Page 10f 41 INTHE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY ‘STATE OF GEORGIA ROGER HALSTEAD, HALSTEAD, vs. CIVIL ACTION NO.___ FIDEL ESPINOZA, BILLY GROGAN, OLIVER FLADRICH, THE CITY OF DUNWOODY, LYNN DEUTSCH, ERIC LINTON, SHARON LOWERY & NICOLE STOJKA, DEFENDANTS. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES. ‘COMES NOW, ROGER HALSTEAD, Halstead, and files this his Complaint against the Defendants FIDEL ESPINOZA, BILLY GROGAN AND THE CITY OF DUNWOODY POLICE DEPARTMENT, and in support of his ease, hereby states the following, to wit: 1. PARTIES Roger Halstead is and has been a resident of Georgia for six months or more and presently resides in Dawson County, Georgia, 2, Defendant Fidel Bspinooa (hereinafter referred to as “Espinoza or “Defendant 1"] was at all mes relative to this eanse of action, an officer forthe City of Dunwoody Police Department, However, his ats of sexual harassment, fear ‘mongering and intimidation causes him to be sued in his individual eapacity. Espinoza was/is a resident of the State of Georgia and maintains a residence at 2504 Sunny Lane NE, Marietta, Cobb County, Ga. 30067. It is believed that Mr. Espinoza has temporarily left the state of Georgia to stay with family in Florida Halstead v.City of Dunwoody Superior CtDeKalb County AUSTIN LAW GROUP, PCPage 2 of 41 and he may be served by second original at an address when discovered but is believed to be 2139 SW 13! Street, DelRay Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida 33445 but is not presently known for certain, 43. Billy Grogan [hereinafter “Grogan” or Defendant 2] isthe police chief for Dunwoody Police Department and has been since 2009, Atal times relevant to this complaint he was an employee of the City of Dunwoods’s police department. Chief Grogan resides in Cobb County and he may be served at his place of work at 4800 Ashford Dunwoody Road, Dunwoody, Dekalb County, Georgia 30338. Grogan is being sued individually under 0.0.G.A. 36-39-1 and 4 and is being sued {for sustaining and participating in malicious retaliatory actions forming a pattern of corruption within the Dunwoody Police Department 4. The City of Dunwoody [hereinafter “Dunwoody” or Defendant 3] was formed ‘through legislative action on December 1, 2008 and the Dunwoody Police Department began their operations on April 1,2009 as a sub-entity owned and controlled by the City of Dunwoody. Atall times relative to the complaints herein, the Cty of Dunwoody was and is a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws ofthe State of Georgia, with all duties and powers {inherent in its capacity as such. Venue for tort actions can be brought in the ‘Superior Court of Dekalb under 0.C.G.A. §36-92-4 or under Article IX of the Constitution ofthe State of Georgia, Section II, Paragraph IX by waiver of their sovereign immunity by the General Assembly. 0.C.G.A. § 36-33-1 provides immunity to municipal corporations but for neglect to perform or for improper or “unskillful performance of their ministerial duties, id (b) and §36-33-4 affirms that members of the council and other officers of a municipal corporation shall be Halstead v. City of Dunwoody Superior Ct DeKalb County AUSTIN LAW GROUP, PCPage g of 44 personally liable to one who sustains special damages as a result of any official act of such officers if done oppressively, maliciously, corruptly or without authority of law. The City may be served by Serving the City Manager and Mayor at 4800 Ashford Dunwoody Road, Dunwoody, Dekalb County, Georgia. 5. Mayor of the City of Dunwoody, Lynn Deutsch {hereinafter “Mayor Deutsch or Defendant 4"] along with Bric Linton{hereinafter “Linton” or Defendant s) are ‘named as Defendants herein and are believed to be residents of DeKalb County. Said Defendants Deutsch and Linton are being sued in their personal capacity as Defendants under 0.C.G.A.§36-334 in this action and all acts complained of originated in or were part of activies engaged in in DeKalb county. Linton and Deutsch are sued because of the special damages that have been incurred as a result of their notification via phone call to Deutsch for discussion which Deutsch failed to return which was then followed by the anti-litem notice of the egregious ‘wrongs which both Deutsch and Linton failed to act upon timely for the purpose of oppressing the complainants, Ms, Deutsch and Linton may be served at 4800 Ashford Dunwoody Road, Dunwoody, DeKalb County, Georgia 30338. Further Deutsch and Linton are being sued because of the failure of their staff to respond to the anti-litem notice as required by statute within 30 days, causing, delay and costs to be incurred, Further Deutsch and Linton are being sued because they have been oppressive in concert with the oppressive conduct of her Court Clerk and Human Resource department by failing to honestly respond to Open Records Requests, making it ‘corrupt in its formulation and with dishonest intent to hide the complaints of Fidel Espinoza, Further Linton failed in his position as city manager in the Halstead. City of Dunwoody Superior CtDeKalb County AUSTIN LAW GROUP, PCPage 4 of 41 procurement of insurance with Traveler's Indemnity Company when he procured ‘and paid over $172,755.00 for insurance to cover complaints such as those cited in this suit and allowed said insurance to have an endorsement of preservation of governmental immunity which violates the statutory section of waiver up to the policy of insurance as identified in 0.C.G.A. §36-33-1. Because of ths failure, ‘which was an intentional act which funetioned as an act to oppress any complainer and intentionally added to try to avoid accountability and financial responsibility for wrongs such as those set out in this suit which have to do with sexual harassment and other eivil rights violations among others it has, by its very nature, had a chilling financial impact upon Halstead as denying coverage for some of the acts complained of and requiring any settlement or judgment proceeds to come from the city treasury, instead of insurance. Linton and Deutsch may be served at their place of work at 4800 Ashford Dunwoody Road, Dunwoody, DeKalb County, Georgia. 6, Nicole Stojka [hereinafter “Stojka” or Defendant 6] is and at all times was the ‘Human Resources Director for the City of Dunwoody and is believed to be a resident of DeKalb County and conducted or originated all acts complained of, to Plaintiff's knowledge, within DeKalb County, thereby subjecting her to the venue and jurisdiction of this court. Nicole Stojka is being sued under 0.C.G.A. §36- 33+1 & 4 and was the person that information was relayed to about the events. leading to this complaint regarding sexual harassment, hostile work environment and other forms of jdation and bullying from multiple parties which she failed to act upon and which she promised to relay to the Chief which now is believed to be a falschood. Upon information and belief, Ms. Stojka is believed to Halstead v.City of Dunwoody Superior Ct DeKalb County AUSTIN LAW GROUP, PCPage 5 of 41 have failed in the duties she had to transmit and correct issues of discrimination ‘as a means of oppressing the complainers and allowing retaliation against them for not following protocol. One such incidence is in disallowingexit interviews to all stain order to determine issues of discrimination and corrective actions needed, including the relay of exit interview information to the Chief for review Itisbelieved that this was done with malicious intent against the complainors 50 that their complaints would be non-existent in a written record. Further, Ms, ‘Stojka as Human Resourees director, was responsible for the written policies and procedures intended to alert the governed population about the proper procedures to be had and followed for immediate correction as it relates to the violation of civil liberties. Upon information and belief, Ms. Stojka failed to censure that training included documentation of any and all complaints of discrimination and “prompt” follow through to all discriminatory complaints in relevant training and in the written policies, which should have included a thorough discussion with the complainant and request for evidence, and thereby us activity for the she reached a conscious decision to participate in thet purpose of assisting in the coverup ofthe wrongful acts. Ms. Stok, upon information and belief, was, on more than one occasion, apprised of civil rights violations in orl conversations which she took down only partially and intentionally omitted certain ats, particularly thse of sexual harassment, to oppress the complainants and aid and abet inthe coverup of such violations and diseriminatory conduct and which she intentionally failed to correct or otherwise document so that the complainants could be heard about sexual harassment, oppressive work conditions, disparate treatment and other constitutional Halstead v.City of Dunwoody Superior Ct DeKalb County AUSTIN LAW GROUP, PCPage 6 of 41 violations, Upon information and belief, this was done oppressvely with a direct and deliberate intent to deny the existence of or cover up the diseriminatory ‘conduct. She can be served at 4800 Ashford Dunwoody Road, Dunwoody, Ga 30338, 7. Sharon Lowery (hereinafter called “Lowery” or Defendant 7s and at all times was the ity Clerk for Dunwoody, believed to reside in DeKalb County and originated all acts complained of against her within DeKalb County. She is responsible for providing documents under the Open Records Act and itis believed that she resides in DeKalb County and that all ats complained of occurred within DeKalb County. Ms, Lowery is being sued for failing to provide documents according to statute, failing to provide a reasonable estimate ($6.5Millio dollars taking “decades” to produce) upon her first response tothe ORA by falling to apply any filters as requested in the ORA and failing to truthfolly transmit documents requested on at last one or more occasions which has caused harm to Halstead and delayed the filing ofthe litigation as a means of oppression and corruption. She may be served at her place of work at 4800 Ashford Dunwoody Road, Dunwoody, DeKalb County, Georgia. 8, Oliver Fladrih {hereinafter called “Fadrich” or Defendant 8] was at all times herein an officer forthe City of Dunwoody believed to reside in Forsyth County, ‘but he is being sued in his personal eapacity ashe knew or should have known that his underling, Espinoza was engaged in conduct that posed a pervasive and ‘unreasonable risk of constitutional injury to citizens to which he responded with deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization ofthe offensive sexual harassment and disparate treatment, among other Constitutional violations, and Halstead v.City of Dunwoody Superior Ct DeKalb County AUSTIN LAW GROUP, PCPage7 of 41 this was an affirmative causal link between this supervisors inaction and the constitutional injuries suffered by Halstead, Upon Information and beli Fladrich was also the person who aided and abetted the discriminatory cover up by giving a negative reference to Roswell PD about the Halstead which was not supported by the record and was defamatory at best. Upon information and believe, Fladrich, who became a supervisor of Plantiff, was informed as far back 1 2012 of the sexual inappropriateness of Espinoza and the underage students hhe was working with as well as the sexual harassment that seemed pervasive in the culture at Dunwoody Police Department and his response thereto was to threaten the complainer not to go further as it could cost him his job, thus ‘making a conscious decision to participate inthe tortious activity for the purposes of assisting another in the discriminatory conduet by allowing a continuous pattern of misconduct to prevail for these violations of civil liberties, ‘and shows a failure of properly be trained and supervise employees. He can be served a his place of work at 4800 Ashford Dunwoody Road, Dunwoody, Dekalb County, Georgia. IL ANTILITEM NOTICE 9._ Anti-Litem notice pursuant to 0.C.G.A.§36-11-1 was provided by certified mail to the City Manager, all of City Council including the Mayor, Chief Billy Grogan, Deputy Chief Barnes, Lt. Espinoza, and the City Attorney with a settlement sum ‘of $500,000.00 and an unliquidated damages notification attached to the demanded sum of $500,000.00 under the anti-litem notice. Same is attached as Exhibit A hereto, This Anti Litem notice meets all statutory requirements to be Halstead v. City of Dunwoody Superior CtDeKalb County _—_ AUSTIN LAW GROUP, PCPage 8 of 42 able to investigate the incident and Halstead has met all conditions precedent for filing ofthis action against the Defendants. 10. Te Anti Litem notice, served by certified mail, was sufficient to provide notice to all parties ofthe issues for resolution for Roger Halstead and Brian Bolden. A complaint must provide “a short and plain statement ofthe elaim showing that ‘the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P, 8(@)(2), sufficient to provide defendant with “fair notice” of the claim and the bass for it. Bell AML Corp. v ‘Twombly, 550 US. 544, 955 (2007). This standard “demands more than an uunadomed, the-defendant-unlawfally-harmed-me accusation." Asheroft.lgbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). While “detailed factual allegations” are not required, “labels and conclusions, anda formulaic recitation ofthe elements ofa cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 565. The complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as tru, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Jabal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Tiwomblu, 550 USS. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the Plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference thet the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Mann v, Vogel, 707 F.3d 872, 877 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Zabal, 556 US. at 678). In applying this standard, the Court accepts all ‘well-pleaded facts as true and draws all reasonable inferences in favor ofthe non- ‘moving party. Mann, 707 F.gd at 877. Willie White v. City of Chicago, etalxa.cv {472010 District Court fr the Northern District of Mlinois, Eastern Division 11, Inaddition thereto, Halstead’s Counsel met in person withthe City Attorney and shared documentation ofthe pictures texts and substance ofthe claims to ensure adequate understanding of the claims which would be asserted. Halstead v.City of Dunwoody Superior Ct DeKalb County _—_ AUSTIN LAW GROUP, PCPage o of 44 TI, WAIVER OF IMMUNITY 12, Furthermore, Halstead alleges that pursuant to the contracts of insurance provided by the City of Dunwoody, the Defendants have waived their qualified or oficial immunity up tothe levels of said insurance (0.C.G.A. $36-93-14) and should not be allowed to assert such defense because ofthe statutory provision ‘which cannot be exempted by a" waiver toa waiver” (Exhibit ) of such qualified immunity for which insurance is purchased, Immunity is waived by the purchase of liability insurance for which the claim has been filed and i is further waived {forthe performance of ministerial and non-governmental, proprietary functions as set out by OCGA §36-33-1 and for all malicious, corrupt, willful or intentional actions and decisions which violate law, code, operating polices, standards of the ‘employee handbook and good practice. 15, Qualified Immunity offers publi officers and employees limited protection from sult in ther personal capacity, Offical immunity protects individual publi agents from persona ability for discretionary actions taken within the sone oftheir authority and lone without wilflnes, malice or corruption. Under Georgia law there i abit for ministerial acts negligently performed or ats performed with malice, wilfulnes, corruption o an inten tofnjure. Halstead claims Dunwoody and its agents and ‘employees ae liable fr the negligently performed ats ofa ministerial nature and for acts performed with malice, wlfulnes,coruption and an intent injure IV. 0.C.6.4.§36-35-5 SUSPENSION OF THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE, (OF LIMITATIONS. 12, Pursuant to 0.C.G-A. §36-33°5, Anti-Litem Notice was tendered for the Halstead, con the 298 of April, 2020 by certified mail and by statute the City was due to provide Halstead v.City of Dunwoody Superior CtDeKalb County AUSTIN LAW GROUP, PCPage 10 of 48 ‘a response to the claim within thirty (0) days. As of June 28, 2020, no response has been received and (4) of that statute states that the “running of the statute of limitations shall be suspended during the time that the demand for payment is pending before such authorities without action on their part.” Halstead claims that tolling statute BACKGROUND A. Employment Relationship 13. Roger Halstead was employed withthe City of Dunwoody asa Police Officer from June 2015 to April 2019, Prior to that time, he had been employed with the Lampkin County Sheriff's Office and became pat ofthe Lumpkin County SWAT “Team including obtaining rank first s a Corporal then as a Sergeant. 14, During the frst year of being on the fore with Dunwoody, Halstead made SWAT and his monthly statistics supported the fact that he was one ofthe most proactive officers on the force. 15. However, soon there came a pattern of conduct from the supervising Sgt. Lenahan, that Halstead should stack charges or seek hersher punishment that didnot ft the crime. This directive was challenged which started a conflict with Sgt. Lenahan, 16. Thereafter, the environment turned hostile and Halstead was informed by his coworkers that he had “a target on my back.” 17. Two incidents happened that caused Halstead to consider the motivation of the force's action thereafter. 1. Fist one involved a malfunctioning Glock that was given to Lt. Furman who checked the gun, gave Halstead ammo and told him to test it without directions as to time, Halstead, being on SWAT meant that I could Halstead v.City of Dunwoody Superior CtDeKalb County AUSTIN LAW GROUP, PCPage 11 of 48 be called in at any time and the Glock was malfunctioning, It was Halstead’s ‘weekend off so he did not test the firing of the weapon right away choosing to do so when he returned to service. When tested, the gun armourer at the Sandy Springs Gun Club said it needed more oil, which he accommodated, and the gun began to shoot better. However, Halstead was written up for the gun issue stating he had puthis life and that of fellow officer's at risk by possessing ¢ malfunctioning weapon when he had tried to get a new one from Lt, Furman, However, Lt Espinoza, Halstead’s supervisor at the time, advised that Halstead should not file ‘a rebuttal to this issue, ‘This was the first counseling notice at any time during Halstead’s career. 2. As a second issue, Lt. Espinoza then began detailing issues that had not been raised such as a seratch to the bumper of a vehicle on a target anda second incident where the uniformed vehicle was hit by someone while on a service call with the vehicle placed for protection, Again, Lt. Espinoza wrote the incident up, dismissed Halstead from SWAT and told him to sign the report HARRASSMENT BEGINS. 18.0n or about March, 2016, Lt. Espinoza began to make advances to Halstead pretending to befriend him. From Halstead's standpoint, it became clear that Lt. Espinoza was a gay man who began texting and sending requests for pictures of Halstead’ penis, sending pictures or videos of himself masturbating or posing in a sexually seductive way alleging he wanted to help Halstead ( me) and that “he hhad other plans for me” (Halstead), 19, It became clear to Halstead that ifhe didn't want Lt Espinoza to constantly harass him or force write ups upon him for things that were not of his fault that Halstead Halstead v.City of Dunwoody Superior CLDeKalb County __ AUSTIN LAW GROUP, PCPage 12 of at ‘would have to goalong with Lt. Espinoza’s deviant behavior to stay out of his target sites, Halstead observed this behavior with some of the other officers who were also having to deal with Lt. Espinoza and his sexually deviant behavior but all parties to the harassment felt like speaking up about the harassment would result in retaliation as the junior officers had observed the power that Lt. Espinoza ‘wielded at the Police Department and had utilized against those that spoke up against him. 20.Halstead’s analysis on the issue proved correct when, the moment Lt. Espinoza began sexually harassing Halstead, all the targeting stopped. As long as Halstead tolerated and pretended to “banter” with the sexual harrassment with Lt. Espinoza, no more write ups came, 21, Because ofthe intensity and increase in sexual harassment and the hostile work environment that Halstead was experiencing, Halstead applied to go to day shift tobe outof Lt. spinoza’s sites on a different shift. To that end, Lt. Espinoza called Halstead into his office and attempted to scare him by saying "I won't beable to protect you if you go to day shift.” Seeing now he was back in Lt. Espinoza’ sites as a target, Halstead withdrew his letter to stay on nights and continued to deal ‘with Bopinoza’s sexual harrassment. ‘22.Sometime later, the harassment became overwhelming and began affecting his ability to perform so Halstead transferred to days hoping to be abandoned by Espinoza, 2, Halstend’s experience on days turned harsh with Officer Fladrich now apparently ‘ying to make it uncomfortable enough to have Halstead return to nights. Halstead v. City of Dunssoody Superior CtDeKalb County _—_ AUSTIN LAW GROUP, PCPage 13 of 41 24.Additionally whereas Halstead had at Ieast 100 hours of annual training in Lumpkin County, he was being denied anything more than the bare minimum at Dunwoody which would not facilitate advancement, 25. In March, 2018, Halstead received a medical diagnosis with medication that caused « reactive autoimmune response that impacted his joints. This caused Halstead to lose two days to sick leave and doctor's notes were demanded which ‘was not the treatment received by others in Halstend’s position. However, Halstead was able to qualify for SWAT, so his standingin the department remained g00d and without other ineident reports from either Olficer Fladtich oF Lt Espinoza up to that point. 26, Halstead engaged in conversation with Officer Lenahan about filing a workplace harassment complaint and the heat was turned up for retaliation 27. Officer Fladrich then filed a performance improvement plan in June-July 2018, a plan that Halstead could not rectify which went back to issues more than a year old 28. Harassment, disparity in treatment, and sexual harassment continued so Halstead spoke with Human Resources to write @ workplace harassment complaint for October 2018 to January 2019. ‘The write up spoke of many disparate treatment issues and mentioned the sexual harassment and was, in Halstead’s estimation, a ‘way to test the waters to see how the department would treat the complaints. Many ofthe complaints were about absolute violations of policy, such a officers sleeping on the job, or Officer Lenahan calling in Service on the radio when he was actually at home in his apartment for several hours [which had been shown and discussed ‘with Chief Grogan who did nothing about it] The complaint was verbally given to Halstead v.City of Dunwoody Superior Ct DeKalb County AUSTIN LAW GROUP, PCPage 14 of 41 HR Stojka but when it was written up, many ofthe claims were missing or omitted, Halstead believed that Ms. Stojka was writing the report to protect him from retaliation as Lt, Fidel Espinoza utilized Officer Chris Valente’s harassment complaint wherein Valente had spoken up against him by saying thet “thisis what happens if cross me.” Stojka, upon information and belief, never gave Halstead the opportunity to correct the complaint and insert the missing information. 29.1n or about March, 2019, Lt. Espinoza told Halstead that the performance improvement plan would not be on his personnel file and that he should apply to work at Brookhaven, ‘This had not been discussed at any time previously and Halstead told Lt. Espinoza he wanted to stay with Dunwoody. However, Lt Espinoza told him he could get Halstead off the improvement plan but wasn't sure how he could protect him, alluding and stating that Espinoza did everything for his officers, “but what do I get in return”, Espinoza bragged about knowing everyone at Brookhaven and said that he would get Halstead hired, but he needed to go. 40.In the interim, Chief Billy Grogan sent Halstead a text message about his complaints simply stating that he knew that Halstead had been “friends” with Espinoza and nothing would come of his complaints and he should not burn bridges. In reality, once again Espinoza had denied allegations and nothing further was discussed with Halstead. 431. Halstead applied and was processed and hired within 48 hours proving that what Lt. Espinoza said was in fact true, Halstead applied for Brookhaven thinking that it would end all of the harassment that he had suffered and asked Lt. Espinoza about an exit interview. Halstead was informed “per Major Fladrich, you can turn in your equipment and you will be paid your two weeks but you won't have an exit Halstead v. City of Dunwoody Superior Ct DeKalb County AUSTIN LAW GROUP, PCPage 15 of 4 interview.” They declined an exit interview with Halstead. When Halstead was told he would not have an exit interview, he inguired of Espinoza why, and he was told that he was considered “toxic.” 32. When the transmittal of Halstead’s Dunwoody fle was made to Brookhaven, it was determined that no performance improvement plan wasin the file. Later, Halstead, ‘would find out that the performance improvement plan did go to the file at some point thereafter, but was not transmitted to Brookhaven. 33. Four days into the Brookhaven employment, Deputy Chief Gurley [Lt. Espinoza’s best friend] pulled Halstead into his office alleging that there were signs of insubordination, that Halstead was “talking bad” about Brookhaven and that Halstead ridiculed his FTO by calling him "big guy”. Although Halstead tried to ‘correct any of these misconceptions citing that he was being paid $70,000, more than he had ever made and would never do that, to set the record straight, the ‘matter fell on deaf ears and it became immediately apparent that the change in ‘employment status arranged by Espinoza was a set up to get Halstead out of Dunwoody and negatively fired from Brookhaven. In other words, a constructive discharge under threat by Espinoza that he had to go to Brookhaven as he was now oxi” to Dunwoody as determined by Espinoza 34. Ultimately, Halstead was terminated after calling for @ meeting to challenge incorrect documentation within seven weeks of the move to Brookhaven 35.Thereafter, Halstead applied with Roswell PD and was told that he was preliminarily approved with a conditional offer. However, mysteriously, the performance improvement plan that had not been in his fle appeared and because it had not been mentioned by Halstead who believed that it had been resolved and Halstead v.City of Dunwoody Superior CtDeKalb County AUSTIN LAW GROUP, PCPage 16 of 41 excluded, it killed his opportunity for hiring. Investigator Robinson with the City of Roswell said that he was being “told” that Halstead had issues with “professionalism and decision making issues” per Dunwoody. 36. Over the course of Halstead's employment, Lt. Espinoza grabbed Halstead’s crotch not less than four times, the last time being on or about March 8, 2019. This ‘was not consensual, 37-1. Espinora’s last sexual overture to Halstead in writing was on or about September 17, 2019. His last sexual overture to Halstead verbally happened right, before his transfer to Brookhaven. 38.4 ofthe date of this filing, Halstead has suffered with depression, had diarrhea, insomnia, chest palpitation, and has been unable to eat and has bouts of erying continually as a result of the treatment he has received from Dunwoody and now Brookhaven. '39.Halstead went to his superior and to Human Resources to discuss the harassment and hostility and disparate treatment that cause him horrific grief, to no avail Remarkably, this wasn't the first time Command Staff knew about the sexual overtures of Espinoza or the disparate treatment ofits officers. Officer Valente fled a complaint alleging indecent comments of a sexual nature against Espinoza and after months the complaint was dismissed without interviewing the complainant and allowing Espinoza to simply deny the offense. Officer Bolden complained of incidents involving racial and sexual harassment by Espinoza, In fact, follow through on complaints alleged on any of the command staff were quashed without validation in most instances. Halstead v. City of Dunwoody Superior CtDeKalb County _—_ AUSTIN LAW GROUP, PCPage 17 of a4 40.As of June 30, 2020, Halstead has been unable to find employment as an officer ofthe law in spite of numerous applications and over 100 positive guardians that supporthis professionalism and decision making along with being SWAT qualified twice IV, IDENTIFICATION OF STATUTES, ORDINANCES, OPERATING PROCEDURES AND EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK RULES WHICH IDENTIFY THE DEVIATIONS WHICH FORM OR ARE PART OF ‘THE COMPLAINTS OF HALSTEAD Please see Exhibit B attached hereto ‘V. IDENTIFICATION OF ACTORS AND WRONGDOINGS ALLEGED 41. Defendant Espinoza is liable both personally and as a Lieutenant for the Dunwoody Police Department in that at all times herein he was employed by DPD/CITY OF DUNWOODY but the acts of intimidation and sexual harassment that caused severe distress, anxiety and physical injury to the Halstead took place both on and off duty when he: a. showed his penis to the Defendant; . grabbed his erotch on not less than four occasions; ©. asked for photos of Halstead’ penis; 4. showed lhim and engaged him in sexual dialogue with other persons on sroup texts; . threatened him with never being able to work in law enforcement again if he continued with the Open Records Act on other command staff which showed the disparity in treatment and enforcement of regulations; Halstead v.City of Dunwoody Superior Ct DeKalb County _—_ AUSTIN LAW GROUP, PCPage 18 of 41 arranged for Halstead’s transfer or hiring with Brookhaven in order to avoid further complaints at Dunwoody only tohave is bestfriend, Assistant Chief Gurley, set him up for failure and fire him, thereby denying him due process in his status as an officer with Dunwoody, thus injuring the Halstead both financially and physically; violated his Constitutional rights under the 14! Amendment which states that a state (through its agents) shall not deprive any person of life, liberty ‘or property without due process of law which also incorporates the Bil of Rights to be free from harassment and intentionally interfering with his ability to do his job without threats, intimidation, harassment and sexual dialogue, thus injuring your Halstead both financially and physically; violated Halstead’s Constitutional Rights by setting him up as being dependent upon him, especially in agreeing to withhold a performance improvement plan from his file but not doing so, in giving or withholding extra jobs over which Espinoza was controlling in exchange for continuing with the sexual harassment without complaint which determined Halstead’s financial status, in intentionally doing write ups on Halstead when he first went under Espinoza's command to coerce and dominate the Halstead and directing the Halstead not to rebut the charges to establish his authority and control over Halstead, by directing his underling officers to target Halstead until Halstead ‘conceded to the treatment of harassment by Espinoza, thus establishing a cease of Negligent training, supervision and retention by failing to follow Halstead v. City of Dunwoody Superior Ct DeKalb County AUSTIN LAW GROUP, PCPage 19 of at standard operating procedures, ules, regulations and the aw eausing harm both financially and physically to the Halstead Knowing thatthe pressure and pervasive and unreasonable sk of constitutional injury tothe Halstead would be present and that Espinoza's response to that knowledge was so ference to or tacit authorization of the inadequate as to show deliberate in offensive practices which caused physical, mental and financial harm to the Halstead; |. that Espinoza, upon information and belief, did what he threatened todo by contacting prospective or ongoing employers of Halstead to make sure his reputation as an officer was harmed and tainted by identifying Halstead as being insubordinate and lacking good judgment as an officer which is in direct contradiction to the evidence and multiple positive guardians that the Halstead had received, thus tortuously interfering the employment relationship of Halstead which was a direct and proximate cause of him losing financial success, employment success and physical health by the utilization of improper methods and malicious intent. Evidence of said improper methods and malicious intent is found both in the illegal nature of the acts of sexual harassment, violations of standard ‘operating procedures, fraud and deceit in his interaction with Halstead and fothers, and unethical conduet which is s0 egregious and erass that it inflames the mind of common deceney and is totally unacceptable in civilized society Halstead v. City of Dunwoody Superior Ct DeKalb County _—_ AUSTIN LAW GROUP, PCPage 20 of 41 1, Evidence of Espinoza’s tortious conduct i further found inthe violations of the Rules promulgated in the Employee Handbook and said violations were a direct and proximate cause of the Halstend’s injuries, one and all ©. Evidence of Espinoza’s actions is criminal as well as tortious. p. Espinoza’s activities were not consensual with Halstead but considered a {uid pro quo for continued employment status. 42.Billy Grogan, who is Chief of the Dunwoody Police Department, is immune from suit under governmental immunity except for or but for the violation of his ‘ministerial duties which do not require the exercise of his professional judgment, 1. Halsteads state and allege that Billy Grogan should be personally liable, and his bond of office should be paid, for violating his oath of office in {ailing to enforce the provisions ofthe Operating Procedures which were designed to keep the law enforcement community on task and in order to prevent violating Constitutional Rights and freedoms, same having been brought to his attention on several occasions before the complaints of Halstead. », Further, Billy Grogan, upon information and belief, executed a letter to Lumpkin County identifying the Halstead as a person who would not ‘own up to his mistakes and blamed other people for his mistakes which {sin direct contradiction ofthe evidence contained in his ile, making the same libelous and showed the malicious intent to harm the Halstead in retaliation for the complaints lodged by Halstead and as a result of calling Grogan on the carpet for mismanaging felonious and Civil Rights violations of the Dunwoody Police Department. Halstead v. City of Dunwoody Superior CtDeKalb County _—_ AUSTIN LAW GROUP, PCPage 21 of 41 ¢. Further Billy Grogan, upon information and belief, was one of the persons who gave the reference to Roswell Police Department in order to uphold their maliciousl ended retaliation for having filed sexual harassment against Espinoza and alleging other civil rights ations, thereby harming him. 43.Sharon Lowery {hereinafter called “Lowery” or Defendant 7}s and at allies ‘was the City Clerk for Dunwoody who responsible for providing documents under the Open Records Act. Ms. Lowery is being sued for filing to provide documents according to statue falling to provide reasonable estimate ($6.sMilion dollars taking “decades” to produce) the fis ime in response to the ORA by ling to apply any filters as requested to the ORA and failing to truthfully transmit documents requested on at east one or more occasions which caused harm to the Halstead and delayed the filing ofthe litigation asa means of oppression and 44.Oliver Fladrich [hereinafter called "Fladrich” or Defendant 8] was at all times, herein an officer for the City of Dunwoody but he is being sued in his personal capacity as he knew or should have known that his unde Espinoza was engaged in conduct that posed a pervasive and unreasonable risk of constitutional injury to citizens to which he responded with deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization ofthe offensive sexual harassment and disparate treatment, among other Constitutional violations, and this was an affirmative causa link between this supervisors inaction and the constitutional, injuries suffered by Halstesd. Upon information and belief, Fdrich was als the person who gave a negative reference to Roswell PD about the Halstead which Halstead v. City of Dunwoody Superior CtDeKalb County AUSTIN LAW GROUP, PCPage 22 0f 44 ‘was not supported by the record and was defamatory at best. Upon information ‘and believe, Fladrich was informed as far back as 2012 of the sexual inappropriateness of Espinoza and the underage students he was working with as ‘well asthe sexual harassment that seemed pervasive inthe culture and his response thereto was to threaten the complainer not to go further as it could cost him his job, thus allowing a continuous pattern of misconduct to prevail for these violations of civil liberties and shows a failure of properly be trained and supervise employees. 45. The City of Dunwoody {hereinafter “Dunwoody” or Defendant 3] was {incorporated on December 1, 2008 and the Dunwoody Police Department began their operations on April 1,2009 as asubentity owned ancl controlled by the City of Dunwoody. At all times relative to the complaints herein, the City of Dunwoody isa municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Georgia, with all duties and powers inherent in its capacity as such. Venue for tort actions can be brought inthe Superior Court of DeKalb under O.CG.A. §96-92-4 or under Article IX of the Constitution of the State of Georgia, Section Il, Paragraph IX by waiver oftheir sovereign immunity by the General Assembly. 0.C.G.A. § 36-381 provides immunity to municipal corporations but for neglect to perform or for improper or unskillfal performance of their ministerial duties, id (b) and §36-39-4 affirms that members ofthe council and other officers ofa municipal corporation shall be personally liable to one who sustains special damages asa result of any official act of such officers if done oppressively, maliciously, corruptly or without authority oflaw. Halstead v. City of Dunwoody Superior Ct DeKalb County AUSTIN LAW GROUP, PCPage 23 of 44 146. Mayor of the City of Dunwoody, Lynn Deutsch (hereinafter “Mayor Deutsch or Defendant 4"] along with Erie Linton{hereinafter “Linton” or Defendant 5) are named as Defendants herein. Said Defendants Deutsch and Linton are being sued in their personal capacity as Defendants under 0.C.G.4.$36-33-4 in this action because of the special damages that have been incurred as a result oftheir notification via phone cal for discussion which Deutsch failed to return which ‘was then followed by the anti-litem notice ofthe egregious wrongs which both Deutsch and Linton filed to act upon timely for the purpose of oppressing the complainants. Ms, Deutsch and Linton may be served at 4800 Ashford Dunwoody Road, Dunwoody, Dekalb County, Georgia 30338. 47. Pusther Deutsch and Linton are being sued because of the failure oftheir staff to respond tothe ant-litem notice as required by statute within go days, causing, delay and costs to be incurred. Further Deutsch and Linton are being sued because they have been oppressive in concert with the oppressive conduct of her Court Clerk and Human Resource department by failing to honestly respond to Open Records Requests, making it corrupt in its formulation and with ies about the complaints of Fidel Espinoza. 48.Further Linton failed in his position as city manager inthe procurement of insurance with Traveler's Indemnity Company when he procured and paid over $172,755.00 for insurance to cover complaints such as those sited in ths suit and allowed said insurance to have an endorsement of preservation of governmental ‘which violates the statutory section of waiver up to the policy of insurance as identified in 0.C.G.A. §36-33-1. Because ofthis failure, which was ‘an intentional act which functioned as an act to oppress any complainer and Halstead v. City of Dunwoody Superior Ct DeKalb County AUSTIN LAW GROUP, PCPage 24 of 41 {intentionally added to try to avoid accountability and financial responsibility for ‘wrongs such as those set out in this suit which have to do with sexual harassment and other evil rights violations among others it has, by its very nature, had 2 chilling financial impact upon Halstead as denying coverage for some of the acts complained of and requiring any settlement or judgment proceeds to come from the city treasury, instead of insurance. 49. Nicole Stofka [hereinafter “Stojka” or Defendant 6] isand at all times was the Human Resourees Director for the City of Dunwoody. Nicole Stojka is being sued under 0.C.G.A, §36-33-1 & 4 and was the person that information was relayed to about the events leading to this complaint regarding sexual harassment, hostile work environment and other forms of intimidation and bullying from multiple parties which she failed to act upon and which she promised to relay tothe Chef which now is believed to be non-existent. Upon information and belief, Ms. Stojka is believed to have failed inthe duties she had as a means of oppressing the complainers and allowing retaliation against them for not fellowing protocol to allow ext interviews to all staff and to relay said exit interviews to the Chief for review. Tt is believed that this was done with malicious intent against the complainors so that their complaints would be non-existent. Further, Ms. Stojka was, on more than one occasion, apprised of civil rights violations in oral conversations which she took down only partially and which she failed to corrector otherwise document so that the complainants could be heard about sexual harassment, oppressive work conditions, disparate treatment and other constitutional violations. Upon information and belief, this was done Halstead v. City of Dunwoody Superior CtDeKalb County AUSTIN LAW GROUP, PCPage 25 of 41 oppressive. She can be served at 4800 Ashford Dunwoody Road, Dunwoody, Ga. 30338 V. CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I: MONELL V. DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES ACCOUNTABILITY 50.Halstead incorporates all facts hereto written in this complaint and reasserts herein Paragraphs 1-49 of Halstead's Complaint as if fully set out herefn 51. Defendant City of Dunwoody is liable for the torts ofits employees and agents i liable when execution of the City’s poliey or eustom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under §1983. ‘52. The City Counsel of the City of Dunwoody, which is led by Deutsch who appoints or retained Linton, and they are polieymakers whose deliberate choices represent official poliey. Their duty is to oversee, manage and supervise the execution of the City policies and procedures and make sure that personnel are treated fairly and Justly and that their Constituional rights are not violated. When they chose Grogan as the final dé ‘ion-making authority for the police department and failed to monitor his course of conduct by turning a blind eye, they have ratified his conduet and Grogan becomes a policymaker and his decisions become policy of the government itself. They have given final policy making authority for the Dunwoody Police Department which is a division of the City of Dunwoody, to its Chief, Grogan. Thus the actions of Grogan represent a decision by the government itself for whi the City is liable up to the limits of its insurance poliey, at least. Halstead v.City of Dunwoody Superior CtDeKalb County _—_AUSTIN LAW GROUP, PCPage 26 of 43 53.Thus, when Grogan makes a deliberate choice to follow a course of action, it becomes an official policy. Through that policy, we sue a violation ofthe federal rights as applied to the States through the X1Veh Amendment to the Constitution for agreeing to « Grogan’s decision to engage inthe violation ass further set out herein, The City was deliberately indifferent to the fact that reports of the violations ofthe Constitutionally protected rights of not having sexual harassment, a hostile work environment, disparate treatment and retaliation, among others, had been tendered prior to the complaints by Halstead and thus it was «highly predictable consequence of inadequate training, supervision and need for evaluation of ts personnel that Halstead and others were harmed ‘54. Defendants knew of the dangerous propensity for violation of human evi rights and damage tothe profesional image of Halstead by the complaints they received by other officers prior to those that Halstend lodged and they filed to proceed to do an internal investigation into those complaints or those of Halstead in hopes to ‘suppress all complainants pursuit of resolutions in an oppressive manner. The municipal practice showed a pattern of ineffective documentation and follow through in a thorough investigation of discriminary complaints and was @ proximate cause ofthe injuries suffered. 455-Halstead incorporates by reference the allegations as set out in the above paragraphs and party identifications against Defendants as set out. Defendant Stojka's in failing to train, test for knowledge base, direct enforcement and track all violations of the policies and protocols set out were a proximate eause of Halstead's damages. She consciously made the decision to cover up the allegations of sexual harassment and thus aided and abetted Espinoza by intentionally Halstead. City of Dunwoody Superior Ct DeKalb County _—_ AUSTIN LAW GROUP, PC