UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Edward E. Kopko, Esq.
Edward E. Kopko, Lawyer, P.C.
Attorney for Christine Barksdale
308 N Tioga St., Second Floor
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 269-1300; (607) 269-1301 fax
ekopko@kopko.law
CHRISTINE BARKSDALE,

Plaintiff, Index No. _______________

v.

THE CITY OF ITHACA, SVANTE

MYRICK, Mayor of Ithaca, DENNIS
NAYOR, Chief of Police, and JOHN
JOLY, Deputy Chief of Police

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Christine Barksdale (Barksdale), by her attorney, Edward E. Kopko,

Lawyer, P.C., asserts a claim against the Defendants, upon causes of action stated as

follows:

INTRODUCTION

This “stigma-plus” action seek to recover for damages and attorney fees.

Historically, the City of Ithaca (City), when publicly dealing with personnel matters

involving public employees has followed a strict policy of maintaining confidentiality in

every aspect of the personnel matter by declining to publicize any aspect of the personnel

matter. This practice of confidentiality was dramatically abandoned, on January 8, 2020,

the City, acting through the named defendants, issued Press Release that accused

Barksdale of professional incompetence, implicating criminal conduct, and defaming

1
Barksdale. On the same day, the City, acting through the named defendants, added to

this stigmatizing defamation by serving notice of intention to terminate her employment

as a public employee working as a police officer.

IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES

1. At all times pertinent in this Complaint, Barksdale, was and is an adult individual,

residing in Tompkins County, and is a citizen and resident of the State of New York.

2. At all times pertinent herein, Defendant City of Ithaca, (“the City”), was and is a

municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of New York State

with principal offices located in City Hall, City of Ithaca, State of New York.

3. As a political subdivision of the State of New York, the City is a public employer

pursuant to the New York State Civil Service Law, Article 14, § 200 (6)(a)(ii), and all

employees under their supervision and control are public employees pursuant to

Article 14 § 200 (7)(a) of the same code.

4. As a public employee of the City, Barksdale has a proprietary interest in her

employment that cannot be deprived without due process of law.

5. Upon information and belief, at all times pertinent herein, Defendant Svante Myrick,

(Myrick), was and is a resident of Tompkins County, State of New York, and is a

public employee of the City serving as the current Mayor, with principal offices

located at 108 E Green Street, Ithaca, New York.

6. Myrick is sued in both his individual and official capacity as a policy maker of the

City, an enforcer of the policies as listed in this Complaint, as a person who was

directly responsible for the acts or omissions of the conduct described in this

complaint. Myrick acted in concert with all the other defendants in committing the

acts or omissions described in this complaint.

7. Defendant Dennis Nayor, (Nayor), was and is a resident of Tompkins County, State

of New York, and is a public employee of the City serving as the current Chief of

Police, with principal offices located at 120 E Clinton Street, Ithaca, New York.
2
8. Nayor is sued in both his individual and official capacity as a policy maker of the City,

an enforcer of the policies as listed in this Complaint, as a person who was directly

responsible for the acts or omissions of the conduct described in this complaint.

Nayor acted in concert with all the other defendants in committing the acts or

omissions described in this complaint.

9. John Joly, (Joly), was and is a resident of Tompkins County, State of New York, and

is a public employee of the City serving as the current Deputy Chief of Police, with

principal offices located at 120 E Clinton Street, Ithaca, New York.

10. Joly is sued in both his individual and official capacity as a policy maker of the City,

an enforcer of the policies as listed in this Complaint, as a person who was directly

responsible for the acts or omissions of the conduct described in this complaint. Joly

acted in concert with all the other defendants in committing the acts or omissions

described in this complaint.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York retains

jurisdiction over this matter as the claim raises federal issues grounded in the “stigma-

plus”, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

12. Moreover, the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred is within the

jurisdiction of the United States District Court, Northern District of New York;

accordingly, this venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and related provisions.

3
 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS

13. All of the allegations are incorporated.

14. In 1995, Ms. Barksdale began her career in law enforcement as the first black woman

to be hired as a corrections officer by the Tompkins County Sheriff’s Office.

15. After serving the Sheriff’s Office as a corrections officer, Ms. Barksdale joined IPD as

the department’s first and only black woman police officer 1997 where she was

assigned to patrol.

16. In 2006, Ms. Barksdale was assigned to investigations.

17. Throughout Ms. Barksdale’s time with IPD investigations she eventually became

senior investigator where she worked until June 2019, before going on § 207 C medical

leave.

18. Ms. Barksdale is well recognized by members of the Ithaca Community having started

a citizen’s police academy to educate community members about police work; for her

participation in community policing initiatives; for her advisement of youth in IPD’s

Police Explorers unit; and for facilitating dialogues between teens and officers.

19. Beyond IPD, Ms. Barksdale has volunteered in the community lending time, service,

and expertise to organizations in Ithaca including the Human Services Coalition, the

Community Foundation, the Advocacy Center, Cornell Cooperative Extension,

Southside Community Center, and Loaves & Fishes, where she served as President of

the Board of Directors for multiple of these organizations.

20. In addition to her work at IPD, Ms. Barksdale is an entrepreneur and

businesswoman—the owner of the business Sustainable Passion and located at 311 N

Meadow Street, Ithaca, New York, and Diaspora Gallery located the same address.

21. For Ms. Barksdale’s commitment to IPD, to her humanitarian work and service to the

community, in February 2019, she was honored by the Ithaca Common Council with

the J. Diann Sams African American History Month award.

4
22. As of her February 2019 award, Ms. Barksdale served as a law enforcement officer for

over twenty years, most of which was spent working for IPD.

23. On May 30, on or around 4:24pm, Ms. Barksdale received a call from Joly informing

her that she was being demoted from investigator and reassigned to patrol ostensibly

because Joly contended that Barksdale failed to complete assignments.

24. This call was followed up from an email from Lt. Joly, with the subject line “Official

notice that you are being reassigned to Patrol.”

25. Following this information, Ms. Barksdale was forced to go into medical leave because

she could not physically perform patrol duties due to a workplace injury; accordingly,

a doctor excused her from patrol work due to this injury.

26. Joly was aware of this injury, yet still reassigned Ms. Barksdale to patrol duties

beyond her physical capabilities.

27. At some time after Ms. Barksdale was reassigned to patrol, while she was on medical

leave, Nayor, and Joly conducted an internal audit into her cases, and falsely

concluded and reported that Barksdale “failed to complete” her assigned cases,

28. An attorney hired by the City to review audit conducted by Nayor and Joly reported

that “there does not appear to be specific criminal activity on Officer Barksdale’s part,

at this time.”

29. Ms. Barksdale received a letter dated December 19, 2019, from Nayor officially

notifying her that she was under investigatory review for Barksdale’s alleged “failure

5
 to investigate numerous felony related crimes to which [Ms. Barksdale was] assigned,

such as sex offenses, burglaries and robberies over a period beginning in 2010.

30. The letter further stated that Ms. Barksdale was ordered to attend an investigatory

interview and that a hearing would be scheduled January 6, 2020.

31. In response to the letter, Ms. Barksdale sought the assistance of a union attorney for

the Ithaca Benevolent Police Association, to prepare for her upcoming hearing

scheduled on January 6, 2020.

32. The date for the January 6, 2020 hearing was rescheduled, however, for the next day

on Tuesday, January 7, 2020, the Union attorney informed the Nayor that he was

unable to make the January 6 date.

33. The hearing officially occurred on January 7, 2020.

34. Following the hearing, Ms. Barksdale received a Notice of Discipline, notifying her of

the Defendant’s decision to seek termination of Ms. Barksdale’s position with IPD.

35. In accordance with Ms. Barksdale’s right to a disciplinary hearing, this was the first

time Ms. Barksdale became aware of Defendant’s intent to terminate her position at

IPD.

36. Upon information and belief, Myrick, Nayor, and Joly acted in concert to prepare and

publish the Press Release and delivered the Press Release to media in Tompkins

County.

37. By preparing and publishing the Press Release, Myrick, Nayor, and Joly departed by

the long-standing practice of the City to maintain the confidentiality of personnel

matters.

6
38. Just a few hours after the hearing, at 2:50pm, Ms. Barksdale received a message via

Facebook messenger from Thomas Pudney (“Pudney”), a reporter for the Ithaca

Voice, an online news magazine local to the Ithaca and Tompkins County Area stating

that a “source told me [Pudney] that you were let go on Monday [January 6] […]. I’ve

been told a version of the story background, but that’s the perspective from the other

side and the city and the PD will likely give me their coordinated, vague statement of

little substance, […]”

39. Pudney’s message suggests that the decision to terminate Ms. Barksdale’s

employment from IPD even before her hearing which she was due by the rules and

procedures of IPD, the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and the New York Civil

Service Law and Fourteenth Amendment due process guarantees.

40. The next day, on January 9, 2020, at 10:35am, Pudney sent another message to Ms.

Barksdale stating, “the city is going to put out a Press Release regarding this [Ms.

Barksdale’s termination] today.”

41. Hours later, the City indeed put out a Press Release (Press Release) regarding their

intent to terminate Ms. Barksdale. (See Exhibit “1”, reproduced in relevant part).

7
42. The Press Release states that IPD identified a “deeply troubling failure across nearly

a decade to investigate a broad array of cases,” further indicating that amongst these

cases, there was an “array” of sex offense cases.

43. The Press Release states that IPD has provided the records to the Tompkins County

District Attorney’s office and the Office of the Attorney General.

44. The Press Release states that IPD is “seeking the termination of the officer directly

responsible for these failings,” singling out one individual officer, although they are

not named.

45. Subsequent to the Press Release, later in the day, Pudney published an article in the

Ithaca Voice titled “Ithaca PD seeking to terminate investigator after ‘deeply troubling

failure,’” with IPD’s Press Release attached.

46. The article identifies the singled-out individual from the Press Release as Ms.

Barksdale writing “while the statement does not mention any investigator by name,

sex crime investigations have been handled by Investigator Christine Barksdale.”

8
47. The article then identifies sources from IPD and city hall who mentioned the City’s

audit stating that the audit “found a staggering backlog of more than 200 cases being

carried out by one of the department’s investigators.

48. Further to this point, the article states that according to these sources review of the

audit “of the more than 200 cases that the investigator was carrying, a majority of

them had either inadequate or no notes associated with the case — indicating a lack

of investigation.”

49. The article, like the Press Release, contains numerous statements that are false in part

or in whole and defamatory to Ms. Barksdale as to her profession as an Investigator

with IPD.

50. Ms. Barksdale learned from two common council members, whose identities are being

kept anonymous at this time that in December 2019, Myrick went to the Common

Council and informed them that the City would be seeking to terminate Barksdale

even before she had her hearing.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

“STIGMA PLUS” – 42 U.S.C. § 1983

51. All the allegations of the complaint are incorporated.

52. Historically, when dealing with other personnel matters, the City strictly adhered to

a policy of confidentiality, making no public comment, when responding to inquiries

regarding the employment issues of other City employees, but the City ignored this

long-standing policy when defaming Barksdale by issuing the Press Release.

53. As a public employee, Ms. Barksdale is protected from deprivations of her liberty

interests without due process of the law pursuant to the U.S. Constitution’s

Fourteenth Amendment.

54. No factual basis exists for the claim that Ms. Barksdale failed to investigate 200 cases

nor that she ever had 200 cases assigned to her at any given time.

9
55. The Defendants statements in the Press Release and to the Ithaca Times were

stigmatizing and sufficiently derogatory to Ms. Barksdale as they were false because

the basis for them were grounded in an inaccurate and misleading audit, which the

defendants knew to inaccurate, or knew to be untrustworthy.

56. The Defendants statements in the Press Release and to the Ithaca Times were

stigmatizing and sufficiently derogatory to Barksdale as they were intended to show

that Barksdale engaged in criminal behavior.

57. Barksdale experienced a state-imposed alteration of her status and rights, as

Defendants used their false, misleading and stigmatizing statements to justify their

intent to terminate Ms. Barksdale from IPD..

58. Ms. Barksdale suffered a severe alteration of her status in the community and has been

the subject of negative publicity, ridicule, harassment, and embarrassment as a result

of Defendant’s false, misleading and stigmatizing statement, in violation of her rights

to due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and § 1983.

WHEREFORE, on the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth

causes of action, and as a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff CHRISTINE BARKSDALE

demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally:

a. in an amount of monetary damages for past and future pain and suffering that

exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise

have jurisdiction;

b. in an amount of monetary damages for future loss of income;

c. punitive damages against Defendant Dennis Nayor;

d. punitive damages against Defendant Mayor Svante Myrick;

e. punitive damages against Defendant Joly;

f. an award of attorney fees, costs and disbursements of this action;

g. injunctive relief against the City of Ithaca prohibiting further illegal and

discriminatory conduct as described in this Complaint; and,

10
 h. for such other and further relief which to the Court is just and proper.

Edward E. Kopko
Edward E. Kopko, Lawyer, P.C.,
Attorney for Plaintiff, Christine Barksdale
308 N. Tioga Street, Second Floor
Ithaca, New York 14850
607.269.1300; Fax 607.269.1301
ekopko@kopko.law
January 10, 2021

11