COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 48™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT CASE NO. 22-Cl- DIVISION. NATHAN DOTY PLAINTIFF vs. SHERIFF CHRIS QUIRE, Individually Deputy Dwayne Depp, Individually and Officially a Derexoaers COMPLAINT Plaintiff Nathan Doty complains of the Defendants identified above and will respectfully show this Honorable Court the following: PARTIES (LOCATION) 1. Plaintiff, former Deputy Sgt. Nathan Doty was employed as a Sheriff's Deputy in Franklin County, Kentucky until the events below occurred, his duties as a deputy sheriff were in Franklin County, Kentucky 2. Defendants Dwayne Depp and Sheriff Chris Quire are deputies whose jurisdiction is Franklin Coumty, Kentucky 3. The Franklin County Sheriff's Office is located in Franklin County, Kentucky 4. All events contained in this Complaint occurred in Franklin County, Kentucky10. 13. Sarisdiction and Venue Because the events described below, and Plaintiff's resulting injury, occurred in Franklin County, Kentucky, jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court. In addition, the damages Plaintiff seeks to recover exceed the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Facts Plaintiff has been employed by the Franklin County Sheriff's Office since October of 2019; In 2021, Plaintiff received an employment evaluation that met exceeds expectations and was an excellent review: Plaintiff was promoted to Sergeant with the Franklin County Sheriff's Office (hereinafter FCSO) in 2020 ‘On January 1, 2020, Plaintiff and other Deputy Sheriffs responded on 3 occasions to a residence located in Franklin County, Kentucky where a resident was threatening other ‘members of the household; Plaintiff and the other deputies attempted to calm the subject and left, on two occasions, only to be called back a third time when the subject was arrested; ‘The subject (Austin) continually was disruptive and physically and verbally resistant to the deputies attempts to calm and control him; ‘Once in the deputy’s cruiser, Austin complained of chest pain and difficulty breathing and was taken to the hospital to be evaluated; [At the hospital, Austin had to be handcuffed to the bed railings to restrain him so that hospital staff could treat him;14, As Deputy Philip Ray was attempting to unhandcuff Austin, Austin grabbed the Deputy’s ‘arm and dug his fingernails into the Deputy’s arm, causing pain and was using racial slurs and hate language toward the Deputy while sitting up in the bed and straining against the handcuffs; 15, In order to gain control and compliance, the Plaintiff pushed the inmate back down onto the bed to de-escalate his behavior and with his hand and forearm, pushed Austin’s face away from the deputies and staff in order to prevent biting and spitting in an approved manner to protect the Deputies, hospital staff, and to keep Austin from harming himself by straining against the handcuffs; 16. The above action is on video as Deputy Doty (Plaintiff) was the only deputy there who WAS wearing his body worn camera in an “on” position; 17. The Defendants ignored the sworn testimony of a use of force expert witness who explained ‘what occurred and explained that the Plaintiff had not used any excessive force; 18. Unlike the Chief Deputy who testified, the expert witness HAD reviewed the entire investigation and all witness statements; 19. After an Internal investigation, the Plaintiff was fired and charged with misconduct, which triggered the protections afforded by KRS 15.520 and a pre-termination opportunity to respond under Cleveland Board of Education vs. Loudermill, otherwise known as a “Loudermill hearing” 20. The “charges” of misconduct were vague and without sufficient specificity to allow the Plaintiff to know what conduct allegedly violated the administrative charges and therefore rendered him unable to prepare a meaningfl defense; 21. The Plaintiff was never questioned by any investigator or allowed to explain to said investigator what occurred; 22. This arrest ocourred more than 2 years before the Plaintif?'s administrative hearing (such as it was);23. The hearing rights and due process requirements of KRS 15.520 were not followed by the FCSO and thus, the Plaintiff is entitled to backpay and reinstatement in addition to other remedies, 24. The FCSO (Quire and Depp) held a news conference with media, including Lexington News Channel 36 on January 4, 2022 and advised the reporter that there was a pending criminal trial with the Commonwealth’s Attomey (emphasis added) and this report was on the television news and posted on the internet; 25. The above was a blatantly false statement which is defamation per se under Kentucky law as it implies that the Plaintiff has been criminally investigated, indicted by a grand jury, arraigned and case set for trial- however NONE of this occurred and Quire and Depp knew this had not occurred when making the statement to the news reporters; Claims Unlawful termination: 26. KRS 15.520 affords procedural due process to those to whom it applies and in the instant case, the Plaintiff was not afforded the guarantees and processes outlined in KRS 15.520; 27. The Defendants did not review the investigation done by their own staff thus no mitigating factors were considered: 28. The Defendants recommended termination for violation of policies although they admit that the investigation and witness statements were not reviewed prior to their conclusions and played no part in their decisions; 29. The Plaintiff was not afforded a Loudermill hearing and was not given an opportunity prior to the charges being filed to give @ statement; 30. The charges were insufficient and vague and thus violate the demands of KRS 15.520 (6a): 31. KRS 15.520(7) was violated as there was not substantial evidence to support the charges; 432. No witnesses who were present on the date of the incident (1-1-20) testified and their official statements were not reviewed by Dwayne Depp who recommended termination without reviewing the investigation or eye witness accounts, thus there was not substantial evidence considered by the charging parties when determining to charge the Plaintiff and to terminate his employment, making the decision to terminate arbitrary as it was not based upon investigation or witnesses and ignored the expert testimony; 33. The decision rendered is attached to this Complaint and was rendered on January 4, 2022 thus this appeal is timely filed; Defamation of Character by stander and libel 34. The Plaintiff was defamed by Defendants making slanderous statements to the press that although the administrative decision had been rendered, that the Commonwealth Attorney ‘would be holding a trial (the Commonwealth's Attomey could only be holding a felony criminal trial thus, he is being portrayed as a criminal who was indicted) and said statements were printed and posted online showing libel as well as slander under the purview of defamation; 35. The slanderous statements and libel were stated and printed about the Plaintiff, 36. This statement is false in its entirety as there are no criminal charges, there has been no grand jury, no indictment and no request for atrial; thus, the Plaintiff has been Defamed by the ‘untrue and slanderous comments by the Sheriff and Chief Deputy Depp which paint him as a criminal and/or one who has been charged with criminal activity; 37. Alleging that someone has been charged with a crime or criminal activity is Defamation per se and this defamation has damaged the Plaintiff's credibility:38. To the extent that the media has initially stated and printed and reported that Quire advised there was a trial pending with the Commonwealth's Attorney, this has caused irreparable damage to his reputation Wherefore Plaintiff Respectfully Demands: {All administrative charges are to be dismissed as unsupported by substantial evidence; ‘The Plaintiff shall be reinstated with back pay and benefits; ‘The Plaintiff be awarded an amount sufficient to reimburse him for defamation including punitive damages Attomey’s fees and costs; Any other remedy to which this Court believes Plaintiff is entitled. Respectfully oo. ) Vite Ue ary W. Sharp ‘Counsel for Plai Certificate of Service that a copy of this Complaint has been filed with the Franklin County Court Clerk by hand delivery and served upon the Defendants via their Counsel, the Honorable Charles Cole by email on this day of January, 2022. Defendant's counsel has agreed to accept service,