Case: Doc 1 Filed. 12/28/15 Page. 1 of 10 Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
COVINGTON DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER

CONNIE MCCLURE ELLINGTON

v1

STEPHEN WOOD
101 North Main Street
Williamstown, KY 41097 Defendant

Both in hix Official andIndividual Capacity
ax Gram County Judge Erecmive

Serve: by process server via 
Authorizing Service Pursuant to KRCP 4.04

SCOTT Defendant
101 North Main Street
winianistown, KY 41097

Both in hix Official andIndividual Capacity
ax Gram County Judge Erecmive

Serve: by process server via 
Authorizing Service Pursuant to KRCP 4.04

And

GRANT COUNTY FISCAL COURT Defendant
101 North Main Street
winianistown, KY 41097

Serve via cerlified rnaii pursuant to FRCP 40x2) authorizing serviee
pursuant to Ky. Civ. Rule 4.04m:

Steven Wood County Judge Executive of the Grant County Fiscal Court
101 North Main Street

Williamstown, KY 41097


COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND

a"eruurururuuruq K4AK4A44 new" enema enema "Minnow,"

Case: 2:15-cv-00224-WOB-JGW Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/28/15 Page: 2 of 10 - Page ID#: 2

Comes now the Plaintiff, Connie McClure Ellington, (hereinafter Ellington) by and
through Counsel, and for her Complaint against Defendants states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.

This is an action for money damages brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983

with First Amendment speech and retaliation claims and state tort claims for outrageous
conduct and age and disability discrimination.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2.

This Court has original jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1331 because this action arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States. Further,
this Court has original jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1337 and 1343
because this action seeks to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of Ellington’s
constitutional rights.
3.

This Court has pendent jurisdiction for all state claims set forth herein

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
4.

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) as the

majority of the Defendants’ discriminatory acts occurred in Grant County in the Eastern
District of Kentucky.
PARTIES
5.

Ellington has now and for all times pertinent to this action, resided within

this judicial district.
6.

Defendant Judge Executive Stephen P Wood is a person subject to suit

pursuant to 42 U.S.C 1983 and K.R.S. 121.310.
7.

Defendant Deputy Judge Executive Scott Kimmich is a person subject to

suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C 1983 and K.R.S. 121.310.

2

 Case: 2:15-cv-00224-WOB-JGW Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/28/15 Page: 3 of 10 - Page ID#: 3

8.

Defendant, Grant County Fiscal Court, (hereinafter Fiscal Court), is subject

to suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C 1983 and K.R.S. 121.310.
9.

The Grant County Fiscal Court is a governmental body employing personnel

to operate and has its seat in Grant County Kentucky within the jurisdiction of this Court.
10.

All the above named officials were elected or appointed to their positions

and were employed in Grant County during the time the acts at issue were perpetrated.
11.

The Grant County Fiscal Court acted by and through its agents, servants, or

employees, who were acting within the scope of their employment.
12.

Judge Executive Wood and Deputy Judge Executive Kimmich both acted in

their individual capacities and in the authority of their positions.
13.

Ellington was an employee of the Grant County Fiscal Court.

14.

Deputy Judge Executive Kimmich’s conduct was under color of state law,

regulation, custom or usage.
15.

Judge Executive Wood’s conduct was under color of state law, regulation,

custom or usage.
16.

Deputy Judge Executive Kimmich and Judge Executive Wood were final

decision policy makers for Grant County and the Fiscal Court.
17.

Grant County is responsible and must answer for actions taken by their final

policymakers whether or not those actions confirm to pre-existing rules and whether or not
the conduct was contrary to policy.
FACTS RELEVANT TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
18.

Ellington reiterates each allegation contained in Paragraphs 1-17 above as

though contained herein.

3

 Case: 2:15-cv-00224-WOB-JGW Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/28/15 Page: 4 of 10 - Page ID#: 4

19.

Grant County Fiscal Court is a person and subject to suit pursuant to 42

USC §1983.
20.

Judge Executive Wood and Deputy Judge Executive Kimmich are persons

and subject to suit pursuant to 42 USC §1983.
21.

Ellington was hired as a “Finance Officer on June 1, 1990.

22.

At the time of Ellington’s hire she earned $6.50 an hour.

23.

Ellington remained a Finance Officer until her termination effective June 30,

24.

At the time of Ellington’s termination she was earning $48,000 annually.

25.

On January 1, 2015 Steven Wood, a Republican, was elected to the position

2015.

of Judge Executive.
26.

On January 5, 2015, the Grant County Fiscal Court approved Executive

Order 15-01 appointing Scott Kimmich Deputy Judge Executive at a salary of $55,000
annually.
27.

At the meeting on January 5, 2015, a citizen expressed displeasure with the

appointment and was assured by Judge Executive Wood the county “could afford the
position.”
28.

On February 14, 2015, Judge Executive Wood, Deputy Judge Kimmich, and

Jailer Chris Hankins met to discuss the Jail’s budget for fiscal year 2015-2016 (July 1, 2015June 30, 2016).
29.

In this meeting, Judge Executive Wood and Deputy Judge Kimmich

indicated 3/5th of Ellington’s salary had been assessed to the Grant County Jail’s budget.
30.

The Fiscal Court records do not reflect this was a decision approved by the

Fiscal Court or by Executive Order.

4

 Case: 2:15-cv-00224-WOB-JGW Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/28/15 Page: 5 of 10 - Page ID#: 5

31.

In this meeting, Judge Executive Wood told Deputy Judge Kimmich “this

puts us in a pickle with your salary and what we told the Magistrates.”
32.

In this meeting, Deputy Judge Kimmich suggested it was “time” for Connie

“to retire” and proclaimed Magistrate Jacqalynn Riley would agree Ellington “has to go.”
33.

In this meeting, Jailer Hankins warned Judge Executive Wood and Deputy

Judge Executive Kimmich that firing Ellington after 25 years of employment could hurt
them in the next election.
34.

Deputy Judge Kimmich responded to Hankins warning by saying “she

[Ellington] didn’t vote for him [Judge Executive Wood] this time.”
35.

Judge Executive Wood responds to Hankins warning by saying “she voted

against you [Hankins] and she voted against me.”
36.

In this meeting, Judge Executive Wood explained that he didn’t fire Pat

Conrad, the former [Democratic] Judge Executive’s Administrative Assistant, even though
the President of the Republican Club said he should fire her and Deputy Judge Executive
Kimmich was “suspicious” of her, because Conrad sent him a letter, during the campaign,
with a contribution, and after taking office he “tested her” and believes she “is loyal.”
37.

In this meeting, Deputy Judge Executive Kimmich states Ellington is one of

two employees, still employed, that he is “suspicious of.”
38.

In this meeting, Deputy Judge Executive Kimmich justified terminating

Ellington by saying: “it would be cold hearted as hell to kick somebody to the curb that
couldn’t retire” but that Ellington could “draw 90% of her retirement benefits.”

5

 Case: Doc 1 Filed: 12/28/15 Page: 6 of 10 - Page 6

39. In lare Apnl or early May 2011 Ellington was rold her posluou would he
and with posluon at a rate of approximately 

annually.

40. After rhe chLing, Ellington and judge Executive Wood agreed,
ro allow Ellington ro perform her duu'es at (hcjail.

41. moved to rhe jall or. May 5, 2015.

42. or. May 13, 2015, rhe Grant County l-iscal Court approved Execum'c Order
1542 abolishing Ellington's posluor. and two (2) Exccuux'c 
Admmisunmr posldous.

43. Based on rhe or her posldou her age, healrh 
edueadorl, and lack jobs in rhe commurury, Ellington was forced ro apply for
reu'remem through cans (County Employmenr Reuremeur 

44. (lhlurle 11L 2015 judge Executive Stephen Wood \wnm a to cum
sraurrg "the county remains h. srruruor. where employment adjusmenIs or
eohdluous ro :lccommodalc Ms. Ellington's health eoudruorls would he
lr ls regard ro that would advise Ms. Ellington's mosr produer'ue course
or aeu'ou would be to pursue reuremem."

45. In rhe Fcbrunry 14, 2015 mccling,Judgc Execuuvc Wood joked that he had

rold "if! replace ltourue rr will he with 24 year old bloude m'rh big

46. ()nJunc 26V 2015 Judge Exeeudve Stephen Wood signcd Excculivc Order

1543 26 year old Angela Lawrence ro in rhe posmon of Admmisunm'c

Case: 2:15-cv-00224-WOB-JGW Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/28/15 Page: 7 of 10 - Page ID#: 7

Assistant/Finance Clerk full-time, at an annual salary of $32,000 with an effective hire date
of July 1, 2015.
47.

On July 1, 2015, after her appointment, and on the first day she assumed

Ellington’s duties, Angela Lawrence filled out an application for employment.
48.

On June 30, 2015 Ellington was presented with a retirement cake and when

she explained to Magistrate Newman that she had not “voluntarily retired”, he expressed
surprise.
COUNT I
VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. 1983
49.

Ellington reiterates each allegation contained in Paragraphs 1-48 as though

contained herein.
50.

Ellington was involved in a constitutionally protected activity.

51.

Ellington was subjected to adverse action as a result of exercising her First

Amendment right.
52.

Ellington’s constitutionally protected activity was a matter of political, social,

and other concern to the community.
53.

Ellington’s constitutionally protected activity was a motivating factor in the

Defendants’ decision to terminate her employment.
54.

Defendants acted under color of state law or territorial law.

55.

Defendants’ decision to fire Ellington was an official act constituting an

illegal policy or custom of the County Clerk’s Office and the Fiscal Court.
56.

The injury inflicted on Ellington by Defendants was the result of the

implementation of an illegal policy.
COUNT II
TORT OF OUTRAGE

7

 Case: 2:15-cv-00224-WOB-JGW Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/28/15 Page: 8 of 10 - Page ID#: 8

57.

Ellington reiterates every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 56 as

though contained herein.
58.

Defendants’ conduct in discharging Ellington was intentional and reckless.

59.

Defendants’ conduct was outrageous and intolerable and offends the

generally accepted standards of decency and morality.
60.

There is a causal connection between Defendants’ conduct and Ellington’s

severe emotional distress.
COUNT III
K.R.S. 121.310
61.

Ellington reiterates every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 60 as

though contained herein.
62.

All Defendants are persons as defined by K.R.S. 121.310.

63.

Defendants discharged Ellington as a result of her decision not to vote for

Stephen Wood in his bid for election to Grant County Judge Executive.
64.

Defendants actions violate K.R.S. 121.310.
COUNT V
PUBLIC POLICY WRONGFUL DISCHARGE

65.

Ellington reiterates every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 64 as

though contained herein.
66.

Ellington’s discharge is contrary to a fundamental and well-defined public

policy as evidenced by existing law and statutes and the Constitution of Kentucky including
KRS 121.310 and the First Amendment.
67.

Defendants decision to discharge Ellington because she didn’t vote for

Stephen Wood for Grant County Judge Executive.

8

 Case: 2:15-cv-00224-WOB-JGW Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/28/15 Page: 9 of 10 - Page ID#: 9

COUNT VI
VIOLATIONS OF KRS 344.040
68.

Ellington reiterates every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 67 as

though contained herein.
69.

Ellington was qualified for her position at the time of her discharge.

70.

Ellington was replaced by a significantly younger employee

71.

Ellington’s termination was an adverse employment action.

72.

Ellington’s discharge occurred under circumstances giving rise to an

inference that she was terminated because of her age.
73.

Ellington’s discharge occurred under circumstances giving rise to an

inference she was terminated because of her disability and/or the Defendants desire to
avoid accommodating such disability.
WHEREFORE Ellington prays this Court:
1.

Enjoin Defendants from further violations of federal and state law;

2.

Reinstate Ellington with all back pay and benefits lost because of

Defendants’ unlawful acts;
3.

Award Ellington compensatory damages for humiliation, embarrassment,

emotional suffering, and/or punitive damages directly caused by Defendants’ improper and
illegal acts;
4.

Award Ellington attorney fees;

5.

Award Ellington any and all other relief to which they are entitled.

6.

That this action be tried before a jury.

9

 Case: 2:15-cv-00224-WOB-JGW Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/28/15 Page: 10 of 10 - Page ID#: 10

Respectfully submitted,
BY:

//Gail M. Langendorf
Gail M. Langendorf
BUSALD FUNK ZEVELY, P.S.C.
226 Main Street
Florence, Kentucky 41042
Telephone: (859) 371-3600
Facsimile: (859) 525-1040
glangendorf@bfzlaw.com

10