Case: Doc 1 Filed: 10124114 Page: 1 of 18 - Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY COVINGTON DIVISION Electronically Filed STEVE SKINNER Civil Action No. 9930 Taft Highway - Williamstown, Kentucky 41097 V. GRANT COUNTY DETENTION CENTER COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND 212 Barnes Road Williamstown, 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 Williamstown, Kentucky 41097 GRANT COUNTY FISCAL COURT 101 North Main Street Williamstown, Kentucky 41097 DARRELL LINK In his capacity as udgeuExecutive 101 North Main Street Williamstown, Kentucky 41097 Come now the Plaintiff, Steven Skinner, through counsel, and for his Complaint against Defendants, states as follows: Case: Doc 1 Filed: 10/24/14 Page: 2 of 18 - Page 2 PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 1. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff, was a citizen and resident of Grant County, Kentucky. Plaintiff resides at 9930 Taft Highway, Williamstown, Kentucky 41097. 2. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Terry Peeples has been an employee of Defendant Grant County Detention Center and, since January 2011, has served as Grant County Jailer 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. 3. Plaintiff is currently employed by Grant County Detention Center in Grant County, Kentucky. The practices complained of herein primarily occurred in Grant County, Kentucky. 4. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, Darrell L. Link, has served as Grant County Judge Executive in Williamstown, Grant County, Kentucky. 5 . Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in Grant County, Kentucky, and the practices complained of herein all occurred in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. 6. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants, Grant County Detention Center and the Grant County Fiscal Court operate in Grant County, Kentucky, and are employers within the meaning of the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2601, et seq. KRS 61, et seq.; and KRS 344, et seq. 7. Defendants, Grant County Detention Center, Grant County Fiscal Court, and Defendant Terry Peeples, are persons subject to suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C 2615 (FMLA). Case: Doc 1 Filed: 10/24/14 Page: 3 of 18 - Page 3 8. Accordingly, original jurisdiction is appropriate in this Court based upon federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 28 U.S.C. 1343, speci?cally in regards to claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 29 U.S.C. 2601. 9. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff? 3 state law claims under 28 U.S.C. 1367(a), as such claims are so related to the claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction. 10. Venue in the Eastern District of Kentucky is appropriate in that the acts in question occurred within this district. FACTS RELEVANT TO ALL CLAIMS 11. Defendant Peeples was elected ailer of Defendant Grant County Detention Center (hereinafter referred to as in 2010, and began as Jailer in January 2011. 12. As Jailer, Defendant Peeples has the highest rank and is the principle administrator at the GCDC and the top supervisor of personnel at the GCDC. 13. Plaintiff began working as a Deputy Jailer under the direct supervision of Defendant Peeples in early 2011, very soon after Defendant Peeples took of?ce. 14. Since Plaintiff started working with Defendant Peeples at GCDC, he has observed Defendant Peeples continuously make sexually charged comments and sexual solicitations, as well as sexually touching on several female employees at GCDC, including but not limited to the following employees: Jessica Jump, Tonya Beagle, Lula See, Kathi Silvey, Missy Hacker, Dr. Laura Brown, Celeste Kiefner, Ashley Carmen, Howe, and Lee Ballard. At the GCDC Christmas party in January, 2013, Defendant Peeples? sexual solicitations, sexual comments, and sexual grabbing of female employees was so outrageous that many female Case: Doc 1 Filed: 10/24/14 Page: 4 of 18 Page 4 employees became visibly upset and walked out of the party, while Plaintiff and other male employees felt they needed to physically restrain Defendant Peeples. 15. Plaintiff also observed Defendant Peeples grossly waste GCDC resources on women while on GCDC business. Peeples used GCDC resources and monies to buy meals and gifts, use state gasoline and vehicles to transport them, and use GCDC staff and time to the bene?t of himself and women of his interest. Defendant Peeples has done so with GCDC women, and with women, some of whom reside outside of Grant County and even outside of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. As only one recent example, Defendant Peeples had a female visitor named ?Summers? stay in his hotel room at the 2014 Kentucky ailers? Association Conference. Defendant Peeples and this female spent exorbitant amount of time together and Jailer Peeples skipped many of the ailer?s Association seminars, which GCDC paid for, to spend time with Summers, who is a teacher in Floyd County Indiana. Furthermore, Jailer Peeples certified to the Association that he attended classes that he did not attend. Meanwhile, he stated to Plaintiff during the convention that the reason he was skipping the classes and expending time and money on this woman was because ?She is the best piece of ass I?ve ever had!? He also warned Plaintiff that he had better not disclose this to anyone, demanding that Plaintiff abide by his oft-quoted adage that ?What happens in Louisville, stays in Louisville.? Peeples? ciear implication to Plaintiff was that this adage was a long?honored rule for all persons attending the Jailer?s Association Conference. 16. The longer Plaintiff was working for the GCDC, Defendant Peeples? inappropriate sexually~charged comments and solicitations toward female employees, as described above, became more frequent and pervasive. Defendant Peeples? inappropriate sexually charged behavior caused Plaintiff distress, made him uncomfortable, and he felt Case: Doc 1 Filed: 10/24/14 Page: 5 of 18 Page 5 Defendant Peeples? behavior was not only morally reprehensible but, the more time went on and the more blatant the waste of resources, the more clearly illegal it was. 17. Defendant Peeples also frequently demanded Plaintiff to write accusatory statements against other GCDC employees on Jailer Peeples? behalf, mostly charging other employees of the GCDC of various inappropriate acts detrimental to their continued employment. Defendant Peeples represented to Plaintiff that he could not ?type? on the computer, thereby asking Plaintiff to do his typing for him. Plaintiff thus transcribed into the computer what the Jailer dictated to him. As the Jailer?s transcriber, Plaintiff had no reason or basis to question the veracity of any of the statements he typed, believing that Jailer Peeples had permission from the employee whose name was attributed to the writing. Plaintiff also had no idea of the purpose or distribution of the document dictated by ailer Peeples, although Plaintiff noticed it was odd that for the documents Defendant Peeples dictated to him, Peeples sometimes used what seemed to be arbitrary dates. Anytime Plaintiff asked questions or raised suspicions about the documents that Jailer Peeples asked him to type, however, ailer Peeples refused to respond, reminding him that he was the Jailer and Plaintiff 3 job was to ?Do what you are told? and ?not ask questions?. Plaintiff has recently learned that many of the documents that ailer Peeples dictated to him and that were supposedly authored by other GCDC employees were totally unknown to those employees, were intentionally misdated by Jailer Peeples, and have been used by Jailer Peeples to falsify the GCDC public records. Moreover, as Plaintiff just learned just this past week, Jailer Peeples has fraudulently introduced into evidence many of these statements as falsified business records in at least one of the now pending lawsuits brought against Jailer Peeples by former employees. Although Plaintiff has never seen these documents as part of the GCDC records, nor has Jailer Peeples ever provided him copies, Plaintiff has Case: Doc #2 1 Filed: 10/24/14 Page: 6 of 18 Page 6 recently been shown at least two of these statements that ailer Peeples submitted as GCDC records purportedly written by Kathy Silvey against Dennis Bailey. Plaintiff learned that Kathy Silvey knew nothing about these statements at the time Defendant Peeples asked Plaintiff to type them. Based on the number of documents that ailer Peeples had requested Plaintiff to ?type up?, Plaintiff now believes there are many more falsi?ed documents that ailer Peeples has is his possession, that he has used to falsify the public records of the GCDC, and submitted as evidence for the several pending lawsuits. 18. In 2011, the Commonwealth Attorney began an investigation into the GCDC regarding inmates being made to work on the personal vehicles of two key Management employees. Defendant Peeples told Plaintiff Skinner that he knew about the use of the inmates to perform work on these vehicles. Furthermore, Defendant Peeples told Plaintiff that he knew such activity was illegal, but that he didn?t think he should be held accountable. When Defendant Peeples discovered that he could be held criminally accountable for this illegal activity if he had knowledge of it at the time, Defendant Peeples told Plaintiff that he planned on lying to the Grand Jury by denying that he had any knowledge of the inmates working on the vehicles. Following his appearance at the Grand Jury, Defendant Peeples confirmed to Plaintiff that he did lie to the Grand Jury about his knowledge. 19. In May, 2012, during an apparent criminal investigation of Defendant Peeples, a Kentucky State Police Detective came to the GCDC and began to interview employees. Defendant Peeples warned Plaintiff to make sure that NONE of his answers would cause any allegation to be ?spun? back on him (Peeples), even if that meant Plaintiff had to avoid the question or avoid remembering any details. Peeples even made Plaintiff sit down with him so that he could coach him question by question as to what to say. During the same investigation, Case: Doc 1 Filed: 10/24/14 Page: 7 of 18 Page 7 Plaintiff witnessed Jailer Peeples become enraged and physically lash out when he found that other employees had spoken against him, telling Plaintiff that they were now on his ?hit list?. 20. A few months later, in September and October, 2012, former Chief Deputy Dennis Bailey, former Deputy Missy Hacker, and former Deputy Lee Ballard brought lawsuits against the GCDC and against ailer Peeples individually. Plaintiff?s testimony was sought for these lawsuits and, once again, Defendant Peeples confronted Plaintiff to demand that Plaintiff lie during depositions and that if he strayed from what Defendant Peeples commanded him to say to either the GCDC attorneys or in sworn testimony, that he would make Plaintiff himself look like a ?liar? and terminate him immediately. Plaintiff?s stress and depression increased, and he felt even more vulnerable in his job and in his general well-being. He was con?ned to work only in the ?front office? and basically Peeples would not let him out of his sight, even demanding that Plaintiff begin to ?chauffer? him anywhere he went, telling him that, no matter what, he was to ?keep his mouth shut?. 21. In late 2012, Plaintiff was notified that his sworn testimony was being requested in another pending case against Jailer Peeples, the case of Bodenhamer v. Grant County Detention Center which was pending in the United States District Court in Covington. Jailer Peeples notified Plaintiff that former employee Jackie Bodenhamer was requesting his sworn testimony, but told him that he was going to do everything possible to prevent Plaintiff from having to testify. When Bodenhamer?s attorney insisted that Plaintiff be produced for testimony, Jailer Peeples sat Plaintiff down and told him in no unceitain terms? that Plaintiff was to testify exactly as Jailer Peeples directed, no more or no less, since certain facts just could not ?come out?. ailer Peeples told Plaintiff that it was to his own bene?t to so commit perjury so to protect both of their jobs, saying ?If I go down, you know you go too?. Jailer Peeples then proceeded to Case: Doc 1 Filed: 10/24/14 Page: 8 of 18 - Page 8 go through an itemized list of exactly what lies he wanted Plaintiff to tell to cover up illegalities ongoing at the GCDC. As a result, Plaintiff was very stressed about his impending testimony. On the date of his deposition, Jailer Peeples accompanied him to the deposition, warning him again about straying from what he had instructed. While testifying, Plaintiff tried his best to avoid questions and/or not completely answer, as Peeples was actively directing him, but there were some instances where Plaintiff apparently divulged more than to Defendant Peeples? liking. As a result, ailer Peeples would called for at least one break to badger Plaintiff outside of the deposition, demanding again that he had better do what he had directed in testifying. 22. As a direct result of his disappointment with Plaintiff testimony in the Bodenhainer V. Grant County case, Jailer Peeples began to retaliate against Plaintiff Every staff meeting, Jailer Peeples would yell at Plaintiff, and in public and in private, constantly threatened Plaintiffs job. As the only breadwinner for his family, Plaintiff was in constant fear for his family?s livelihood, and began developing serious health issues, including a signi?cant weight loss. As time passed, Plaintiff became more and more conscious of Defendant Peeples? questionable actions and behaviors, but at the same time, Defendant Peeples became more aggressive in demanding Plaintiff?s silence and exclusive loyalty. Meanwhile, ailer Peeples began to make personal and even physical threats against others that had crossed him, and Plaintiff began to also fear for his personal safety and well-being. Jailer Peeples? cruel retaliation against those who did not do exactly as he stated was becoming notorious, and his level of aggressive retaliation increased with each lawsuit filed against him. 23. As a result of Plaintiff?s serious health issues, he sought medical treatment. Jailer Peeples directed Plaintiff that he needed to seek medical treatment exclusively through Jailer Peeples wife, Dr. Michelle Willoby. Plaintiff resisted this, and, in or around early 2014, even Case: Doc 1 Filed: 10/24/14 Page: 9 of 18 Page 9 tried to schedule through another doctor in the same practice, but when Jailer Peeples learned (through his wife) that Plaintiff had scheduled through another doctor, ailer Peeples confronted Plaintiff and demanded that he change his appointment back to his wife, Dr. Willoby. In fact, while Plaintiff tried to keep his appointment with the other doctor, Defendant Peeples himself changed Plaintiff? doctor?s appointment so that Plaintiff would be seen only by his wife. Following this attempted switch of medical provider from Dr. Willoby to the doctor of Plaintiff?s choice, both Defendant and his wife, Dr. Willoby, in clear Violation of HIPPA, began to share information about Plaintiff?s medical condition so as to further intimidate and harass Plaintiff. Defendant Peeples chastised Plaintiff for canceling appointments with Dr. Willoby, stating ?you know it takes money out of our pockets? and then (conversely) should just cancel you as a patient of Michelle [Willoby]?. 24. In January 2014, the Department of Justice was requesting various GCDC records. Defendant Peeples kept referring to Plaintiff so as to locate the records and then asked Plaintiff to produce the records. When Plaintiff searched for the requested documents, he noticed that records which had previously existed had disappeared. The missing records included videos, incident reports, and other documentation of major incidents at GCDC. Defendant Peeples had no response as to why these records had disappeared. When Defendant Peeples inexplicably kept deferring the responsibility of the missing records to Plaintiff, Plaintiff went to Grant County Attorney Joe Taylor and told him that although he knew the incidents had taken place it was clear the associated records had disappeared without any explanation. All County Attorney Taylor said was, ?Just send them what you?ve got.? a Case: Doc 1 Filed: 10/24/14 Page: 10 of 18 - Page 10 25. In March 2014, when Plaintiff began to suffer additional emotional distress from being pressured, ostracized, humiliated, and shunned by Defendant Peeples, by his own doctors via Defendant Peeples, and by other GCDC personnel via Defendant Peeples, Plaintiff sought help, and his doctor put him on medical leave. While Plaintiff was on leave, he received a call from Defendant Peeples who had illegally obtained Plaintiff?s medical information from his wife, Dr. Willoby. In such phone call, Defendant Peeples questioned Plaintiff?s diagnosis and then proceeded to badger him about his need to take a medical leave, stating that what Plaintiff needed to do was to ?Grow a pair and get back to work.? 26. Throughout Plaintiff?s employment, he has also reported to Defendant Peeples and to County Attorney Joe Taylor several safety issues and apparent misappropriation of GCDC funds, including but not limited to the following: 0 Plaintiff complained about inadequate copies of the specialized keys, thereby putting employees? and inmates? lives in grave danger if one became misplaced or broken; 0 Since the summer of 2014, Plaintiff has complained regarding the lack of air conditioning (air conditioning at GCDC not functioning) creating an uninhabitable living environment. 0 Plaintiff has repeatedly expresses concerns that kitchen equipment was broken, not safe, and needed to be replaced; that there was a gas leak in a hot water heater, and that a boiler was rusted through and needed to be replaced. 0 To all of these complaints, Defendant Peeples replied, ?We don?t have the money? and ?It?s not in the budget.? Plaintiff knew Defendant Peeples used GCDC funds for personal use. 27. As Defendant Peeples became increasingly paranoid regarding what information Plaintiff and others were sharing about him, Peeples began wasting even more GCDC resources by consistently and regularly demanding Plaintiff remain by his side, and to use his work hours to ?chauffer? Peeples each work day, including taking Defendant Peeples to whatever location he 10 ?Case: Doc 1 Filed: 10/24/14 Page: 11 of 18 - Page 11 demanded that day and to wait until Peeples directed him to take him the next place. When Plaintiff questioned Peeples as to this obviously wasteful practice as to using a full-time and highly quali?ed Deputy as his personal full?time chauffer while the GCDC struggled with being constantly short?staffed, Defendant Peeples only responded, don?t like to drive.? 28. In the spring of 2014, as more demands for documents came in regarding pending lawsuits against GCDC and ailer Peeples, Plaintiff and other GCDC administrators requested Defendant Peeples? help in locating such documents. In response, Defendant Peeples would merely smirk, shrug his shoulders and say, ?you might want to look in File 13.? This was a clear message to Plaintiff that the GCDC business and/or public records being requested had been destroyed by Defendant Peeples. At least for some of the documents being requested, Plaintiff knew the documents were in existence at some point during Defendant Peeples tenure as jailer. 29. Also as Jailer Peeples became more paranoid, he began installing more and more listening and recording devices in and around the GCDC. Plaintiff has learned ?'om Jailer Peeples that, in the past sixty (60) days, ailer Peeples has planted secret recording devices in the administrative of?ces for the purpose of surreptitiously eavesdropping on conversations of employees, public of?cials, and other visitors at the GCDC. Administrative staff in the front of?ce had a reasonable expectation of privacy in performing their daily work and in speaking with each other and non-inmate visitors. By secretly placing the recording and listening devices in the ??ont of?ce, Defendant Peeples has deprived these administrative staff, including Plaintiff, of their rightful privacy. 30. Beginning in September 2014, Defendant Peeples commanded Plaintiff to leave the GCDC facility to drive Defendant Peeples around so he could personally canvas Grant County homes for his campaign to be reelected as GCDC jailer. Defendant Peeples demands 11 3 Case: Doc 1 Filed: 10/24/14 Page: 12 of 18 Page 12 regarding the use of Plaintiff? time on the job for his reelection campaign escalated to the point that Plaintiff was campaigning with Defendant Peeples every single day. The campaigning typically began every day between 10:00 am and 12:00 pm. They campaigned until between 5:00 pm to 5:30 pm. Plaintiff voiced concerns to Defendant Peeples regarding being on the clock and campaigning. Defendant Peeples stated ?What the County doesn?t know won?t hurt them.? Most recently, Defendant Peeples told Plaintiff that if he loses the election Defendant Peeples would fire Plaintiff on the spot. 31. In August, 2014, Plaintiff was commanded by Defendant Peeples to take over accounting and human resources duties. Upon reviewing the GCDC records, Plaintiff immediately reported to ailer Peeples that there were some signi?cant and serious accounting issues that needed to be address, including the fact that bills exceeded the jail?s balance and that there was a large amount of monies that were missing. Iailer Peeples seemed not to be concerned about the concerns that Plaintiff expressed to him about the missing monies and discrepancies in the accounts, but was instead fully focused on his upcoming reelection to of?ce. In early September 2014, Plaintiff reported these same accounting issues, including the missing monies, to Defendant County Judge Executive Darrell Link. In response to Plaintiff? reports, Judge Link responded to Plaintiff by stating ?Somebody?s lying to me, either Terry Peeples or you.? Plaintiff responded, guarantee it?s Jailer Peeples who is lying, and there are a lot of other things he is lying about and you need to look into it.? Defendant Link?s inappropriate comments were in direct retaliation to Plaintiff? reports to him. 32. On October 5, 2014, Plaintiff was hospitalized with a serious head injury from an assault. At the time of this hospitalization, it was clear that Defendant Peeples knew that Plaintiff?s had reported his illegal conduct to sources outside the GCDC. As a result, while 12 ?Case: Dec #2 1 Filed: 10/24/14 Page: 13 of 18 - Page 13 Plaintiff has been on leave, Defendant Peeples has made concerted efforts to destroy Plaintiff?s reputation and credibility in the community. Speci?cally, immediately following his reports, of illegalities, Defendant Peeples began telling everyone that Plaintiff was an ?alcoholic?, that he ?could not be trusted?, that he was ?crazy?, that he ?needed help?, that he owed him thousands of dollars, that he was ?not credible?, and other horri?c and extremely damaging falsehoods. Jailer Peeples caused this falsehood to then be spread to and by several other GCDC management personnel. Defendant Peeples began to then ostracize Plaintiff from even communicating with top management. 33. Immediately thereafter, Plaintiff began to again notify several other of?cials outside the GCDC of the sexual harassment and other egregious illegal actions, including waste, fraud, abuse, and misappropriation taken by Jailer Peeples at the GCDC since he took of?ce. No known action has been taken by any of such of?cials to detain Jailer Peeples from continued waste, fraud, abuse, and neglect of his duties of of?ce. 34. Since that time, Defendant Peeples continues to retaliate against Plaintiff. Speci?cally, Defendant Peeples has been continually interfering with his con?dential medical information and his FMLA leave. Defendant Peeples has deprived Plaintiff of his deserved vacation time per FMLA policy, effectively interfering with Plaintiff? 3 use of FMLA. Defendant Peeples has not allowed Plaintiff to exercise Defendants established FMLA policy of using sick and vacation time while on FMLA. Furthennore, Defendants are altering Plaintiff?s sick and vacation bene?ts that he has accrued. 13 Case: Doc 1 Filed: 10/24/14 Page: 14 of 18 Page tD#: l4 COUNT I VIOLATION OF 42 ESE 1983 35. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth above as if fully restated herein. 36. Plaintiff was involved in constitutionally protected activities, including his First Amendment right of freedom of association and his First Amendment right of freedom of speech. 37. By the actions depicted above, Jailer Peeples, under color of his authority as Grant County jailer subjected and caused to be subjected Plaintiff to be deprived of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, particularly Plaintiffs First Amendment right of freedom of association and his First Amendment right of freedom of speech. This included but is not limited to Plaintiff being deprived of his Constitutional right to support a candidate of office without fear of retribution, and his right to speak out about important illegal transgressions at GCDC including important health and safety matters impacting the public, as well as GCDC inmates and employees without fear of retribution. 38. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? conduct described herein, Plaintiff suffered a loss of income and bene?ts and emotional distress and mental anxiety for which he should receive compensatory and punitive damages. COUNT II VIOLATIONOF K.R.S. 8 121.310 39. Plaintiff reiterates every allegation set forth above as if fully restated herein. 40. Defendant Peeples, in his actions of coercing and directing Plaintiff to both canvas and vote for him in his reelection for Grant County jailer While threatening retribution and termination, is in direct violation of KRS 121.310. 14 i Case: Doc #2 1 Filed: 10/24/14 Page: 15 of 18 - Page 15 41. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? conduct herein, Plaintiff has suffered a loss of income and bene?ts, emotional distress and mental anxiety, all for which he should be compensated. COUNT 29 USC 2615(a)(1) - FMLA INTERFERENCE 42. Plaintiff reiterates every allegation set forth above as if fully restated herein. 43. Plaintiff confirmed with Defendant Fiscal Court that he was an eligible employee for use of the Family Medical Leave Act (F MLA) for leave. 44. Plaintiff notified Defendants that he was entitled to take, and has exercised his right to use FMLA. 45. Defendants have limited and interfered with Plaintiff?s ability to utilize his full bene?ts under Defendants? established FMLA policy, including but not limited to altering Plaintiff?s payroll records to deprive him of his rightful FMLA leave. 46. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? actions, Plaintiff suffers from a loss of income and bene?ts, emotional distress and mental anxiety, all for which he should be compensated. COUNT IV 29 USC 2615 FMLA RETALIATION 47. Plaintiff reiterates every allegation set forth above as if fully restated herein. 48. Defendant Fiscal Court had knowledge of Plaintiff being deprived of his rightful FMLA leave bene?ts and failed to prevent the harassment and retaliation directed by Defendant Peeples against Plaintiff regarding such leave. 49. Defendants? acts against Plaintiff were knowing and intentional and caused Plaintiff emotional distress and mental anxiety, all for which he should be compensated. 15 Case: Doc 1 Filed: 10/24/14 Page: 16 of 18 - Page 16 COUNT STATE WHISTLEBLOWER KRS 61.101, et seq. 50. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth above as if fully restated herein. 51. As a result of Plaintiffs reports of the illegal activities ongoing at the GCDC, including but not limited to his complaints of Defendant Peeples? repeated demands for him to lie under oath, Defendant Peeples? repeated threats to terminate him if Plaintiff exposed any of his illegal activities, his constant requests of secrecy, his intentional falsi?cation of of?cial documents and business records, his destruction of GCDC official documents and business records, his illegally planting recording devices at GCDC, his actions of coercing and directing Plaintiff to both canvas and vote for him in his reelection for Grant County jailer while threatening retribution and termination, and his theft of GCDC monies. Defendants, in violation of KRS 61.101 and 61.102, et seq., willfully ignored such complaints and willfully subjected Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff for reporting the information. 52. Plaintiff was further punished for making these reports through Defendants? adverse employment actions. 53. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants? conduct described herein, Plaintiff has suffered from a loss of income and bene?ts, emotional distress and mental anxiety, for all of which he should be compensated. 16 [14 Page: 17 ot18 Page lD#: 17 8 Doc #1 1 Filed: 10/24 Case: COUNT V1 KRS 344 RETALIATION 54. Plaintiff reiterates every allegation set forth above as if fully restated herein. and resistance to the illegal inst Plaintiff for his repo 55. Defendants retaliated aga 'nst GCDC inmates and employees. Defendant Peeples agar harassment perpetrated of Defendant? unlawful sexua etaliatory conduct, ect and proximate result ant KRS 344 et seq. 56. As a dir Plaintiff is entitled to damages pursu COUNT VII ANDER DEFAMATION BY SL th above as if fully ations previously set for 57. Plaintiff herein incorporates the alleg restated herein. 3 in the past and presently harms Plaintiff 3 good name, character 5 8. Defendant Peeple the publication of false, injurious statements about Plaintiffs to third parties. and reputation through result of the Defendant Peeples? conduct described 59. As a direct and proximat bene?ts, emotional distress, mental om a loss of income and n, Plaintiff has suffered fr putation, for all of herei le damage to Plaintiff good name, character and re anxiety and irreparab should be compensated. Which he WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs SKINNER deinan nitive damages with respe For all compensatory and pit ds judgment against Defendants as follows: ct to statutory and tort A. an amount being just; claims in 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. 1'7 Case: Doc 1 Filed: 10/24/14 Page: 18 of 18 Page 18 Respectfully submitted, 3/ Barbara D. Bonar BARBARA D. BONAR (KBA #42213) OTWELL S. RANKIN (KBA #93478) Attorneys for Plaintiff B. Dahlenburg Bonar, PSC 36 ll Decoursey Avenue Covington, Kentucky 41015 Phone: 859?431?3333 Fax: 859-392?3900 bdbonar@lawatbdb.com oranldn@lawatbdb.e0m JURY DEMAND Plaintiff herein demands a trial by jury. 3/ Barbara D. Bonar l8