CONEMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
BOONE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

CASE NO. 
Electronically Filed

DIVISION
KATHI SILVEY
and
SANDY ZAVODNY
465 Spillman Drive
Dry Ridge, Kentucky 41035

PLAINTIFFS
v.

GRANT COUNTY DETENTION CENTER
212 Barnes Read
Williamstown, Kentucky 41097

Serve: ailer Terry Peeples
212 Barnes Road
Williamstovvn, Kentucky 41097
TERRY PEEPLES

Both in his Of?cial Capacity and
His Individual Capacity as ailer
300 Ridge Lea Drive
Williamstown, Kentucky 41097

GRANT COUNTY
101 North Main Street
Williamstovvn, Kentucky 41097

Judge Executive Darrell Link
101 North Main Street
Williamstown, Kentucky 41097

Serve:

DEFENDAN TS

COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND

 

Come now the Plaintiffs, Kathi SILVEY, and Sandy ZAVODNY (hereinafter Plaintiff
SILVEY and Plaintiff ZAVODNY) through counsel, and for their Complaint against Defendants

state as follows:

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff SILVEY was a citizen and resident of
Florence, Kentucky, and currently resides in Florence, Kentucky, and is a Boone County,
Kentucky resident.

2. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff ZAVODNY was a citizen and resident of
Grant County, Kentucky, residing at 465 Spillman Drive, Dry Ridge, Kentucky 41035.

3. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Terry Peeples has been an employee of
Defendant Grant County Detention Center and since in or around January 2011 has served as
Grant County ailer in Williamstown, Grant County, Kentucky. Upon information and belief, at
all times relevant hereto, Defendant Peeples, who acted in both his individual and of?cial
capacity, resides at 300 Ridge Lea Drive, Williamstown, Kentucky 41097 and is a citizen and
resident of Grant County Kentucky.

4. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Grant County Detention Center and
Grant County operate as political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Kentucky under all
relevant statutes, and are employers within the meaning of KRS ?344, et seq.

5. The amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional amount of the
Boone County Circuit Court.

6. The jurisdiction of this Court over Defendant Terry Peeples and Defendants
Grant County Detention Center and Grant County is based upon their actions and contacts within

the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

 

7. Venue is appropriate in Boone County as Plaintiff SILVEY is a resident of

Florence, Kentucky, which is in Boone County.

FACTS RELEVANT TO ALL CLAIMS
8. Defendant Peeples was elected ailer of Defendant Grant County Detention Center
(hereinafter referred to as in 2010, and began as Jailer in January, 2011.
9. As ailer, Defendant Peeples has the highest rank and is the principle administrator
at the GCDC and the top supervisor of personnel at the GCDC.
10. Plaintiffs SILVEY and ZAVODNY are both employees of Grant County and the
GCDC.
FACTS RELEVANT TO CLAIMS OF KATHI SILVEY
1. Plaintiff SILVEY is female.
12. Plaintiff SILVEY began working for Defendants on or around March 1, 2010, as
the Director of Substance Abuse Program (hereinafter 
13. From the outset of Defendant Peeples? term as Jaiier of the GCDC, in January,
2011, Peeples began making sexually charged comments and sexual solicitations to her, clearly
indicating that he was interested in having a sexual relationship with her, something which
Plaintiff SILVEY made clear to ailer Peeples that she had absolutely no interest in whatsoever.
By example, Defendant Peeples engaged in the following list of behaviors and solicitations
(which is not exhaustive) all of which were offensive and humiliating to Plaintiff SILVEY:
0 Any time Plaintiff SILVEY began dating someone, Defendant Peeples asked
Plaintiff SILVEY details about her dating relationship. Defendant Peeples also
asked other employees - including but not limited to Plaintiff ZAVODNY, who
worked for Plaintiff SILVEY about Plaintiff private sexual life. On
multiple occasions, Defendant Peeples demanded that Plaintiff ZAVODNY tell

him whether Plaintiff SILVEY had ?done him? (in reference to someone
SILVEY was dating).

 

 On one occasion when Plaintiff SILVEY received flowers at work, Defendant
Peeples made a point of stating in front of others, ?Is that what it takes? Then
order me 12 roses.? Plaintiff SILVEY found this direct solicitation by the Jailer
to be humiliating.

0 Following a staff meeting, and in the presence of several of Plaintiff 
colleagues, Defendant Peeples approached Plaintiff SILVEY from behind, put
both arms around her neck and squeezing her upper torso while grabbing both of
her breasts, began snif?ng her skin and hair while grunting ?Urnmm? and kissing
Plaintiff on the neck. 

a At a CGDC Christmas Party that Jailer Peeples held at his residence in January
2013, Plaintiff SILVEY was there with her boyfriend, Darrell. Defendant
Peeples approached both of them, leaned over Plaintiff SILVEY and said to
Darrell so that Plaintiff SILVEY could clearly hear, ?Have you seen the tits and
ass on that [indicating I?d like to (expletive modified) her!? At
the same party, Plaintiff SIVLEY was made to watch while Defendant Peeples
groped and sexually harassed multiple female employees of GCDC.

14. Despite Plaintiff repeated refusals and clear rejections of his
propositions, Defendant Peeples persisted in his inappropriate sexual advances and solicitations
toward Plaintiff SILVEY from January, 2011, when he started as GCDC ailer, and forward.

15. In late 201i early 2012, Plaintiff SILVEY began to complain to Defendant
Peeples and Management about violations in the Detention Center of GCDC policies,
regulations, and laws. As examples, Plaintiff SILVEY complained that ?scream alarms? were
being intentionally turned off in the main control room, that jail cell food flaps were being left
open, that razors were being left laying on jail cell food flaps, that both security and safety
regulations were being breached, that speci?c violations of the federal Prison Rape Elimination
Act were being violated, and that there were misappropriations of the SAP program
funds for use by the ailer for his own personal gain.

16. In direct retaliation to her complaints to Defendant Peeples, Defendant Peeples

began to bully Plaintiff SILVEY in staff meetings and encourage other supervisors to bully

Plaintiff SILVEY as well. Management were told to use a code word to diffuse Plaintiff

4

 

 complaints. The code word, which was was a signal to all other
Management to remain silent and not address Plaintiff repeated concerns of illegal
activities.

17. Also in retaliation to Plaintiff complaints and reports, Defendant
Peeples ramped up his inappropriate, sexually charged behavior toward Plaintiff SILVEY. In
fact, Plaintiff SILVEY began to become so frightened of Defendant?s repeated propositions that
she felt required to avoid and hide from Defendant Peeples to protect herself from his perpetual
sexual harassment. For many months, Plaintiff SILVEY remained terri?ed that because she had
resisted his sexual advances, and if she complained outside the GCDC regarding Defendant
Peeples? sexually charged hostile work environment and retaliatory bullying, Defendant Peeples
would terminate her and publicly ridicule and ruin her, as she had observed him do precisely that
to others who crossed him.

18. Defendant Peeples, in fact, has a strong reputation among all employees at the
GCDC to be vindictive to anyone who crosses him. Jailer Peeples makes it clear that not
only will employees who cross him lose their jobs, but that he will publicly destroy their
reputation. Plaintiff SIVLEY, like many others, was intimidated by his threats not to cross him.

19. Plaintiff SILVEY was known by Defendant Peeples to take very good notes
regarding the SAP program, including statements and accusations made by the inmates on a
daily basis. Each time Plaintiff SILVEY would bring any concern in the GCDC to Defendant
Peeples? attention, he would respond that she should just ?write it down?. After he was ailer for
about a year, or in early 2012, ailer Peeples began to frequently demand Plaintiff SILVEY to
write accusatory statements against other GCDC employees on his behalf. These statements

were based on what Defendant Peeples told Plaintiff SILVEY to be true, and not on the facts or

 

evidence that she had personally experienced. The statements she was asked to write were
directed at other employees at the jail, stating they had done various inappropriate acts and
activities. Out of sheer fear, Plaintiff SILVEY wrote down some of the facts as Defendant
Peeples commanded her. Plaintiff SILVEY has recently learned that some of the ?facts? that
Defendant Peeples asked her to write were simply untrue. Most alarmingly, Plaintiff SILVEY
has recently learned that Jailer Peeples also created completely false documents that he
represented to be written by her (Attachment A). Plaintiff SILVEY has now seen at least two
such falsi?ed documents, learning that aiier Peeples used them as GCDC evidence to defend
himself in a currently pending lawsuit (Attachment A). Plaintf?SIL VEY did not write these e?
mails, and Defendant Peeples? false creation of GCDC business records using her good name
and likeness was speci?cally retaliatory to her.

20. Beginning in 2013, Plaintiff SILVEY began to constantly fear not only for her
job, but for her personal safety and well-being. Defendant Peeples bragged that he carried
several guns in his vehicles at all times. As much as Plaintiff tried to avoid Defendant Peeples
both in the Detention Center and in her personal life, Defendant Peeples made it clear that she
needed to do and say exactly as he directed because he was ?the boss man?. Specifically, at any
time she was given any employment benefit, Defendant Peeples would clarify that she would
owe him a sexual favor in return, stating, ?we?ll talk about What this is going to cost you?, or
?we?ll talk later about what your payment will be to me?. As Defendant Peeples? perverse
possessiveness of Plaintiff SILVEY increased, he demanded more and more details of Plaintiff
personal relationships, including with whom she spent her personal time, and the
details of what she was doing at all times of the day and night, particularly the details of her sex

life.

 

21. In or around April, 20l3, when Plaintiff SILVEY was at the GCDC, Defendant
Peeples told Plaintiff that she needed to accompany him to New Albany, Indiana to make a
presentation to a high school class. Plaintiff SILVEY questioned why GCDC personnel would
travel to an Indiana high school and why he needed her to go, but Defendant Peeples persisted,
stating, in fact, the two of them needed to travel there for an overnight trip. Defendant Peeples?
proposition made Plaintiff SILVEY extremely uncomfortable, given his constant sexual
propositions toward her. She became more frightened when he told her to keep the trip ?secret?,
demanding ?Just don?t tell anyone we are going.? Plaintiff SILVEY realized that Defendant
Peeples would not take ?no? for an answer, and she became extremely stressed for the next two
weeks about his plans to take her out of town to a strange place on a Sunday afternoon. She
con?ded in her fellow SAP employee, Plaintiff ZAVODNY, about her concerns of what Plaintiff
Peeples had proposed, and ZAVODNY also became concerned, having observed Defendant
Peeples sexual advances, comments, and other sexual behaviors towards Plaintiff SILVEY.
Plaintiff ZAVODNY told Plaintiff SILVEY that it would not be safe for her to go on the trip
alone with ailer Peeples, and offered to accompany her. When Plaintiff SILVEY met Jailer
Peeples at the GCDC at the prearranged time of 2:30 pm. on Sunday, April 13, 2013, Plaintiff
ZAVODNY was with her. Defendant Peeples immediately questioned ZAVODNY about
accompanying them. But when Plaintiff SILVEY insisted that she would not go on the trip
without ZAVODNY, Defendant Peeples reluctantly agreed. On their way to their destination a
desolate off-the-road motel that appeared to be closed Defendant began to question
ZAVODNY about whether Plaintiff SILVEY would have sex with him, culminating with, ?Is

she seeing anybody right now?? and ?What does it take to have sex with 

 

22. When Peeples arrived at his intended hotel destination, Defendant Peeples
suggested that the women stay in separate rooms, but they insisted staying together. As soon as
they were given access to their room, they attempted to avoid Defendant Peeples the remainder
of the afternoon and evening, except when Jailer Peeples took them to get something to eat (the
isolated motel didn?t even have a coke machine). Meanwhile, Jailer Peeples had met up with a
young female teacher, Summers Montgomery, who then joined them for dinner. Throughout the
trip to Indiana, Plaintiff SILVEY felt that she was being kidnapped, wrongfully detained, and not
safe, especially when Defendant Peeples brought her to the remote hotel while knowing he
carried several guns in his car, and she realized what he would have done had he taken her there
alone. She also later learned that Defendant Peeples had duct tape and handcuffs in his car on
that trip.

23. On multiple occasions, Plaintiff SILVEY reported certain of Defendant Peeples
conduct to her direct supervisor, Chief Deputy Richard Clise. Chief Deputy Clise documented
these meetings. A letter was also written to Defendant Peeples requesting a mediation
concerning bullying and hostile work environment. Several emails were also sent by Becky
Clise concerning these issues. No mediation was scheduled until several months later when
Plaintiff SILVEY contacted the County Attorney herself. To Plaintiff knowledge and
observation, no actions have been taken against ailer Terry Peeples in response to her reports to
Chief Deputy Clise. Conversely, as a direct result of Defendant Peeples? knowledge of Plaintiff
statements to Chief Deputy Clise, Defendant Peeples began a concerted effort to
destroy Plaintiff reputation and credibility in the GCDC and the entire Northern

Kentucky community.

 

24. Meanwhile, Plaintiff did also complain directly to Defendant Peeples about
several illegal activities ongoing at the GCDC, including violations of federal Prison Rape
Elimination Act Defendant Jailer Peeples continued to directly retaliate against
Plaintiff SILVEY in response to her complaints of these illegalities, intensifying his screaming
and yelling at her at any time she brought these to his attention in the presence of other staff. In
one instance, after Plaintiff SILVEY complained about the pornographic materials being allowed
to be brought into the GCDC in violation of PREA standards, ailer Peeples openly screamed at
Plaintiff SILVEY in a staff meeting, and then to intentionally embarrass, scare, and threaten her
stated, ?If an inmate wants to masturbate [to porn], he has the right?. Plaintiff SILVEY
immediately became visibly upset and when it was clear to Defendant Peeples and the others in
the meeting that Plaintiff SILVEY was upset, ailer Peeples averred to Plaintiff SILVEY, ?If you
don?t like the way I run my jail, you can find other employment.? Defendant Peeples then called
a ?break?. Shocked and upset and already in tears, Plaintiff SILVEY went to her of?ce knowing
she could not return to the meeting. Defendant Peeples then had another employee call Plaintiff
SILVEY to demand she return to the staff meeting. When Plaintiff SILVEY refused, Defendant
Peeples marched down to her of?ce and shut the door. Plaintiff SILVEY told Jailer Peeples,
?Treating me like that was totally out of line.? Plaintiff SILVEY told ailer Peeples that he was
encouraging bullying of her by some of her colleagues (supervisors) at the jail. Defendant
Peeples? only response was to blame other supervisors, snickering and stating, ?You are right,
they do hate you.?

25. At the very next staff meeting, Jailer Peeples, in another inappropriate and
vindictive display, came up behind Plaintiff SILVEY and grabbed her breasts and kissed her.

Defendant Peeples did this in front of many other staff and supervisors.

 

26. Also as a direct result of Plaintiff complaints of the illegal activities
and as a direct result of her resistance to ailer Peeples? constant sexual advances, he began to
retaliate by taking away Plaintiff key job responsibilities regarding the SAP Budget,
basically eliminating her input on and access to her own Program?s Budget and expenditures.

27. Beginning in the spring of 2013 and continuing through 2014, the GCDC received
continued requests for Plaintiff statements regarding various internal investigations,
Kentucky State Police investigations, and lawsuits regarding GCDC employees and former
employees. For one KSP investigation and lawsuit involving former Chief Deputy Dennis
Bailey, Defendant Peeples urged Plaintiff SILVEY to support his position by providing negative
statements against Bailey. Plaintiff SILVEY continually told Jailer Peeples, however, that she
never saw Bailey do anything illegal. Soon thereafter, she was contacted by the KSP, who
wanted to know what she knew about Mr. Bailey having inappropriately (illegally) touched a
female inmate(s). She told the KSP Detective the same thing that she told Jailer Peeples that
she never saw Mr. Bailey touch an inmate, that she couldn?t imagine that he ever would, and that
she knew of nothing that Dennis Bailey ever did that was illegal.

28. From this experience in observing Jailer Peeples? clear manipulation of the
process, and from his continuing ongoing threats regarding her potential testimony, caused
Plaintiff SILVEY more and more stress, fearing daily the consequences Defendant Peeples
would exact upon her if she was pressed to tell the truth under oath. About this same time,
Plaintiff SILVEY began to notice that pages had been torn from her GCDC notebooks where she
kept a daily activity report for her SAP program. She began to hide her notebooks and even take

them home with her to avoid further destruction of her documentation.

i0

 

29. In October of 2014, Plaintiff SILVEY noti?ed several authorities outside the
GCDC in writing that she had been sexually harassed, and in the same correspondence, identified
other illegal actions taken by Jailer Peeples, including waste, fraud and abuse at the GCDC.

30. In direct response to Plaintiff reports of Defendant Peeples? illegal
conduct, he has further retaliated against her, putting both her well?being and life at risk. By
example only, on October 23rd, 2014, Defendant Peeples called Plaintiff SILVEY into his office
and (assumedly while tape recording Plaintiff SILVEY) said that ?Summers Montgomery?
wanted him and Plaintiff SILVEY to return to New Albany, Indiana to speak at her high school.
Plaintiff SILVEY responded that, in no uncertain terms, was she willing to travel with him out of
state again, as it was not part of her job responsibilities. Defendant Peeples became visibly
upset, stood up, and said don?t think that?s a Wise choice. This conversation is over.? As
Plaintiff left Defendant Peeples of?ce, she knew he had threatened her job. She immediately

called her doctor, went to see him that day, and he took her off work the rest of the week.

FACTS RELEVANT TO CLAIMS OF SANDY ZAVODNY

31. Plaintiff Sandy ZAVODNY (?Plaintiff is a female. Plaintiff
ZAVODNY was hired by Defendant GCDC on or around April 3, 2000 as a Deputy ailer.

32. Plaintiff ZAVODNY has received multiple promotions and in December, 2010
received the GCDC award of Deputy Jailer of the Year. In January 2010, Plaintiff ZAVODNY
was promoted to SAP Coordinator. In 2014, Plaintiff ZAVODNY was promoted to Lieutenant.

33. Plaintiff ZAVODNY complained directly to Defendant Peeples about several
illegal activities ongoing at the GCDC. These included but were not limited to breaches of both
security and safety regulations for the GCDC, specific violations of the federal Prison Rape

Elimination Act and what Plaintiff believed were misappropriations of the SAP

ll

 

program funds for use by the Jailer for his own personal gain. Furthermore, she complained
regarding a female employee groping her, humping her, and making inappropriate sexually
charged comments. Plaintiff ZAVODNY also reported her complaints about this female
employee to Grant County Attorney Joe Taylor.

34. From the time Jailer Peeples became ailer in January, 2011, Plaintiff ZAVODNY
also observed Defendant Peeples making inappropriate sexual comments and sexual touching of
several female employees at the GCDC. Although she voiced concerns about this illegal conduct
to several GCDC supervisors, she feared confronting ailer Peeples directly, having observed
him taking swift and cruel retaliatory actions against employees who crossed him personally. In
fact, one instance where Plaintiff ZAVODNY did question Defendant Peeples about his
promotion to Chief Deputy an employee who had admittedly sexually assaulted her (Plaintiff
ZAVODNY), Jailer Peeples, although expressing dislike for that same employee, responded,
?Have you heard that saying ?Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer??
Defendant Peeples then added that the real reason for the promotion was that he wanted such
employee ?on the front line to get hemmed up and see how it feels.? Such comments reinforced
Plaintiff fear that Defendant Peeples retaliated against employees who crossed
him.

35. In fact, having witnessed Defendant Peeples? retaliatory actions against those that
personally questioned him, Plaintiff ZAVODNY constantly feared for her own job. Even when
Plaintiff ZAVODNY attempted to ?explain? to Defendant Peeples? that he needed to curb his
sexual behaviors, he directly threatened and intimidated Plaintiff ZAVODNY from reporting
them elsewhere by telling her because she was a reemason, any disclosure against him would

violate the ?Masonic Code?.

12

 

36. As stated, Plaintiff ZAVODNY did begin to express her concerns to other
supervisors within the GCDC, including Captain Hale, Chief Deputy Clise, Captain Skinner,
Becky Clise and others. She also told County Attorney Joe Taylor. Within a few short weeks
and following Plaintiff ZAVODNY reporting concerns to County Attorney Taylor, Defendant
Peeples began to retaliate against Plaintiff ZAVODNY. Defendant Peeples even began to show
physical aggression toward Plaintiff ZAVODNY after she complained, and she began to fear for
her personal safety. On one occasion in which Defendant Peeples became very angry in a staff
meeting she was in, he picked up a tripod and threatened to throw it at staff. Other times, he
paced around her and Plaintiff SILVEY while wielding a Taser.

37. As a result of her willingness to complain to other management about what she
perceived to be illegal actions at the GCDC, and her direct complaints to Peeples and others
about the illegal activities ongoing at the GCDC, Jailer Peeples began to intentionally isolate
Plaintiff ZAVODNY from other employees, forcing her to work alone with inmates. She began
to be apprehensive each time she reported to work at the GCDC. She also noticed how her boss,
Kathi SILVEY was being isolated from other employees due to continued resistance
to Jailer Peeples? sexual advances toward SILVEY.

38. In April, 2013, when Jailer Peeples asked her boss, Plaintiff SILVEY to go with
him alone to Indiana for an overnight trip to a destination thaf was only an hour and a half drive,
Plaintiff ZAVODNY, being extremely concerned about Plaintiff safety, injected
herself into the situation. She had already witnessed Defendant Peeples? clear desire to have
sexual relations with Plaintiff SILVEY and so insisted on accompanying Plaintiff SILVEY on
the trip for the sole purpose of physically protecting Plaintiff SILVEY from Defendant Peeples?

sexual advances. In fact, when Plaintiff ZAVODNY put her luggage in Defendant Peeples?

l3

 

trunk, she saw duct tape and multiple ?rearms. Although Plaintiff ZAVODNY has no regrets in
stepping in to protect her colleague on that trip, since April of 2014 Jailer Peeples retaliation
against her has increased signi?cantly. This included screaming and yelling at her and in the
presence of other staff.

39. Around the time of the April 2014 trip to Indiana, and in further retaliation for her
complaints, Plaintiff ZAVODNY began to notice that pages had been torn from her GCDC
notebooks where she kept a daily activity report for her SAP program. She began to hide her
notebooks and even take them home with her to avoid further destruction of her documentation.

40. In October, 2014, after having endured the sexually hostile work environment for
almost two years, after having repeatedly complained about it to personnel both inside and
outside the GCDC, Plaintiff ZAVODNY reported in writing all her concerns of illegal conduct at
the GCDC to several statewide authorities.

41. Following her complaints, although no authority took any action against ailer
Peeples, the retaliation by Defendant Peeples against Plaintiff ZAVODNY increased even more.

COUNT I
STATE WHISTLEBLOWER KRS 561.101, et seq.

42. Plaintiffs herein incorporate by reference all allegations previously set forth in this
Complaint, the same as if set forth verbatim herein.

43. As a result of Plaintiff and Plaintiff reports of the
illegal activities ongoing at the GCDC, including but not limited to their complaints of
Defendant Peeples? repeated demands of GCDC employees to lie under oath, his repeated threats
to terminate them if anyone ?ratted? on him, his constant requests of secrecy, and his creation of

an illegally hostile work environment, Defendants, in violation of KRS ?61.101 and ?6l.102, et

14

 

seq., willfully ignored such complaints and willfully subjected Plaintiff SILVEY and Plaintiff
ZAVODNY to reprisal, and Defendants directly and indirectly used official authority and
in?uence to discourage, restrain, depress, dissuade, deter, prevent, interfere with, coerce and
discriminate against Plaintiffs for reporting the information.

44. Plaintiffs were further punished for making these reports through Defendants?
adverse employment actions.

45. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants? conduct described herein,
Plaintiffs have suffered from a loss of income and benefits, severe emotional distress and mental

anxiety, for all of which they should be compensated.

cousin
SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION

46. Plaintiffs herein incorporate by reference all allegations previously set forth in
this Complaint, the same as if set forth verbatim herein.

47. The above actions by Defendants constitute sexual harassment exacted upon
Plaintiff SILVEY and ZAVODNY, including quid pro quo and hostile work environment
harassment in violation of KRS ?344, et seq.

48. Defendants knew or should have known of the actions described herein, and their
failure to prevent said actions directed against Plaintiffs in?icted upon each Plaintiff mental and
emotional distress, including humiliation in front of their respective colleagues and suffering
injuries to their career and reputation, all to their specific damage.

49. As a proximate result of the Defendant Peeples? actions as set forth above,

Plaintiff is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable harm and injury.

15

 

COUNT 
RETALIATION

50. Plaintiffs herein incorporate by reference all allegations previously set forth in this
Complaint, the same as if set forth verbatim herein.

5 1. Once Plaintiffs SILVEY and ZAVODNY resisted and/or complained of Defendant
Peeples? sexual advances and complained of the illegal hostile work environment, Defendants
took numerOus retaliatory acts against them.

52. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? conduct herein, Plaintiffs have
suffered a loss of income and bene?ts, severe emotional distress and mental anxiety, all for
which they should be compensated.

COUNT IV
DEFAMATION BY SLANDER

53. Plaintiffs herein incorporate by reference all allegations previously set forth in this
Complaint, the same as if set forth verbatim herein.

54. Defendant Peeples in the past and presently harms each of Plaintiffs? good name,
character and reputation through the publication of false, injurious statements about Plaintiffs to
third parties.

55 As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant Peeples? conduct described
herein, Plaintiffs have suffered from a loss of income and bene?ts, severe emotional distress,
mental anxiety and irreparable damage to Plaintiffs? good name, character and reputation, for all

of which they should be compensated.

COUNT 
INTENTIONAL INF LICTION OF EMOTIONAL 

56. Plaintiffs herein incorporate by reference all allegations previously set forth in

this Complaint, the same as if set forth verbatim herein.

i6

 

57. Defendant Peeples? reckless and intentional harassment of Plaintiffs was
outrageous and intolerable as it offends against the generally accepted standards of decency and
morality.

58. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Peeples? outrageous and highly
offensive conduct, Plaintiff SILVEY has suffered extensive damages, including but not limited
to severe emotional distress, health issues, and excessive stress and mental anxiety, for all of
which she should be compensated.

COUNT VI
PUNITIVE DAMAGES

59. Plaintiffs reiterate and incorporate by reference, as if set forth fully herein, each
and every averment, allegation, and statement made in the previous paragraphs of this
Complaint.

60. The acts of the Defendants, as set forth above, rise to the level of gross negligence
and/or intentional and/or wanton or reckless behavior.

61. As such, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs in punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs SILVEY and ZAVODNY demand judgment against
Defendants as follows:

A. For all compensatory and punitive damages with respect to statutory and tort
claims in an amount being just;

B. For an award of reasonable costs and attorney?s fees; and

C. For any and all other equitable and legal relief to which Plaintiffs appear entitled.

l7

 

Respectfully submitted,

B. DAHLENBURG BONAR, BBC.

Barbara D. Bonar

BARBARA D. BONAR (KBA #42213)
OTWELL S. RANKIN (KBA #93478)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

3611 Decoursey Avenue

Covington, Kentucky 41 015

Phone: 859?431-3333

Fax: 859?392-3900
bdbonar@lawatbdb.com
0rankin@lawatbdb.com

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs herein demand atrial by jury.

Barbara D. Bonar
BARBARA D. BONAR

 

18

 

Attachment A

19

 

Terry Peeples

From: Kathi Silvey

Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 3:13 PM
To: Terry Peoples

Subject: documentation

A few things that I have written on my calendar are:

June 19, 2011 While Sandy and were at Walmart Mr. Baily came to 26 hall and went to the classroom and discussed
some things with the SAP men. Christopher Davis, Michael Mathis and Lt. Webster was there. They were discussing what
they could get at the store. Mr. Baily stated that soon he will have Hustler magazine and fried chicken so they will be
abie to "eat your meat and beat your meat?.

August 8, 2011 It was reported by SAP inmates that inmate Kyle Wright told them that "he was related to Mr. Baily and
that is why he gives him things from the canteen and why he has my back about Ms. Silyey kicking me out of 

August 10, 2011 Mr. Baily went into the 1386 morning meeting and told the SAP inmates that they should have done
more to help Mr. Moreland (who Was terminated). He said that "l?m not calling it snitching or rating but you all shouldn't
of tattle telied on each other for everything?. Again, this is going against what a Therapeutic Modality of treatment is
and it interferes with safety and security in the jail and in our program. He also told the guys again about his belief that
they should be able to drink a couple drinks and then put it down.

September 19, 2011 it was reported by SAP inmates that Mr. Baily came in to 086 with a pistol in his holster that
morning. This information was passed down to Mike Webster.

September 20, 2011. I turned in statements to you and Mike Webster about Mr. Baily approaching inmates Christopher
Cox and Joshua Goff asking who told on him from SAP about Wearing his gun in the building yesterday. He called them
?snitches?.

November 8, 2011. It was reported by inmate Joshua Goff that Mr. Baily gives some inmates store credits. One of the
inmates is Christopher Cox. Also, came back in 26 Hall again and started talking about how he felt about "snitching". He
did all this in front of new SAP inmates. He continued to display a "convict code? of behavior even though this had been
discussed with him several times as to how it is inappropriate.

These are a few things I have written on my calendar and that stick out to me. i am sure there are more but i will need to
read through our staff meeting minutes. i wiEI do that this evening. With Sandy out 1 can?t really do it right now but i will
tonight.

Kathi

(30001 175

20

 

Terry Peepies

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Kathi Silvey

Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:22 PM
Terry Peeples

documentation

incident that took place on 11/23/11 between trustee Randall Weils and inmate Jack Roberts. No incident report was
ever written yet inmate Wells was in isolation for weeks. inmate Roberts was injured and given medical care at the
hospital. The day before Thanksgiving according to Col. East, Chief Baily opened a isolation cell door. inmate Roberts had
been on watch. inmate Randall Wells convinced Chief Baily to open the isolation cell door to inmate Jack Roberts so he
could clean the ceii. Mr. Baiiy opened the door withOut another deputy present which is against policy. Inmate Wells
entered the cell and assaulted inmate Roberts. All Call was then performed and inmate Randali Weiis was locked down.

Mr. Baily never wrote an incident report on this matter.

On November 28, 2011 when Col. East discussed the incident he reported that David Neace and Randy Wells devised a
plan to pick the most vulnerable staff member to open the cell door for some reason. They decided that Chief Deputy
Baily was the most gullible. He did not complete an Extra Ordinary Report or an incident Report on the matter.

Not sure if you remembered about this one.

Kathi

GC001176

21