grievance hearings and to the U.S. Dept. of Labor, they state that the reason they are making me get fitnessfor-duty is because I’ve been off for the same medical conditions several times in the past. Additionally, in the township’s position statement to the EEOC, they claim that I took one month of in September of 2006, not for medical reasons, but for being disgruntled after being passed over for promotion. They go as far as to allege that I told the fire chief that I was taking off because I didn’t get promoted. The township’s position changes each time a change would be necessary to cover-up their deceptive motives and actions. To the Dept. of Labor, the township focused on their great concern for my ability to perform the functions of my job, ultimately justifying their decisions to have me take additional steps prior to returning me to duty. But to the EEOC, the township

39

minimizes the possibility of my leave being medically indicated, rather that it is fueled because I’m disgruntled and essentially just trying to make trouble for the township. Which is it?

August 9, 2007 Fire chief and chairman of board of trust. lie to Fed. Investigator by telling her that prior to July 13, 2007 (the day I filed the first ever grievance [alleging FMLA violations] that neither of them had ever heard of FMLA), which is why they had no federal postings or FMLA policy (they had no state postings either). They also claim that the township has no employee handbook but promised that they will incorporate an FMLA policy as soon as one is completed, and they will attach a copy of the FMLA fact sheet to all paychecks August 18, 2008 paycheck stubs. They didn’t attach the fact sheets until the last pay of November. They also agreed to provide FMLA fact sheets to anyone taking FMLA leave. I never received one. The truth of the matter was that they did in fact have an employee handbook, though none of us knew it. They approved it by resolution during a township meeting and placed it in effect on April 2, 2007, but never disseminated it to any of the F.D. personnel. They did not reveal the existence of this handbook to the investigator. In the handbook, there was an FMLA policy as well as EEO. They intentionally lied and “played dumb” claiming they knew nothing of FMLA. August 10, 2007 My allegations were in newspaper. Chief Barrett and Chairman of the Board of Trustees, John P. Schmidt denied all allegations. Chief Barrett told the reporter that the township DID have a policy manual and that it was being updated. Just the day before, he told a federal investigator there was no policy. Chief Barrett also claimed that I was working on the “EMS portion” and that he and Assistant Chief Montgomery were waiting on my return to help with the “fire portion”. That directly conflicts with the township’s claims that they hired Assistant Chief Montgomery because he was the best “administrative candidate.” I’m not sure how being a career electrician made him a better “administrator.” I did in fact have EMS policies in place because I did my job. It was the lack of an employee handbook, SOP’s, Safety and Health guidelines, pre-plans and general township policies and procedures that we did not have Chief Barrett continuously ignored my complaints and concerns for the lack thereof. paper very much in chief’s favor. Claims my only motivation for making false allegations was that I was angry that I was passed over for Asst. Chief (one year ago). August 13, 2007 Filed request for FMLA Investigation Report under Freedom of Information Act.

40

August 14, 2007 Had grievance hearing on 2nd grievance (regarding physical threat and lack of action). Hearing was with the Fire Chief and union president. During the meeting, Chief Barrett admitted that neither of the two were contesting that they did what I said they did. He admitted that A/C Montgomery shouldn’t have told Richman and that Richman shouldn’t have told Montgomery. I reminded Barrett that Richman had already been written up a couple of times, was chronically late for work, was unprofessional (in actions and appearance), and was charged with DUI, placed in jail and permitted to come to work at Brookfield Fire Department as a Firefighter/Paramedic on a “work release” program. At the end of his F.D. shift, he’d go back to jail. Chief Barrett literally chuckled. I reminded him of George Beckley, part-time Firefighter/EMT getting his DUI, losing his drivers license, but was still permitted to work at our department and drive our equipment. I noted that NEITHER ONE OF THEM WERE REPRIMANDED ORALLY OR IN WRITITN and wanted to know why they were getting away with whatever they wanted. Chief Barrett said to President Hughes and I, “Beckley and Richman aren’t the only two on this department that got DUI’s and came to work.” I said, that’s something you’re proud of? I told him that their behavior was inexcusable and they should’ve been terminated immediately, especially since they’re not union. He had nothing to say. I reminded him that past part-time employee David Keiltsch was convicted of steeling from another fire department but was still hired for us. Then, after he was caught red handed with one of our Firefighter’s property, Barrett let him “off the hook without punishment.” I reminded him that over a year ago, two Firefighter/Paramedics (Lance Blair and Jeoff Koehn) had were placed on protocol probation and required to undergo remedial training for respiratory emergencies because of unprofessionalism and for poor patient care. The suspension was issued by our Medical Director, Dr. James DeAngelis. I reminded Chief Barrett that one year later, he still hadn’t told them that they were on probation and had remediation. I reminded him that his “buddy” Matthew Gordon has wrecked nearly every piece of apparatus on our department (literally), was late for work every shift for > three straight years, had an expired ACLS card and let his Paramedic certification lapse because “he forgot to re-certify,” yet not one oral or written reprimand. In fact, he was promoted to Captain (above me). I reminded him about the community service worker that we had doing his time at the fire station (approx. age was 18), and while he was there on day, we all went out on a call. When we got back, one of our personnel noticed that he was missing a shirt, a badge and his sweatshirt. A week or two later, the community service worker’s mom called the station and asked Chief Barrett when he hired her son, Christopher Whitney. Chief informed her that he didn’t hire him. She proceeded to tell him that Chris had been wearing a Brookfield F.D. uniform, complete with a badge, and telling his mother and friends that he was a part-time fireman at Brookfield F.D.

41

What did Barrett do? Rather than report his violations (impersonating a firefighter while on probation), Chief Barrett paid him a visit and ended up hiring him part-time. He hired him as a wheelchair van driver. Eventually, Chris would be fired for various acts. There are many, many more stories of some pretty serious crimes, or at leas of serious employment problems that Chief Barrett literally ignored (often laughing about them), yet against me, he is out for blood. Meanwhile, I’ve NEVER been arrested, I’ve Never been convicted of a crime, I have no driving record, no record at all. I’ve been on the department for many years and have NEVER been reprimanded orally or in writing. I went from Volunteer, to part-time, to full-time, to Safety Coordinator, to EMS Operations Officer, to Lieutenant, to getting fired because I make accurate allegations. Fired while still having a spotless employee record (after fighting all of their attempted discipline). August 18, 2007 I received Chief Barrett’s response to the above mentioned grievance hearing. He said; “In reference to your grievance that was heard on August 14, 2007, we will afford you the same safety as given to any other employee as outlined by the township policy manual and any other policies that are in effect. “ALL” employees are governed by the policy manual and the laws of the state. Ex 14 Chief Barrett states that I will be afforded the same safety as given to any other employee as outlined by the township policy manual and any other policies in effect, but after reading the “township policy manual,” it was realized that despite this assurance, the safety that I’m being afforded is quite contrary to the Chief’s response and to the “township policy manual.” According to the township policy manual, there were at least thirteen (13) provisions that were completely ignored, with not one of them being enforced (discovered on August 20) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Ex. 14-B (Part C) Ex. 14-C (Part E) Ex. 14-D (Part 100.02) and (Part B) Ex. 14-E (Entire Page) Ex. 14-F (Entire page) Ex. 14-H (Entire Page) Ex. 14-K (Part 900.04), (A), (B)(1), (2), and (3) Ex. 14-L (Part 100.08) Ex. 14-M (Part 900.06), (A) and (B) Ex. 14-N (Part 1000.01) Ex. 14-N 1 (Part 1000.02) Ex. 14-O (Part 1000.05), (F), (M), and (N) Ex. 14-O 1 (Last Sentence)

The fire chief has disregarded O.R.C. 2917.01 – Incitement of Violence. Ex. 14-S The fire chief has disregarded the safety provision within the collective bargaining agreement.

42

First and foremost, this was the very first time that I ever learned of a “township policy manual” and actually thought the chief was being facetious because the lack of a “fire department policy manual” was part of my allegations. I called the township clerk to inquire as to what manual he was referring to. She advised me that on April 2, 2007, the township passed a resolution to accept a new policy that Cones Assoc. made for the township. I asked her if it was actually in effect and if it affected fire department personnel. She said that it was put in affect that night (April 2, 2007) and that it affected ALL township personnel. She said that it wasn’t specific enough for each department, but that it provided general guidelines, all of which must be followed. I asked her when they hired the company to start the manual. She said it was either June or July of 2007. Thinking I was the only one that was unaware of these policies, I began to wonder if that one allegation was incorrect. I asked her to provide a copy. I called the union president and asked if he was aware of this “township policy manual.” He said, “No, I’ve never seen it or heard about it.” He then asked me if we really had one. I told him that the clerk said we did but that I hadn’t seen I yet. The clerk told me that she’d have it ready for pick up on August 20, 2007. Chief Barrett quoted a policy manual (purportedly holding me to the language within the policy) that had never been disseminated. August 20, 2007 (Caused Police Detectives to Be Sent to My Home) I submitted a written public records request to Brookfield Township Administration Building. Ex. 34-A This request (just like the one on September 15, 2006) caused the township to request the laptop computer back, but this time they’d send police instead of a letter. In the records request (knowing that the retaliation would continue), I requested records that would help uncover additional deceptive actions by Brookfield Township. Up to this point, I had already uncovered some deceptive activity. My request for public records was in accordance with the Ohio Sunshine Law, which makes it unlawful for the township to retaliate against me for making such requests. As part of the public records request, I requested a copy of policy manual that never disseminated. The township clerk provided a copy but not before charging me $13.60 for the manual. Ex. 34 I asked the township clerk if the policy manual had been approved and if it was in effect; she said “yes, it’s been in effect since April.” After reviewing the safety policy, it was obvious that the Fire Chief completely ignored the policy, even though he said I’d be afforded the safety that is outlined in the policy. The policy

43

states that anyone who makes or suggests a physical threat, regardless of whether it is made to or about another employee, shall be suspended as soon as safety permits and that they will remain on suspension until the incident is thoroughly investigated. The employee then faces punishment. This obviously never happened to either employee. Union President Raleigh C. Hughes and Ohio Association of Professional Firefighter’s 3rd District Vice President Michael Taylor met with Chief Barrett regarding my grievance but never informed me of the meeting. I spoke with Taylor and he informed me of the meeting that I knew nothing about. He informed me that the township was offering to restore 24 hours of my sick leave and that he feels I should take it. I said I wouldn’t because I was owed more than that and if I accept it, I’d lose my right to private cause of action per US DOL. He said that he thought the goal was to get me back to work and to put this stuff behind me. I said that it was. He said, “well obviously that’s not going to happen now.” He said that Barrett told him that that my wife read allegations at the public meeting and said, “That just added fuel to the fire.” During the meeting, Barrett told Taylor that my wife read allegations during a township meeting. Taylor responded, “So she just added fuel to the fire.” Barrett said, “Yes she did.” Barrett also told Taylor that the prosecutor met with himself and the board of trustees regarding my allegations. He told Taylor that the prosecutor concluded that nothing illegal or unethical took place and that the prosecutor would not pursue the allegations further. August 21, 2007 Spoke with Pres. Hughes about the meeting yesterday. I told him I knew nothing about it and was upset that they didn’t involve me in a meeting regarding my own grievance. I asked him if he overheard the above conversation (between Barrett and Taylor) and he said yes. I asked him what conversation took place and he said; During the meeting, Barrett told Taylor (OAPFF 3rd District Vice President) that my wife read allegations during a township meeting. Taylor responded, “So she just added fuel to the fire.” Barrett said, “Yes she did.” Barrett also told Taylor that the prosecutor met with himself and the board of trustees regarding the allegations. He told Taylor that the prosecutor concluded that nothing illegal or unethical took place and that the prosecutor would not pursue the allegations further. Brookfield Township Chairman of the Board of Trustees, John P. Schmidt sent a Brookfield Police Detective to my home to my home to confiscate laptop that was issued to me 3 yrs earlier; The detective, Pete Gibb, called Hubbard City Police Department (the city that I reside) and requested a Hubbard City Police Detective accompany him since he had no jurisdiction in Hubbard City.

44

He (Detective Gibb) and Hubbard City Detective, Sgt. Taafe came to my home. Gibb said he was there to retrieve the laptop computer that was issued to me years ago. I asked why they didn’t call or send a letter like they did in 2006 when the wanted it back (I was off for a month in 2006 and Barrett sent me a letter requesting the laptop; he gave me several days to return it [and I did]). He said he was just doing what he was told to do. My wife (a former Brookfield Police Officer) said, “And if he doesn’t give it to you right now”? Detective Gibb said they would probably have to charge me with theft of govt. property. Ex. 35 I asked the Hubbard City Police Detective if he knew why he was at my home. He said, “To assist Detective Gibb.” I said, “No, you’re here because I made allegations against the fire chief and despite all of their efforts, they’ve yet to back me down.” I said, “You’re here because of an intimidation tactic, and you just got stuck in the middle of it.” I didn’t give the laptop to them at that time. I told him that I happen to know that the fire chief purchased the computer on his personal credit card, and until I either get a request in writing, or the township proves that they own it, I wasn’t giving it to them. I told him it was now a civil matter and that I was protecting the fire chief’s property until proven otherwise. Ex. 35-A It was obvious that Detective Gibb was ordered to my home to confiscate the laptop because of the public records request that I filed one day prior (just as was done on September 15, 2006). This time however, they sent no letter, made no phone calls, they just showed up. Undoubtedly with malicious intentions and in hopes to find what evidence I had already compiled on the computer. The reality is this; As of this day, I had been off since June 28, 2007 (approx. 7 weeks). As you will notice on August 28, 2007, Brookfield Township would charge me with being absent without leave, after being cleared by my doctor to return to work on August 27, 2007, and for “failure to report off.” I was not cleared to return August 27, 2007 and the township knew that I wasn’t, yet they alleged that they (the fire chief and trustees) had expected me to be at work on August 27, 2007. When I just “never showed,” they filed disciplinary charges. If their reason for sending police to my home to retrieve the laptop was for the reason stated in the township’s position statement made to the EEOC, which was that the laptop was being ordered returned because being on sick-leave, I had no use for it and the fire department wanted it to conduct normal business, why would they wait 7 weeks to have it returned? And, why would they demand it be returned just six days before I was expected to return to work? They wait 7 weeks and six days before they claim they thought I’d be back at work, they send police to my home. Why did the actually do it this day? Because the day before, I made a public records request that left no question what I was seeking (which according to state law is my right) and my request should’ve been without retaliation. August 22, 2007 Assist. Chief calls me approximately 45 minutes before the administration building closes and orders me to deliver computer to the administration building by 1600 hours. Ex. 35-B I told him that the township could have the computer if I get it in writing and that he’d have to send one of the employees to my home to get it because I didn’t have time to drive to Brookfield to deliver it. I told him that I had things to do but my wife would be home if someone came to

45

get it. I told him that the police were not welcomed on my property unless they had official business, and that the computer wasn’t “official business,” it was a civil matter. I told him that I was well aware of the reason they sent police to my home unexpectedly, and that I was threatened with criminal charges for having property that was issued to me. I said my attorney and I interpret it as an intimidation tactic. I told him the same thing I told Detective Gibb the day before, which was that I would not relinquish the computer unless I get a written request, since to my knowledge, Chief Barrett owns the laptop personally. I told him that I had personal knowledge that Chief Barrett purchased the laptop on his own private credit card, and therefore, I felt compelled to protect his property. The Fire Chief was out of town (as usual). I told him that if the township wanted the laptop, all they had to do was make a quick written request so that if something were to happen to it, I’d have proof that I was ordered to give it to the township. I told him that absent a written request, it would remain a civil matter until the fire chief returns and makes a personal request. Ex. 35-A Assistant Chief Montgomery said he’d forward the message. Filed request with township clerk to stop my “direct deposit” because I was no longer banking at the institution of record and hadn’t chosen a new bank yet. August 23, 2007 Laptop delivered to the fire department. Later this day, after he received a letter informing him that the intimidation tactics were exacerbating my condition, disrupting my family and were not welcomed, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, John P. Schmidt threatens to send police back to my house. In the letter, I also stated that no Brookfield Township personnel (police or fire) were not permitted on my property without prior authorization. Ex. 36 Filed request with township clerk to stop my “direct deposit” because I was no longer banking at the institution of record and hadn’t chosen a new bank yet. There is no provision within the collective bargaining agreement that requires direct deposit. Ex. 37 August 24, 2007 I received the FMLA Investigation report. It confirmed multiple violations and stated that my allegations of FMLA retaliation were substantiated. Ex. ______ Spoke on local news from home regarding matters of public concern. Chief out of town. In response, Trustee Schmidt stated that I was just upset about being passed over the Asst. Chief position. He again said that the township trustees found my allegations to be old news, that they’d spanned over a few year period and that they didn’t feel an in depth investigation was necessary. After being asked by the reporter if it were true that the tax payers had to foot the bill to send the Asst. Chief to school since he lacked training, Schmidt said, “yes.”

46

But went on to tell a blatant lie right on the news by stating that the Assistant Fire Chief is a Paramedic. He is not a Paramedic. He never has been. August 27, 2007 (Barrett’s first day back to work) Barrett Back in Town (post news report); he called for emergency meeting. August 28, 2007 Trustees and chief meet in emergency session to approve my suspension.

August 29, 2007 Received suspension letter pending pre-termination hearing. I was suspended without pay for “misconduct for making inaccurate allegations of wrong doing”, “insisting that fire department personnel are engaged in criminal activity which is adversely affecting the operations of the fire department”; two counts of insubordination for failure to return the laptop. Count one was insubordination for refusing to give the laptop to the police detective and count two was for “telling the Asst. Chief no” after being ordered to deliver the laptop. They also included that I failed to return to work on August 27, 2007 after being released by my doctor (covered up the extension they received) and for failure to report off to a supervisor. Not only did they cover-up the letter, they obviously forgot that they sent me a letter in July ordering me to stay off the property, had me police escorted off the grounds, and never sent me a letter or called me to lift the ban. In the letter and newspaper, the township was caught trying to cover-up a letter they received from my Dr. extending my leave. They said they never received it, but it was later proved that they had in fact received it and covered it up to add it to the list of 7 disciplinary charges. I called Mike Taylor as per Hughes’ instructions to find out what I needed to do. During the conversation, Taylor said, “See, if you would’ve just taken the 24 hours they offered in the first place, you wouldn’t be in this boat right now.” I explained that the 24 hours had nothing to do with this suspension and that accepting it wouldn’t have changed anything. I explained that this was the culmination of several attempts to retaliate and that it was also because I spoke on the news about my allegations. Taylor said that he doesn’t understand why I don’t just let the allegations go. He said that the prosecutor already said nothing illegal happened and that he wouldn’t pursue the case anyhow. I informed Taylor that that was none of his business or concern; and that before he comes to such a conclusion about the validity of my allegations (since apparently now he is interested in them) that he should at least hear both sides of the story. I told him that I didn’t care about the prosecutor (who never spoke with me much less look at any evidence) because I went above him. Taylor then said he didn’t want to hear anymore. I said, well you certainly didn’t mind listening to Barrett’s side and even commenting on it at an inappropriate time.

47

August 30, 2007 My suspension and all 7 charges were put in newspaper (township informed them of the suspension); trustee lies in newspaper. Having listed the charges in the newspaper (and all 7 of them later being dropped on lack of merit) is libelous in my opinion. I found Supreme Court Ruling in which another Firefighter contended that his disciplinary action (put in the paper) was libelous since he was exonerated. August 31, 2007 Clerk refuses to pay me. Chrissy went to Safety Night. She put the evidence of my allegations in the back of the Jeep, opened the hatch, put signs on the Jeep and as people would walk up to inquire, she’d hand them a flyer and offered to let them look at the evidence personally. She was peaceful. September 4, 2007 Myself, the union president and vice president met with the attorney regarding my suspension hearing scheduled for Sept. 10, 2007. While at the attorney’s office, union pres. tells union attorney that the fire chief told him earlier this day that they should’ve done this to me last year so that I would be out of time and gone by now. September 6, 2007 I called and asked for a copy of the police report from Detective Gibb coming to my home. Police Chief Faustino admits no police report was done. Detective Gibb said he was writing one when Chief told him not to. He said he knew “the whole thing was bad news from the start” and that he didn’t want involved. He said he was just doing what he was ordered to do. September 7, 2007 3rd Dist. V.P. called and said trust. wanted to offer severance package. I told to forget about it and that there would be no reason to bring it up again. I told him that the township was trying to “sever” the wrong person. September 8, 2007 While my wife and others were delivering flyers about various acts of corruption in Brookfield someone sent the rescue truck and ambulance out to remove them. They followed and took them. September 10, 2007 Had pre-term. Hearing / all 7 charges dropped for lack of merit.

48

At the start of the hearing, the township’s attorney (Assistant Prosecutor) said that my allegations were becoming a problem and that if they continued, we’d end up right back in another pretermination hearing. I told him I’d stop making allegations as soon as the township stopped breaking the law. In addition to the charges being dropped, it was agreed in writing (transcribed) that I’ll remain on sick-leave and they’ll continue to deduct from my accrued leave until my physician (who is now Dr. Lockward M.D. [the doctor that the township sent me to on August 2, 2007]) clears me to return to work. At such time, the township will place me on paid admin. leave and send me to another doctor for a second opinion (even though my doctor is the same doctor that the township sent me to on August 2). The agreement was that I’d remain on paid admin. leave until the township’s doctor clears me to return, or if there’s a dispute, that it gets resolved in arbitration. At the end of the meeting, the prosecutor advised me that if I speak about the meeting or tell anyone about the results of the hearing, he’ll charge me with a crime. He said that the meeting was held in Executive Session so he could charge me subsequently. The media was waiting outside (same reporter that did the report on August 24, 2007 that was very much in my favor). Obviously they didn’t want anyone to know that all charges were dropped and I was given back pay because all charges and my suspension lacked merit. When the prosecutor spoke on the news, he told the public that we came to an agreement, neither side admitted fault, and both sides were happy with the outcome. A ridiculous statement. September 11, 2007 Sharon Herald newspaper prints story after talking to township trustees and the fire chief; w/out speaking to me. Despite the supposed “gag order” the trustees and chief made sure they had their side of the story told. This was planned from the beginning. Put a gag order on me and in the meantime, the township tries to do damage control by continuing to make me appear as a disgruntled employee. In the paper, Schmidt claimed they did a “thorough investigation” and that every allegation was found to be false. September 14, 2007 Deliver WH-380 to twp. September 19, 2007 Delivered letter to union but it ended up in hands of trustees and fire chief. September 21, 2007 My dr. sends a letter to Barrett clearing me after Oct. 4, 2007. October 2007 The fire department began circulating flyers to the public asking for their support in passing the fire department’s levy that is on the November ballot.

49

In the flyer, the fire department stated that they needed the additional funding because they needed to purchase another ambulance, hire one full-time Paramedic and for general operations. The flyer boasted a call volume of 3,000 calls per year with approximately 85% being EMS. 3,000 calls was an overestimate and a very misleading number. Brookfield F.D. averages approximately 1400 emergency (911) calls per year between fire, EMS and other. Of those calls, at least 85% are EMS, or (1190). In addition to the approximated 1300 emergency calls per year, Brookfield EMS runs approximately 300 non-emergency EMS transports (NOT REQUIRING A PARAMEDIC) via ambulance. Brookfield F.D. also has one wheelchair van (ambulette) and one wheelchair van driver. He works approximately 40 hours per week (M-F 8a – 3p). The wheelchair van averages approximately 800 transports per year. None of these transports require and “ambulance” or a “Paramedic.” These transports are completely unrelated to EMS. They are transports of patients from home to doctors appointments and back. They are essentially transports of patients that do not need an ambulance or a medical crew, they just essentially need a ride and are wheelchair bound. To count any of the wheelchair transports in a figure that is given to the public as a “sales pitch” to try and justify the need for an EMS levy is flat out fraudulently deceptive. This is exactly what Brookfield did by circulating this flyer. Essentially, an “ambulance” is needed approximately 1500 times per year (at best), and of those 1500 ambulance calls (1200 being emergency calls), approximately 900 (75%) would require a Paramedic. The flyer that was circulated in attempts to deceive the public enough that they’d pass an EMS levy overestimated our EMS calls by nearly 1,000 calls per year. October 3, 2007 Chief sends me a letter acknowledging the release date of Oct. 4 & orders me to schedule an appointment with the twp. physician, Dr. Altman D.O. I scheduled the appointment with Dr. Altman’s office. Appointment is scheduled for October 18, 2007 and will be with an intake specialist (required before being scheduled with Dr. Altman himself). Township stops deducting sick-leave and places me on paid administrative leave as per 9/10/07 agreement. REFER TO THE LETTER OF JULY 12, 2007! Twp. doesn’t deposit my check due on pay-day (Oct. 3). This was an act to intentionally exacerbate my condition since I am scheduled to see my Dr. tomorrow, October 4, which will confirm that I am released to return to work.

50

This marks the 3rd attempt to exacerbate my condition, hoping that it will cause me regress enough that the doctor will not clear me to return. October 4, 2007 Attended appointment with Dr. Lockward today. My physician (Dr. Lockward M.D.) clears me to return to work. October 5, 2007 Finally received my pay; the day after fitness for duty exam; intentional (two days after pay day). October 7, 2007 Father air lifted to Pittsburgh in critical condition. My sisters and I went to Pittsburgh to be with my father. Doctors informed us that my father’s chances of surviving are poor. He was on a ventilator and remained critical. October 8, 2007 In light of the development with my father, I called President Hughes, explained that my father had been air lifted to UPMC Presbyterian Hospital in Pittsburgh and that he was in critical condition. I told him that his prognosis was very poor and that doctors did not expect him to survive. I told him that I planned on staying in Pittsburgh until such time as my father’s condition improves or he succumbs to his illness. I told him that either way, it would be very difficult for me to make the appointment that was scheduled with the township physician’s intake specialist on October 18, 2007. I asked that he call Chief Barrett to inquire if I may cancel the appointment that I scheduled for October 18, 2007 with the township physician’s office, after explaining the circumstances. President Hughes called me back to tell me that he spoke with Chief Barrett regarding my request to cancel the October 18, 2007 appointment that was scheduled with the township physician’s office. He advised that Chief Barrett agreed to let me cancel the appointment, but noted that by canceling it, the township will stop my paid administrative leave for failing to attend the required township appointment. Even though Chief Barrett had never stopped paying any other employee for missing or leaving work under such circumstances, and has let Captain Gordon take days off, come in late and leave early to be with his ailing mother, without stopping his pay and without deducting any of his accrued leave (giving him “free” time off), I was in no position to raise a complaint of discriminatory / retaliatory treatment, even though it was obvious. I accepted since I had little choice. I called and cancelled my appointment for October 18, 2007, and in light of the fact that the township was going to stop my pay on that date, I re-scheduled the appointment for October 21, 2007. Because of the Fire Chief’s lack of empathy and the disparate treatment, I was forced to reschedule right away because I couldn’t afford the loss of pay.

51

I called President Hughes back and advised him that I cancelled the October 18, 2007 appointment, and that I re-scheduled for October 21, 2007. He said he’d advise the Chief, and he did. October 18, 2007 I sent a request for reasonable accommodations to chief Barrett and trustees. The township stopped my paid administrative leave for missing the required appointment with the township physician’s office. October 21, 2007 I attended the re-scheduled township appointment with the intake specialist. At the conclusion of my appointment with the intake specialist, I was scheduled to see Dr. Altman D.O. for November 14, 2007. The township reinstated my paid administrative leave since I had fulfilled the requirement that I attend this appointment. I only lost one day of pay (no one else would have lost a minute though). October 22, 2007 Chief denies reasonable accommodations in writing; no offer to meet or discuss them with me. October 24, 2007 Sent another request for accommodations. Never received a response. October 25, 2007 Chief receives pay raise and trustees still refuse to investigate allegations. October 26, 2007 Sent a third request for accommodations certified mail; again no response. October 27, 2007 FD receives 3rd attempt to request accommodations; still no response. October 30, 2007 US Office of Inspector General Special Agent calls me. October 31, 2008 My wife sits outside a fire department function (safety night) with evidence of allegations (since trustees have denied all of them and said that not one were true). She handed out flyers outlining

52

the corruption, mismanagement, theft, etc. that the township was engaged in. She generated a considerable amount of interest. She was confronted by one of the firefighter’s wives but my wife shut her down quickly. November 5, 2007 Trustees approve a resolution to hire Cone Consulting to make job descriptions; We never had job descriptions in the past; The new collective bargaining agreement that was signed approx. 6 wks from now (Dec. 28, 2007) would explain why they suddenly wanted job descriptions. November 9, 2007 Supervisor calls and says we have to get some things straight before I return. He complained about my wife sending flyers, about my grievances, about my being on the news, etc. He admits that chief and A/C have everyone convinced that I’m “crazy.” November 14, 2007 I attended the appointment with the township’s physician, Dr. Altman D.O. for a psychological evaluation. This marks the fifth appointment that I’ve had to attend at Brookfield Townships request. Dr. Altman (like Dr. Pecorelli on July 12, 2007) refused to do the exam. He stated that he wouldn’t do the exam until after he receives my medical records from both Dr. Lockward and Dr. Pecorelli, and not until he has the opportunity to review them. He advised that I needed to request them and return them to his office. He said that once he has reviewed them, his office will contact me to schedule and appointment. I called President Hughes and informed him of the results of the appointment. Chief Barrett was on vacation, but Hughes informed Assistant Chief Montgomery and I emailed Chief Barrett with the same. After returning from township doctor, I received a letter from chief telling me not to go to this appointment because the letter they received on Sept. 21 that cleared me for October 4, 2007 didn’t clearly release me (nearly 2 months after getting the letter) and after sending me confirmation that they received a letter from my Dr. clearing me for October 4, 2007, they wait until the day before the appointment to send the letter. I received it after I got home from appt. The letter said that I am not to go to their physician until I get a better letter with a more clear release date. November 16, 2007 Filed initiated charge of discrimination and retaliation with EEOC. November 20, 2007 Informed union president that I filed charges w/ EEOC against township.

53

November 27, 2007 Received letter threatening to stop my pay again; received another notice that I’m still not permitted on property. The letter said that I must have a better letter from my doctor, with a more clear release date, delivered to the Fire Chief by December 3, 2008 (payday). November 29, 2007 Picked up my medical records from both Dr. Pecorelli and Dr. Lockward, but didn’t deliver them because I was ordered not to go to township’s doctor. November 30, 2007 Called US DOL W/H investigator to notify her of the continuing retaliation. She stated she couldn’t re-open the charge, but she called Chief Barrett. It’s unknown what they talked about. Prior to December 3, 2007 My Dr. calls and leaves message for fire chief to call him so that he can tell my dr. exactly what he expects or wants; Per Dr. Lockward, Chief Barrett never returned his call. December 3, 2007 My doctor provides another letter identifying October 4 as my release date, as required by chief Barrett. The letter says; “I understand there may be miscommunication or a misunderstanding about the date that I cleared Brian to return to work. As per my letter of September 21, 2007, I cleared Brian to return to work Effective October 4, 2007. I’ve included a copy of that letter in this fax transmission.” After getting letter that was required, trustees and chief met in executive session and chose to suspend my pay anyhow, but changed the stated reason. December 5, 2007 Receive letter informing me that my pay was suspended retroactively to Dec. 1, 2007 even though the Chief acknowledged that he received the letter on December 3, 2007 as he required. He said the letter still doesn’t meet township standards (there are none) and that I failed to deliver my medical records to their doctor. But on November 14, 2007 I received a letter from Barrett ordering me not to go to their physician until he receives a “better letter from my physician” and as it stands, he still states he isn’t satisfied. This was a very serious intentional infliction of emotional distress upon my family and I, and it was premeditated. They were going to stop my pay regardless of what I did. The township’s actions prove a blatant premeditated plan to inflict severe financial and emotional distress upon my family and I during the holidays, and marks the easiest way for the township to retaliate against both my wife and I. It worked. I filed an immediate grievance.

54

This pay suspension was in direct violation of our transcribed agreement of September 10, 2008 assuring me that I would remain on paid admin. leave until released by the twp. physician. December 7, 2007 My doctor sends the fire chief a letter urging him to provide as many of the accommodations that I’ve requested but Barrett ignored letter; no response was ever received. This was the 4th request for reasonable accommodations. December 14, 2007 Union attorney calls and tells fire chief that suspending my pay for the reason he claims was valid is egregious and in violation of Sept. 10 agreement. December 13, 2007 FBI Agent and US OIG Special Agent to my house to review my allegations and evidence; FBI began invest. Brookfield Twp. for public corruption and OIG investigating for Medicare Fraud. December 17, 2007 Township doctors office admits even if I would have delivered my medical records any sooner, I wouldn’t have been scheduled any sooner because the doctor was out of the Office for the last 3 wks of December, so those patients took up the first three weeks of January. I was scheduled to see their doctor on January 22, 2007. December 18, 2007 (hearing on tape) Had grievance hearing regarding pay suspension; The Fire Chief scheduled the hearing for payday, after payroll had already been issued (and I wasn’t paid) so regardless of outcome, I still wouldn’t receive pay before Christmas. I pleaded with the Chief to reinstate my pay before Christmas for 2 reasons. I have a 2 ½ year old daughter waiting for Santa My father (dying of cancer) was having a major surger (took 14 ½ hours) on December 26, 2007 and the doctors were only giving him a 20% chance of surviving the surgery. I told him that I had no money for gas or a hotel (surgery in Pittsburgh) and needed paid so that I could be with him before he goes into surgery. I told Barrett I was participating in a criminal investigation.

55

December 20, 2007 Union V.P. admits the Chief told him they have no plans to provide accommodations. December 27, 2007 I received letter in the mail stating my pay was reinstated Dec. 22, 2007. This was a blatant egregious act because they reinstated my pay before Christmas but waited until 2 days after to tell me. And, note that I asked for my pay because my father had surgery on the 26th. The Chief waits until the 27th to tell me. He intended to cause emotional suffering (which he did). December 29, 2007 Amended EEOC Charges to include failure to accommodate and fail to promote x2 which was accepted after I proved equitable tolling and equitable estopel. The tolling was accepted because Brookfield Twp. never had a single state or federally required poster or policy (including EEO policy) so I didn’t know I was even covered by ADA until August of 2007 (after union attorney told me). The lack of any postings or policies can be verified in the Dept. of Labor W/H Investigation Report. January 18, 2008 Received copy of new retaliatory contract; my position was removed from the contract. The light duty policy was changed from being previously guaranteed for six weeks as long as a physician said we needed it, to being up to the fire chief. The leave of absence policy (that until now has NEVER been changed or even brought up in any other negotiation) was changed from having to have 5 full time years to request six months of leave, and it said, “No reasonable request shall be denied” and “a good faith effort will be given to approve the leave.” To the new language that required Completion of 10 full-time years in order to request 3 months off. The part that offered a “good faith effort to approve” and the part that said, “No reasonable request shall be denied” was removed. I have 9 2/3 years full-time and leave is now changed to 10 years. Approximately January 20, 2008 Informed union pres. That I was filing EEOC Charges against union and second set of charges against twp. for discriminatory/ retaliatory contract. January 22, 2008 I attended appointment with township physician (5th township appointment) and was given a psychological exam.

56

The township’s physician (Psychiatrist) disagreed with my Psychiatrist and said he didn’t feel I should be released to return because of the medication I’m on. He also said that when he does release me, it won’t be without accommodations. I informed him that the township has refused to have any dialogue with me regarding accommodations. January 23, 2008 The township’s physician sent Chief Barrett a letter informing him that he didn’t think I should be re-evaluated for 60 – 90 days and stated in the letter that my disability was caused from exposure to work circumstances and from incidents relating to my job description. I called Attorney Haines to inquire about what I should do regarding the dispute. I asked if I should file a grievance. He said that I shouldn’t do anything until they take some adverse action. He said I should await instructions regarding the township’s intentions. January 25, 2008 Terminated from STAT MedEvac because they could not extend my leave any longer. February 6, 2008 Fire Chief withheld my $600 uniform allowance (never been withheld from any other employee at any other time, regardless of their leave status) and there’s nothing in the contract permitting it. Filed grievance for unilaterally withholding my vacation time and uniform allowance. It was either this day or a day very close to this day that I spoke with Attorney Haines regarding my hearing set for February 20, 2008. He said that it was not set in stone yet. I asked him if I should file a grievance regarding my reasonable accommodations request and he said, You’ve already gotten a response, I’ll see about adding it to the issue to be arbitrated on Feb 20, 2008. Again, unsure what day exactly, but prior to Feb. 20, 2008, Haines called me and advised that he wasn’t satisfied with the letter from my physician regarding the reasonable accommodations request. I asked me to get a better letter that specifically outlines the reasonable accommodations by the doctor. I asked him who was requiring this, him or the township. He said that it was him. He said that he had not discussed it with the township yet. I explained why the physician wrote the letter the way he did and that they already have a very specific outline of my requested accommodations. I also commented that it was counterproductive for my own union to make me get further documentation that the township hasn’t even asked for or questioned. I stated that according to ADA, if the township wants further clarification on the need or type of accommodations, it is up to them to ask for it. If they don’t, then it would be fair to presume that they understand the request. I explained that they have not sent any such requests after having received the letter from my physician on December 7, 2007.

57

Attorney Haines called my physician (again, not sure of the date) and spoke with him regarding a “better letter.” My physician (per my physician) explained the rationale behind his wording of the letter and the rationale was the same rationale I gave him. He called me back immediately after speaking with my Dr. and said that he would not take the issue to arbitration. He said that he wasn’t satisfied with the letter so he wasn’t going to argue it in front of an arbitrator. He advised me to pursue it with EEOC (I advised him that I had already filed the charge). February 8, 2008 I sent a notice to Barrett asking that he provide instruction regarding the dispute between their physician and mine. I requested they determine what I need to do so that we can begin collaborating my return. Never received a response. February 12, 2008 Filed grievance for unilaterally withholding my sick-leave accrual. February 16, 2008 Got evidence of trustees giving out my protected info to public; informed union president of violation; Union president Informed me of settlement offer that the township proposed to the union which included; Reinstatement of my vacation and sick time, paying me for the 3 wk December pay suspension, and still withholding my uniform allowance; in exchange, they want to void the September 10, 2007 agreement, put me on a 90 day leave of absence because the township physician has determined that I am not fit for duty, and that they would be retroactively apply the leave of absence to January 15, 2008; apply the sick and vacation time they give me to fund my days off from January 15, 2008 until hours are exhausted which would be February 26, 2008; and would keep me on unpaid leave until April 15, 2008. If I cannot come back completely unrestricted and without the need for accommodations by April 15, my employment will officially be terminated effective April 15, 2008 at 2300 hours. But, the vacation time that I am being given would have to be paid back to the township if I don’t come back unrestricted and without accommodations by April 15, 2008 because I don’t actually earn the vacation until my anniversary date in May. Vacation is given by the calendar year, but if employment is terminated prior to the anniversary date, employee has to pay back any used vacation. If the settlement is approved by the union, my vacation time would have been applied to January 15, 2008 without my having a choice in the matter, and I’d be forced to pay it back. Additionally, the reason they want to terminate my employment in April is because I will have my 10th full-time year completed in May and would be vested in my vacation. More blatant egregious terms and conditions.

58

The last sentence of the agreement promises that by accepting this proposal, the township agrees not to let this agreement have any precidental value over the contract. Basically, it promises that I will be the only employee to have to endure this type of termination (discrimination). The Union President told me that the members plan to approve this settlement on the advice of the OAPFF 3rd District V.P. and Union Attorney’s advice. In a conversation held on March 14, 2008, President Hughes stated that this day was the very first time and day that he had learned of the proposed settlement. He stated he was driving in his car when Attorney Haines called him to inform him. He said he pulled over into 717 parking lot and wrote down the offer. Per Hughes, the matter was discussed between Chief Barrett and himself, as well as between other bargaining members and the Chief. He also stated that the union discussed it at the next scheduled union meeting February 17, 2008 Sent response to union urging them to deny settlement agreement; informed union that I was preparing EEOC Charges and Charges with SERB. February 19, 2008 3rd Dist. V.P. calls and harasses me, said that the he told the members that this was a fair deal and that they should take it. I asked why if it was so fair, they put the condition that it wouldn’t have any precedence over any other member in the future? He continued to harass me on the phone until I hung up on him. He also stated that he felt the union has bent over backwards for me and he didn’t know what else I wanted from them. He said, “you want reasonable accommodations but your own doctor admits that you don’t need them.” I asked him if he spoke with my Dr. and he said no. I said, “How do you know what my Dr. said”? He said he spoke with Haines. I told him that Haines had miserably misinterpreted the letter from my physician and that wasn’t my fault. I asked him if Haines quoted my physician as saying that I do not need accommodations. He said that he didn’t know what was said, just that Haines told him that my physician didn’t feel they were necessary. Pres. Hughes advised me that my grievance hearing scheduled for Feb. 20, 2008 was cancelled and no arbitration was ever actually scheduled. He said that the hearing was cancelled in light of the proposal. February 20, 2008 Union president told me that the union was meeting at the attorney’s office on Monday to decide on proposal but that I was not permitted to attend. He called me back and said that Haines said I’m not permitted to attend because it was a closed meeting. I told him to ask Chief Barrett if he would permit light duty.

59

February 21, 2008 Union pres admits that guys are upset because I said I was filing EEOC and SERB charges and are expected to approve proposal, partially because of that reason. President Hughes said that if I can get a letter from my physician that releases me without restriction and without need for any accommodations, Chief Barrett said I could return without seeing their Doctor again. But; If I want to apply for light duty, I’d have to get released by the township physician first (double standard). I asked why and he said that they wanted to be able to speak uninhibitedly and say what’s on their mind before voting, and that if I was present, it would cause them to be reserved and not say what they wanted to without feeling inhibited because I was there. He said that the guys felt intimidated by me because I threatened to file charges with EEOC, SERB and because I keep quoting laws that are being violated. February 22, 2008 Hughes told me that he asked the guys again, and this time they said I could attend. Filed letter to union urging them to read the grievances that I filed with trustees and chief, and urged them not to sign the agreement. Filed Grievance; request with trustees to move the following grievances to step 2 because of the canceling the step 1 hearing that was scheduled for Feb. 20, 2008 at 0900 am to discuss; 1. Miscalculated Carryover and Unilateral Terms and Conditions of Article 24 - Sick Leave and straight time hours that would’ve normally been applied (while on paid admin. Leave). 2. Unilateral Terms and Conditions of Article 13 – Vacation 3. Unilateral Terms and Conditions of Article 15 – Uniform Allowance Filed grievance; filed an unfair labor practice grievance with Barrett regarding the township’s proposal to the local offering settlement agreement; I am grieving the proposed settlement offer presented to Local 3443, International Association of Firefighters that was drafted by Brookfield Township in response to the following outstanding grievances; 1. 2. 3. 4. Three (3) week pay suspension of December 2007. Unilateral terms and conditions regarding contractual Vacation Leave Unilateral terms and conditions regarding contractual Uniform Allowance Unilateral terms and conditions regarding accrued sick leave award and the miscalculation of carryover.

February 25, 2008 I called Hughes after the meeting to inquire as to whether they signed or not.

60

He said that they had all agreed and signed. I told him I didn’t go to the meeting because I was up all night as usual, and since I wasn’t welcomed, I had concerns about whether I’d be able to handle the stress related to the meeting. I told him again that I was filing against the township and union with SERB and EEOC. I explained that I was going to file with SERB after I get a copy of the signed agreement, and with EEOC after April 15, 2008. Hughes again advised that I could avoid “all of this” if I just get a letter from my physician stating that I can return without the need for accommodations and without restrictions. February 29, 2008 Went to administration building to pick up records that I requested twice over the past 2 wks and still didn’t get them. I asked the clerk if I could publicly inspect them (would only take a few minutes) and she said “no you can’t.” I said, “you know that what I’m asking for is a record that is required to be disclosed upon request don’t you”? she said, “Yes, I know but you’re going to be getting a letter about that real soon. We’re waiting to hear from the attorney.” They are trying everything they can to keep me from looking at the requested records. Received letter from Barrett stating that he investigated my complaint that my private information was released by the township. In the letter, he states he did a thorough investigation and determined that the only thing that had been given out in error was my phone number. He said none of my medical privacy info was released and that my wife made our address public record on August 6, 2007 at a public meeting. First of all, my wife was required to state her name and address in order to read the allegations letter into public record. Second, she identified that as HER address, not MY address. Third, a public record is a record that is kept. The records that were “kept” regarding that meeting were the minutes from the meeting. In the minutes, there was no mention of my wife’s address, nor was it in the newspaper the following day. Therefore, in regards to my wife’s identification of “our” address being public record, that is not correct. By stating her name and address during the meeting, she was not creating a “public record.” The “public record” is a record that is kept by the township, and in this case there wasn’t one. Brookfield Township provides their “Position Statement” to the EEOC in response to the formal EEO Charges that I brought. In their response, they tell the EEOC that approximately 50% of our calls are EMS, yet in October, the fire department told the public that approximately 85% of our calls are EMS (which is a more realistic estimate). The township flat out lied to the EEOC by providing a much lower estimate of EMS calls than we actually run, in attempts to thwart my claim that hiring an Assistant Fire Chief that had no medical training was ridiculous given the fact that most of our calls are EMS related. By their deceptive estimate, it appears as though it wouldn’t matter either way.

61

March 3, 2008 In response to my wife’s message left a day or two prior, informing Chief Barrett that she intended to come and get my personal belongings, he left a message on our machine. The message stated that she could come on Wednesday or Saturday of this week, since it is Captain Hagood’s shift (that means she’s not welcomed on the other two shifts). He went on to advise her that she must call before she comes. I’m sure it is so that they can have a police officer present. March 5, 2008 I spoke with Pres. Hughes and informed him that we planned to come Saturday to retrieve my personal belongings. He said, “So you’re really not coming back”? He said, “Think about this man, this is your career.” I said, “no kidding.” I also explained that he knows damn well that this isn’t my choice, it’s the township and unions. They’re the ones not letting me return. He once again asked me to get a letter from my doctor advising that I can return without restrictions and the need for accommodations. He said he felt that the union was doing me a favor by making the concessions they made on the contract and on the settlement agreement. I told him that that was a ridiculous notion. My sister informed me that my father was given 2-6 months to live because they found metastasized cancer in both lungs. I told Hughes about this and told him that I didn’t have it in me to fight anymore. I asked Hughes if he spoke with Attorney Haines regarding my light duty request and he said that he had. He said that Haines spoke with Millstone (twp. Attorney) regarding my light duty request and that my request was denied. March 6, 2008 I sent Sylvia an email of my 3rd request for a copy of the records that were passed back and forth during the contract negotiations. No response. My sister called me and said that Dr. Kim changed my fathers prognosis from 2-6 mos. To 2-3 mos. March 8, 2008 My father came home via McGonigle Ambulance. March 9, 2008 After my sisters, mother and myself sat with my father through the evening and all through the night/morning, my father died at 0935 am with us by his side.

62

March 10. 2008 Hughes called and left message advising that he had just received the official settlement agreement in the mail and that he’d sign it and Barrett would sign it as well. He said it would be put in mail with my paycheck. March 12, 2008 I called Hughes to inquire about why I hadn’t received the agreement or my check. He said that Barrett wasn’t in yesterday and that I’d receive it tomorrow. March 13, 2008 Received letter from Barrett outlining the settlement agreement and a copy of the actual settlement agreement signed by Barrett and Schmidt. Barrett states in his letter that if I don’t present a letter from my physician stating that I can return by April 15, 2008, I’ll be terminated. He also stated that if I do present a letter, the township has the right to send me to their doctor for another opinion. THIS HAS ALREADY OCCURRED. APPARENTLY HE WANTS TO START THE WHOLE PROCESS OVER AGAIN. In the settlement agreement, it’s noted that I did not dispute the township physician’s decision of January 14, 2008. But on February 8, 2008, I advised Chief Barrett that I had yet to receive instructions from the township regarding the dispute between the twp. Doctor and mine, and wanted to know what my instructions were so that I could return to work. I never received a response to that notice or my grievance. March 14, 2008 Received response from Hughes via email regarding the request to move my grievance (settlement dispute) to arbitration. He stated that per legal advice, the Union has decided not to forward my grievance. Spoke with Hughes on phone. He said that on February 16, 2008 (the day he informed me of the settlement proposal) that it was the very first time that he had been made aware of the proposal. Hughes admitted that the union never had a meeting with the township regarding this settlement proposal or agreement. He also admitted that Barrett had discussed the proposal with the other members (including himself) at various times. I asked him if he recalled Matthew Gordon showing me a piece of paper that was written by Chief Barrett earlier that day, regarding what Gordon was supposed to tell me if I ask about my reasonable accommodations. He said yes. (proves that Barrett is bypassing Union President). President Hughes also recalled telling me previously that Chief Barrett would often times go to Gordon instead of him in regards to Union issues. Gordon has personally admitted this.

63

Hughes admitted that none of the bargaining members have been given a copy of the township policy manual yet. March 15, 2008 Had Father’s funeral. Not a single phone call, card, flowers or visit from Brookfield Township personnel or the Union. Sending flowers and personnel to the funeral is standard practice for Brookfield F.D. (even in cases when “friend” of the township or past members experience a death in their family). It is also standard practice for my Union. This complete lack of empathy by both the union and the township proves that their actions are purely retaliatory. March 18, 2008 My sister called to inform me that she received a card from the union signed by Coffy, Hughes and Gordon with a check for $100. This is nine (9) days after he died, it is standard procedure to send personnel to the funeral, and the money is a slap in the face since they are every bit as much of the reason that we had to ask for donations in the first place. They help the township stop my pay and give a termination date, then nine days after my father dies, they send a check. Additionally, why wouldn’t the other union members sign if it was sincere? I told my sister not to cash the check because I would be returning it. I said that in my mind, it amounts to nothing less than “blood money,” and that cashing such a ridiculous attempt to save face would just further injure my dignity. A phone call would’ve meant far more than a check. 1500 hrs, Chris and I met with Attorney Billak and signed contract. He will send a letter informing twp. That I am to be permitted on the property to inventory my personal belongings and to inform them of our legal representation. March 19, 2008 Filed step 1 grievance with Barrett and cc: to President Hughes regarding my grieving the final official signed Settlement Agreement; the inaccurate information included in the agreement (wrong date for Dr. appointment & states that I didn’t object to twp. Physician’s findings); I also grieved Barrett’s letter that accompanied the Settlement Agreement because it also contained inaccurate information (wrong appointment date) and added additional requirements that weren’t identified in the agreement, nor are lawful (informed me that I need yet another letter from my physician by April 15, and that the township can send me to another doctor for another opinion. March 20, 2008 Received email from union president that said the fire chief is out of town (in Mexico) and that he wouldn’t be back for at least a week or more (past the contractually required processing of my grievance). In his email, he advised me that he forwarded a copy of my grievance to the union’s attorney and to the OAPFF’s 3rd district V.P.

64

I called him (recorded) and asked him why he intercepted the grievance and forwarded it to either of those two, since I was representing myself (union isn’t part of the grievance), and since the grievance was presented to the Assistant Fire Chief, not the union. He said he just wanted to make sure those two are kept abreast of the situation. I informed him that it was not his right to forward my grievance to either of those two individuals since it; 1) Isn’t the “unions” grievance, it’s mine. 2) It was going to step 1 which doesn’t require the intervention of the union and I didn’t ask for their intervention. 3) It was given to the Assistant Fire Chief and a copy given to the union president as a courtesy, and it very explicitly stated that I am representing myself. I told him to call both individuals and tell them to completely disregard receiving the grievance (since neither of them can be trusted in the first place [although I didn’t say that]) and told him to inform them that they would receive a copy if and when it reaches step-3, which is the step in which the union officially becomes involved. Until then, I don’t want any intervention and I informed him that it was none of the union attorney’s, nor the OAPFF’s business (yet). He agreed to do so. He asked me why I gave the donation for my father’s death back and I explained it to him. He again told me to get a new note from my physician and said that even though it violated my rights, I should do it for my family’s sake. Neither Barrett nor Hughes returned a requested email receipt after receiving the grievance so my wife delivered it to the fire department. She delivered the grievance at approx. 2000 hours to the Assistant Chief (on duty). He signed the receipt. She gave him back the donation that the union made. March 21, 2008; Received Chief Barrett’s response to my request to move to step 1 of the grievance procedure regarding grieved “official settlement agreement.” Response said that I failed to state a grievance. Why or how he came to that conclusion is beyond me. My so request was denied. March 22, 2008; Sent a response to Chief Barrett’s denial of my step 1 grievance request made on March 19, 2008. Sent a request for step 2 of the grievance procedure to trustees. March 24, 2008 Wife took a copy of the step 2 grievance request to administration building and dropped it off. She had Bonnie Ataman sign that she received it and would give it to trustees. Wife also left a letter for the clerk requesting public records regarding contract proposals.

65

March 25, 2008 Wife left message with Schmidt (trustee) informing him that she wanted the above noted public records. March 28, 2008 Received copy of township’s response to my EEOC charge (sent by EEOC). I have until April 7, 2008 to have a response with evidence submitted. March 30, 2008 Filed step 3 (arbitration request) with local 3443 since trustees never responded to step 2 request. I am grieving the entire “Official Settlement Agreement.” March 31, 2008 Christina went to administration building to pick up copy of her public records request (copy of any and all proposals and/or counter proposals given/made to Brookfield Township Trustees and created/proposed or counter proposed by Brookfield Township during contract negotiations between Local 3443, International Association of Firefighters and Brookfield Township that ultimately resulted in the agreed upon contract that was memorialized on December 28, 2007. All that she was given after making 2 requests for the same, was an envelope addressed to my (Brian’s) attention. The envelope contained a copy of the application submitted to SERB and returned by SERB to begin contract negotiations. That was not what we asked for. I’ve personally made three separate requests for these documents and my wife made two. We still have not received them. I’ve also requested a copy from the union, but President Hughes has continuously failed to produce them. Obviously they are hiding the proposals because there is no doubt that they were discriminatory and coercive, in order to get the members to agree to a contract that would allow them to achieve their goal of legally discriminating/retaliating. The union president and vice president both admitted this to me during previous conversations. I was informed that the initial proposals were obviously very damming to the local but especially to me. Ultimately, the contract was settled by both parties agreeing upon language that would affect me personally, far more than the others. There is no question in my mind that this was part of the plan. President Hughes admitted that the only provision that would affect the others was the leave of absence policy, but noted that it would only actually affect Gordon and Assistant Chief Montgomery since everyone else has plenty of sick-leave. During that conversation, I said that he knew as well as I did that neither the trustees nor Chief Barrett were going to hold either one of them to the language of that provision if something happens to one of them. I said, “You know as well as I do that they knew in the end, it wouldn’t really affect them.” He agreed with me. My wife went to the F.D. to drop off a request to move to step 3 of the grievance procedure. While there, she has Assistant Chief Montgomery sign in receipt and asked to view my furniture (that was in my office prior to it being rented out) while she was there.

66

Assistant Chief Montgomery got very nervous and said that she’d have to talk to the township about that. He advised her that he was trying to stay out of that part. My wife said that the furniture was there and asked why he couldn’t just walk her back to my former office so that she could see where it is (if it’s still there) and if it’s being used. He said he didn’t have access to the office. She asked if my furniture was being used by the tenants of the office and he said he didn’t know, he was staying out of it. Chrissy informed him that she knew for a fact that it was because she could see through the partially opened blinds and that she was going to take pictures of it on her way out. He said, “Whatever.” She left and took pictures on the way out, but the pictures didn’t take well enough. 1854 hours, OAPFF 3rd District V.P. Michael Taylor returned my call after leaving him a message earlier today. I told him that I was calling to request a copy of any proposals that the township and union made, and any counter proposals; Mr. Taylor said that he didn’t think he had anything in writing and couldn’t recall whether he kept notes about the initial negotiations or not. He said that he likely gave a copy to President Hughes but that he may have notes. He said he’d check to see if he had them and call me back. I told Mr. Taylor that at some point, someone is going to have to recall something, and have to “fess up.” I said, “Hughes and Gordon both told me that the initial proposals were so ridiculous and that it was so obvious that they were being made to affect them but especially affect my job, that they “walked away laughing; yet no one remembers what they were.” I said, “Hughes told me that the contract that was agreed upon was better than what was proposed, as far as it affects me personally.” I said, “But without having any idea what the initial proposals were, or what type of concessions were made, all I have to go on is what I have in front of me; a blatantly discriminatory contract.” I said, “If the local is going to claim that they bargained for me, they’re not doing themselves any favors by protecting the township’s initial position.” I asked Mr. Taylor if he recalled any of the initial offers. He said, “I do so many contracts it’s hard to remember some of them.” He said, “I know they proposed to have the EMS position removed.” I said, “Well, they did remove it; I am no longer EMS Operations Officer.” I said, “The position no longer exists.” Taylor said, “Well, as I recall, you didn’t lose rank and the position exists, it just isn’t in the contract.” I said, “Well I don’t know what they’ve told you but the position most certainly does not exist.” I said, “I have a copy of the township’s position statement regarding my EEO Charges and in the response, it specifically notes that the position was removed.” He said, “Well it didn’t result in a loss of pay so we viewed it as a fair concession.” I said, “That’s because you don’t have any idea how much I’ve done for that department or the EMS division.” I told him, “That position defines me; it is part of who I am, so to you, it might not have been a loss, but to me it was a major blow.” I told him that having my position removed from the contract was premeditated all along. He said, “I don’t think that it was. It didn’t come up until contract negotiations.” I said, “Do you know what happened on December 3, 2007 regarding my position”? He said, “No.” I said, “Well for starters, on December 3, 2007 they made and passed a resolution to rent my office to the Ohio Dept. of Transportation for $500 per month. “ I said, “They rented it to them and even

67

furnished it with my personal belongings that are still in the office.” I said, “That’s the problem, you helped the local make decision without having the whole story.” I said, “Obviously they planned on removing my position and somehow must have known that their proposal would be accepted since they were confident enough to rent my office.” He said he didn’t know anything about that. Mike Taylor said that he remembers that “Initially they proposed no pay raise, wanted the EMS position and the Lieutenant’s position removed, and wanted to do away with the light duty position.” He said, “We weren’t willing to let them get rid of the Lieutenant’s position, nor get rid of the light duty provision.” I said, “Well of course not. The Lieutenant’s position will benefit someone down the road and would make the union look like they were valiant in their efforts to protect me.” I said, “As far as the light duty policy, of course they didn’t get rid of that; they knew that it could affect them personally. Instead, they let the township change it so that the fire chief could make the decision who qualifies as opposed to prior language guaranteeing it.” I said, “Coincidentally, I was denied light duty as well.” At the end of the conversation, I asked Mr. Taylor to look for any notes that he had and to call me if he found them. I told him that I didn’t want to have to fish for anything that I’m entitled to have. I said, “I’m a dues paying member, yet was never informed of any of the negotiation meetings, never asked to vote on offers, never informed of the proposals and wasn’t even given a copy of the contract until mid January.” I said that at a minimum, I at least deserve to know what the proposals were. I told him that I’d rather get it from the “guys” by someone being straight up as opposed to me having to pay to have depositions done etc. I said, “You already know there is a pending lawsuit so the information is going to come out eventually; but I’d prefer not to have to pay to get it if I don’t have to.” He said he’d look for the information and if he found any of it, he’d contact me. April 1, 2008 Received letter from Chief Barrett in the mail denying my request for reimbursement of my National Registry certification. He states that he feels that since I’m required to be a paramedic, he doesn’t have to pay. He said he’s never paid for that. Not true at all. I emailed Sylvia Addicott to request a copy of payroll for all full-time except Chief Barrett, from Jan. 1, 2006 to present; a copy of the flyer circulated asking voters to pass 2007 fire levy; and a copy of the agreement that was signed to rent my office out. I also asked for a copy of minutes from meetings Feb. to present. I emailed Barrett with a response to his letter. I said that he and I both know that he is 100% wrong and that I can prove it. I emailed Barrett again to request a copy of 2006 vacation paper for all personnel that I never received and a copy of the current 2007 sick/vac. Called Pres. Hughes on his cell phone. I told him that Taylor admitted yesterday that as part of the township’s initial negotiations, they wanted the union to agree to remove my lieutenant and the EMS position all together, get rid of the light duty provision all together, and the other changes that were made. I asked him if he recalled the township making the same request and he said that he did. In fact, he recalled the proposal verbatim the way Mike Taylor recalled it.

68

Mrs. Morrin called and said she had record of my call on July 31, 2007 in which I called to confirm my appointment. She said she’d give me a copy Wednesday. April 4, 2008 Called President Hughes to ask him to copy the daily log for June 27 and 28, 2007 as I asked him to do on the phone on April 2, 2008. On April 2, 2008, he said he didn’t work BTFD until April 4, 2008 and that he’d copy it for me then. I called pres. Hughes at f.d. to ask him if he could copy and fax those two pages. He said that he was instructed to not to give me anything, that if I wanted it I’d have to ask Sylvia or Barrett. I told him that they were public record but that was fine, I’d get it from Sylvia. I asked why he even made an issue of it by telling whoever that I requested a copy. He said that they had a meeting this morning and that he was instructed to tell me what he did. He then said he had to call me back. He never did. Bonnie from the Administration Building called at approx. 1515 hours to ask if Sylvia had called us back on 4-3-08 like she was supposed to. Chrissy said no. Bonnie said she wasn’t surprised, but was calling to let us know we have some records ready for pick-up.

69

I hold the Ohio Association of Professional Firefighters 3rd District Vice President, Michael Taylor responsible for seriously misguiding myself and Local 3443 on a number of issues surrounding this case, for acting as representative during contract negotiations and ultimately encouraging members to approve the blatant acts of discrimination and retaliation contained within the new contract. He is Local 3443’s advocate and essentially nothing is decided without his approval. He grossly misguided me in regards to my FMLA issues, he engaged in acts assisting the union and the township’s efforts to suppress my wife and I from exercising our First Amendment rights, engaged in activity that hindered my grievance processes, and encouraging President Hughes to distance himself from me. Mike Taylor was instrumental in the adverse employment actions that occurred (assisting the township and union). I hold the following agencies responsible; Brookfield Township Trustees and Clerk; Brookfield Township Fire Department; Brookfield Township Police Department; Local 3443 of the International Association of Firefighters; the Sharon Herald newspaper, and the Ohio Association of Professional Firefighters In addition to the above agencies, I hold the following individuals personally responsible for their role in this entire senseless act (the acts were willful and with reckless regard for state and federal laws, safety and health guidelines and employee welfare. For that reason, I believe that they will not be entitled to qualified immunity. John P. Schmidt (Phil), Chairman, Brookfield Township Board of Trustees Janalyn Saloom, Brookfield Townsip Board of Trustees Gary Lees, Brookfield Township Board of Trustees Other new trustee Fire Chief Keith E. Barrett Assistant Chief Hays Montgomery Captain David Coffy Captain Michael Hagood Clerk Sylvia Addicott Part-time Patrolman David Addicott Firefighter/Paramedic Randy Richman

70

Volunteer Assistant Fire Chief, Clifford Elliott OAPFF 3rd District V.P. Michael Taylor The above named individuals were of the most egregious. They all played an integral role in the assassination of my career, name, livelihood, future goals, financial stability, familial stability and future stability. I believe that the majority, if not all of them, have (at times) acted outside of their Official Capacity, and with malicious intent. I would like to hold them personally liable for their actions, in hopes that it will deter future actions, provide some small sense of justice, and send the powerful message that one is responsible for their own actions, no matter who’s side their on. Evidence will show that the Fire Chief has always taunted lawsuits and would often comment on how he’d like to be sued because he thought it would be cool. In the same breath, he would always highlight that “It’s not my money.” Or, “It’s not coming out of my pocket.”

71

72