Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 1 of 39 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
NIKI DASILVA, SAMANTHA LOZANO,
GABRIELLE MCLEMORE and MARA
REARDON,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
STATE OF INDIANA and CURTIS T. HILL, )
JR., individually and in his capacity as the )
Indiana Attorney General,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-2453

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Plaintiffs Niki DaSilva, Samantha Lozano, Gabrielle McLemore, and Mara Candelaria
Reardon (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”), by counsel, for their Complaint and Jury Trial
Demand against Defendants the State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr., individually and in his
capacity as the Indiana Attorney General (collectively, “Defendants”), state as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.

This is an action for money damages, injunctive relief, and other equitable relief.

This action arises out of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
et. seq., (“Title VII”), the First and Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”), and under the laws of the State of Indiana for claims of
battery, sexual battery, defamation, and false light invasion of privacy.
2.

This Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. This

Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims arising out of Indiana law
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Page 1 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 2 of 39 PageID #: 2

3.

Venue is appropriate in the United States District Court for the Southern District of

Indiana, Indianapolis Division, because all the alleged unlawful practices occurred in Marion
County, Indiana.
PARTIES
4.

Plaintiff Niki DaSilva (“Ms. DaSilva”) is a citizen of the United States of America

and the State of Indiana and resides in Marion County, Indiana.
5.

Plaintiff Samantha Lozano (“Ms. Lozano”) is a citizen of the United States of

America and the State of Indiana and resides in Marion County, Indiana.
6.

Plaintiff Gabrielle McLemore (“Ms. McLemore”) is a citizen of the United States

of America and the State of Indiana and resides in Johnson County, Indiana.
7.

Plaintiff Mara Candelaria Reardon (“Ms. Reardon”) is a citizen of the United States

of America and the State of Indiana and resides in Lake County, Indiana.
8.

At all relevant times, Ms. DaSilva, Ms. Lozano and Ms. McLemore were

“employees” within the meaning of Title VII.
9.

At all relevant times, Ms. DaSilva, Ms. Lozano, Ms. McLemore and Ms. Reardon

were “persons” within the meaning of § 1983, and citizens of the State of Indiana.
10.

Defendant Curtis T. Hill, Jr. (“Hill”), sued in his individual and official capacity,

was at all relevant times the Indiana Attorney General of the Office of the Indiana Attorney
General.
11.

Defendant Hill, in his individual capacity, is a “person” within the meaning of §

12.

Defendant State of Indiana is a “person” within the meaning of § 1983 for purposes

1983.

of the Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive and equitable relief.

Page 2 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 3 of 39 PageID #: 3

13.

At all relevant times, Defendant State of Indiana, was an “employer” within the

meaning of Title VII.
14.

Defendant State of Indiana is a person within the meaning of § 1983 for purposes

of the Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive and equitable relief.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
15.

On October 23, 2018, Ms. DaSilva timely filed a Charge of Discrimination with

the Indianapolis District of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). On May
14, 2019, the EEOC mailed a Notice of Right to Sue (“DaSilva Notice”), giving Ms. DaSilva ninety
(90) days to commence legal action. This action is being initiated within ninety (90) days of Ms.
DaSilva’s receipt of the Notice. A true and correct copy of the Notice is attached as Exhibit 1.
16.

On October 23, 2018, Ms. Lozano timely filed a Charge of Discrimination with

the EEOC. On May 14, 2019, the EEOC mailed a Notice of Right to Sue (“Lozano Notice”), giving
Ms. Lozano ninety (90) days to commence legal action. This action is being initiated within ninety
(90) days of Ms. Lozano’s receipt of the Notice. A true and correct copy of the Notice is attached
as Exhibit 2.
17.

On October 23, 2018, Ms. McLemore timely filed a Charge of Discrimination with

the EEOC. On May 14, 2019, the EEOC mailed a Notice of Right to Sue (“McLemore Notice”),
giving Ms. McLemore ninety (90) days to commence legal action. This action is being initiated
within ninety (90) days of Ms. McLemore’s receipt of the Notice. A true and correct copy of the
Notice is attached as Exhibit 3.
18.

On October 22, 2018, Plaintiffs served Defendants a Notice of Tort Claim via hand-

delivery and certified mail. Defendants did not respond to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Tort Claim. More
than ninety (90) have passed since the Plaintiffs served their Notice of Tort Claim on Defendants.

Page 3 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 4 of 39 PageID #: 4

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
The Plaintiffs
19.

The Plaintiffs all work for the State of Indiana in or around the Indiana General

Assembly.
20.

The Indiana General Assembly is the state legislature, or legislative branch, of the

State of Indiana.
21.

The Indiana General Assembly consists of the Indiana House of Representatives

(“House”) and the Indiana Senate (“Senate”).
22.

The General Assembly meets annually at the Indiana Statehouse (“Statehouse”)

in Indianapolis, but does not meet year-round.
23.

Instead, the General Assembly convenes on the first Tuesday after the first Monday

in January.
24.

During odd-numbered years, the legislature meets for sixty-one (61) days (not

necessarily consecutively) and must be adjourned by April 30.
25.

During even-numbered years, the legislature meets for thirty (30) days (not

necessarily consecutively) and must be adjourned by March 15.
26.

The end or adjournment of the legislative session is referred to as Sine Die.

27.

Ms. DaSilva has worked for the State of Indiana since December 22, 2015.

28.

Ms. DaSilva currently is a Legislative Assistant for the Indiana Senate Republican

Caucus and has been in this position since June 6, 2016.
29.

Ms. Lozano has worked for the State of Indiana since 2017.

Page 4 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 5 of 39 PageID #: 5

30.

Ms. Lozano currently is a Legislative Assistant for State Representatives Mara

Candelaria Reardon, Sue Errington, and Ed DeLaney and has been a Legislative Assistant since
January 2018.
31.

Ms. McLemore has worked for the State of Indiana since September 2016.

32.

Ms. McLemore currently is the Communications Director for the Indiana Senate

Democrats and has been in this position since May 2018.
33.

Ms. Reardon is a member of the House, representing the 12th District of Indiana.

Ms. Reardon was first elected to the Indiana General Assembly in 2006.
Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
34.

Hill is currently the Attorney General for the State of Indiana.

35.

Hill was elected in 2016 and assumed office January 9, 2017.

36.

Hill is Indiana’s highest law enforcement official.

Sine Die 2018
37.

In 2018, the Indiana General Assembly adjourned shortly after midnight on March

15, 2018.
38.

After Sine Die, members of the House and Senate, legislative staff, and lobbyists

typically go out to celebrate the end of the legislative session (the “Sine Die Celebration”).
39.

In the early hours of March 15, 2018, consistent with a long-standing tradition,

lawmakers, staff, and others engaged in the legislative process gathered to mark the end of the
legislative session.
40.

In 2018, as in many prior years, the Sine Die Celebration was held at AJ’s Lounge

in Indianapolis, Indiana (“AJ’s Lounge” or “AJ’s”).

Page 5 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 6 of 39 PageID #: 6

41.

On March 15, 2018, after Sine Die, Ms. DaSilva headed to AJ’s Lounge with

several of her co-workers.
42.
colleagues.

When she arrived, Ms. DaSilva walked toward the bar to join three (3) of her female

43.

The group chatted while waiting to be served when Hill approached them.

44.

Ms. DaSilva was surprised to see Hill at AJ’s, as Sine Die is meant to be a

celebration among legislators, staff and lobbyists.
45.

Upon information and belief, no other Attorney General had ever attended a Sine

Die Celebration. Hill is not involved in the legislative process, nor a member of the General
Assembly, and from the perspective of the Plaintiffs and many others, was not an expected attendee
at the Sine Die Celebration.
46.

Ms. DaSilva observed that Hill seemed rather gregarious. He approached her and

her group of friends and asked what they were doing standing at the bar.
47.

The group answered that they were waiting to order a drink and Hill remarked, “Ah,

come on ladies! You haven’t figured out how to get a drink yet? You’ve got to show a little skin!”.
48.

In that moment, Ms. DaSilva’s mouth fell open in shock. She was stunned that

Hill, the Indiana Attorney General, told her to “show a little skin.”
49.

Ms. DaSilva turned to her colleagues and asked them to confirm what she had just

heard. Her colleagues acknowledged that Hill did indeed tell them to show some skin.
50.

Ms. DaSilva then moved around the corner of the bar top to put some distance

between herself and Hill, who was hovering nearby.
51.

Two (2) of the four (4) women received their drinks and left the bar area, leaving

Ms. DaSilva and another co-worker, Ms. Lozano, at the bar with Hill.

Page 6 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 7 of 39 PageID #: 7

52.

Ms. DaSilva was getting ready to leave and join another group when she observed

Ms. Lozano’s eyes widen, signaling Ms. DaSilva to come closer.
53.

When Ms. DaSilva approached, Ms. Lozano whispered, “Please don’t leave me

alone with him. He’s being really weird.” Ms. DaSilva then positioned herself between Ms.
Lozano and Hill to act as a buffer and prevent further contact between Lozano and Hill.
54.

After a few moments, Hill put his hand on Ms. DaSilva’s back. Ms. DaSilva was

taken aback by this gesture.
55.

Ms. DaSilva felt Hill’s hand start to slide slowly down her back. She tried to push

his hand away. When their hands met, instead of taking the nudge as a cue to remove his hand
from her lower back, Hill grabbed Ms. DaSilva’s hand at her wrist and moved both of their hands
over her buttocks, lingering there before eventually releasing her hand. Hill looked at Ms. DaSilva
with a grin on his face and continued the conversation. Ms. DaSilva made it clear to Hill that his
unlawful acts were not consensual and were unwelcome.
56.

Soon after, Ms. DaSilva and Ms. Lozano found an escape route and moved away

from the area to avoid further interaction with Hill.
57.

On March 15, 2018, Ms. Lozano and her intern accompanied Ms. Reardon to AJ’s

Lounge.
58.

As Ms. Lozano entered AJ’s behind Ms. Reardon. Ms. Lozano saw Hill lean toward

Ms. Reardon, place his hand on her back and slide his hand down to Ms. Reardon’s buttocks and
grab Ms. Reardon underneath her dress.
59.

Ms. Lozano was appalled by Hill’s behavior and observed that Ms. Reardon

appeared shocked as well.

Page 7 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 8 of 39 PageID #: 8

60.

Later, Ms. Lozano approached the bar to order some drinks with her co-workers.

Hill was at the bar.
61.

Ms. Lozano noticed that Hill had a drink in his hand and smelled like alcohol.

62.

Hill asked Ms. Lozano, “Do you know who I am?” Ms. Lozano responded that she

did know that he was the Indiana Attorney General and that she attended college with his daughter.
63.

Ms. Lozano hoped that Hill would leave her alone and not make any unwelcome

sexual advances towards her if he knew she was the same age as his daughter.
64.

As Ms. Lozano ordered drinks with her co-workers she commented, “it’s really hot

in here.” Hill responded, “Yes, you’re really hot.”
65.

Ms. Lozano thought Hill’s statement was disturbing and inappropriate, especially

after she had just told Hill that she attended college with his daughter, and particularly in light of
seeing how he treated Ms. Reardon.
66.

Hill then grabbed Ms. Lozano around the waist and pulled her close to him.

67.

Ms. Lozano looked at her colleague, Ms. DaSilva, made eye contact with her and

said, “Don’t leave me alone with him, he’s acting weird.”
68.

Ms. DaSilva observed that Hill had grabbed Ms. Lozano and was touching her

without consent.
69.

Ms. DaSilva then got in between Ms. Lozano and Hill to prevent further unwelcome

physical contact between them.
70.

On March 15, 2018, Ms. McLemore also went to AJ’s to celebrate the end of the

legislative session.
71.

Ms. McLemore arrived at AJ’s with several of her co-workers.

Page 8 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 9 of 39 PageID #: 9

72.

During the gathering, Hill approached Ms. McLemore, who was leaning up against

the bar, and said, “Do you know who I am?” as he pulled up a stool next to Ms. McLemore, forcing
her to move uncomfortably closer to the bar’s ledge on her right with people both in front and
behind her.
73.

Hill cornered and trapped Ms. McLemore and began rubbing her back without her

consent.
74.

Hill did not just touch Ms. McLemore’s back. He instead used his entire hand to

rub up and down Ms. McLemore’s back for a period of time.
75.

Hill’s conduct was unwelcome and not consensual.

76.

Ms. McLemore mouthed “HELP ME” to her intern who helped Ms. McLemore get

away from Hill.
77.
session.

Ms. Reardon also went to AJ’s Lounge to celebrate the end of the legislative

78.

Shortly after she arrived, Ms. Reardon encountered Hill.

79.

Ms. Reardon was quite surprised to see Hill at the Sine Die Celebration, because in

her twelve (12) years in and around the General Assembly, she had not seen any other Attorney
General attend a Sine Die Celebration.
80.

Hill greeted Ms. Reardon and Ms. Lozano.

81.

Ms. Reardon does not know Hill personally, but they had met before on a few

occasions.
82.

As they were exchanging pleasantries, Hill leaned toward Ms. Reardon, placed his

hand on her back and slid his hand down, underneath her dress, reached to her buttocks and
grabbed it.

Page 9 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 10 of 39 PageID #: 10

83.

Ms. Reardon said, “back off,” explicitly telling Hill that his actions were

unwelcome and not consensual and walked away. Ms. Lozano, who observed this encounter, stood
nearby, shocked by what she had just witnessed.
84.

Later, Ms. Reardon was standing with a group of people, and Hill approached the

85.

Hill came up behind Ms. Reardon and put his hand on her back a second time and

group.

said, “That skin. That back.”
86.

Ms. Reardon recoiled away before Hill could touch her buttocks again, despite his

efforts to do so.
Plaintiffs’ Complaints About Hill’s Illegal Conduct
87.

In or around April 2018, a few weeks following the Sine Die Celebration, Ms.

Reardon had lunch with a fellow legislator and with Ms. Lozano.
88.

Ms. Reardon learned from Ms. Lozano that Hill’s unlawful conduct directed

towards her at Ms. Reardon at the Sine Die Celebration was not an isolated event.
89.

Ms. Lozano reported to Ms. Reardon that Hill targeted several other women at the

Sine Die Celebration, including herself.
90.

Upon learning of Hill’s pervasive and repeated attempts to sexually harass and

assault several women, Ms. Reardon believed that she had an obligation to report Hill’s unlawful
conduct to House leadership.
91.

On or around May 14, 2018, Ms. Reardon went to the Democratic leadership to

report these incidents.

Page 10 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 11 of 39 PageID #: 11

92.

Afterwards, Ms. Reardon and Ms. Lozano went together to the Speaker of the

House, Brian Bosma (“Bosma”), where Ms. Reardon reiterated her report of Hill’s unlawful
conduct at the Sine Die Celebration.
93.

Thereafter, staff attorneys with the General Assembly interviewed at least six (6)

women.
94.

The General Assembly attorneys did not interview Ms. Reardon regarding Hill’s

conduct at the Sine Die Celebration.
95.

The General Assembly attorneys did not interview Hill.

96.

The law firm representing the Legislative Services Agency prepared a

memorandum analyzing the March 15, 2018 allegations.
97.

The Memorandum, dated June 18, 2018, detailed the investigation and the risk of

liability (the “Taft Memo”).
98.

On or around July 2, 2018, the Taft Memo was leaked to the press.

99.

When the Taft Memo first leaked, upon information and belief, Hill told his staff

that he was not at AJ’s Lounge on the night in question.
100.

Before Ms. McLemore became known as one (1) of the accusers, she had to prepare

a press release for Senator Lanane regarding her allegations and answer questions received from
the media.
101.

Being required to do so caused Ms. McLemore to be placed in an awkward and

inappropriate position, particularly because her role as Communications Director required her to
advise her employer of the best course of action, which was met with apprehension by the
employer.

Page 11 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 12 of 39 PageID #: 12

102.

After coming forward to complain, Bosma told Ms. Lozano that the House could

not do anything to Hill. Bosma advised Lozano that he was happy she came forward, that Hill was
asked not to attend functions, but “it’s a free country and [the House of Representatives] can’t stop
him.”
103.

After publication of the Taft Memo, Ms. Reardon received correspondence dated

July 14, 2018 from an anonymous supporter who wrote:
Thank you for your courage. I admire your willingness to speak out
and not tolerate Curtis Hill’s repulsive advances. You are an
example for other women and this man must be stopped. His pattern
of behavior and lack of respect for women is disgraceful. There are
many apprehensive victims of his unwanted pursuits supporting you
in silence from his hometown. It takes a great deal of bravery to
stand up to a man like him. I am very proud of you! Remain
steadfast, for you are making a difference! Bless you.
After Complaining, Hill and the State of Indiana Retaliated Against and Defamed the Plaintiffs
104.

After the Plaintiffs complained about Hill’s unlawful conduct, Hill and the State of

Indiana engaged in unlawful retaliation.
105.

For instance, Hill has used the Office of the Attorney General to threaten,

intimidate, and defame the Plaintiffs.
106.

In addition, Hill has used his official State of Indiana Attorney General Twitter and

Facebook accounts to threaten, intimidate, and defame the Plaintiffs.
107.

In

July

2018,

Hill

issued

a

written

statement

on

www.CURTISHILLFORINDIANA.com where he made the following false, disparaging, and
defamatory statements:
•

“The allegations against me, which continue to change, are vicious and false.”

•

“At no time did I ever grab or touch anyone inappropriately.”

Page 12 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 13 of 39 PageID #: 13

108.

•

“At least one story has dramatically changed from the document that was the
basis for all the calls for resignation.”

•

“A key witness confirmed that her accusation contained in the confidential
report was materially inaccurate.”

On or around July 7, 2018, during a press conference held at the Office of the

Indiana Attorney General, Hill made statements to the public that the complaints made against him
are false and that he is falsely accused.
109.

During the July 7, 2018 press conference, Hill also called the allegations

“materially inaccurate.”
110.

Hill has also stated that the Plaintiffs’ allegations are “deeply troubling,” “viciously

false,” and “contain numerous misstatements and misrepresentations.”
111.

Hill denied that he engaged in inappropriate behavior with anyone.

112.

Hill stated that he is “falsely and publicly accused of abhorrent behavior.”

113.

Hill stated that the accusations have “irretrievably damaged his reputation.”

114.

Hill called Ms. Reardon’s allegations “materially inaccurate” and stated that Ms.

Reardon confirmed such inaccuracies.
115.

Throughout July and August 2018, campaign funds were used to purchase

sponsored Facebook advertisements on the “Curtis Hill for Indiana” Facebook page questioning
the credibility, fairness, and accuracy of the Plaintiffs’ reports and all investigations thereof.
116.

For example, one CURTISHILLFORINDIANA.COM Facebook advertisement

provides, “Apparently the standard is guilty and who cares if you’re innocent…We are living in a
time where accusations alone have the power of conviction.”

Page 13 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 14 of 39 PageID #: 14

117.

Another CURTISHILLFORINDIANA.COM Facebook advertisement provides,

“A key witness confirmed that her accusation contained in the confidential report was materially
inaccurate.”
118.

Another CURTISHILLFORINDIANA.COM Facebook advertisement provides,

“The fundamental lack of fairness and due process regarding this prejudicial investigation is
concerning…I have not been contacted by any investigator nor informed of who made these
allegations.”
119.

Another CURTISHILLFORINDIANA.COM Facebook advertisement provides,

“These allegations against me are vicious and false. Don’t believe them.”
120.

In July 2018, Hill posted the following statement to his official Twitter account:

“These allegations against me are vicious and false. At no time did I ever grab or touch anyone
inappropriately.”
121.

On or around July 11, 2018, Hill also posted a tweet, accusing Ms. DaSilva of

coordinating with others to write her account of what occurred at the Sine Die Celebration in March
2018.
122.

Upon information and belief, Hill tweeted, posted, and/or published additional false

and defamatory statements about the Plaintiffs. These tweets have been deleted from Hill’s official
Twitter account, despite being on notice of the Plaintiffs’ claims.
123.

In July 2018, Hill’s representatives held a press conference in which they threatened

to pursue civil claims for defamation and, among other things, stated, “As we know, sometimes
between 1 a.m. and 2 a.m., when alcohol is flowing, perceptions can be different.”
124.

After the Plaintiffs’ identities became known, Ms. DaSilva was so fearful that Hill

would retaliate against her while at work that she locked herself in her office all day, every day,

Page 14 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 15 of 39 PageID #: 15

for over a month. Thereafter, Ms. DaSilva continued to lock herself in her office intermittently
because she feared Hill’s response to learning she was one (1) of the four (4) women who
complained about his conduct at the Sine Die Celebration.
125.

During the summer of 2018, Indiana Senator Sue Glick (“Glick”) and Indiana

Senator Jean Leising (“Leising”) were speaking loudly about the Sine Die Celebration and what
had occurred. Several Legislative Assistants heard Leising state to Glick that the Plaintiffs got
what they deserved because of how they were dressed at the Sine Die Celebration, or words to that
effect.
126.

Leising’s statements were reported to both the Democratic and Republican Chiefs

of Staff.
127.

On November 7, 2018, the day after the election, the Indiana Senate Democratic

Caucus held a meeting. Ms. McLemore attended the meeting as a member of the senior staff. The
members of the Democratic Caucus in attendance were Tim Lanane (“Lanane”), Karen Tallian
(“Tallian”), Lonnie Randolph (“Randolph”), J.D. Ford (“Ford”), Greg Taylor (“Taylor”), David
Niezgodski (“Niezgodski”), Eddie Melton (“Melton”), Mark Stoops (“Stoops”), and Frank Mrvan
(“Mrvan”).
128.

During the Caucus meeting, members of the staff were asked to leave, including

Ms. McLemore. Ms. McLemore waited outside of the meeting room because she needed to speak
with Ford, a newly elected Senator, to discuss some communication items.
129.

While waiting, Ms. McLemore overheard Taylor speaking to the Democratic

Caucus. Taylor explained to the rest of the Caucus members how he believed the Hill allegations
were turning into an expośe on the men at the Sine Die Celebration because the men did not do
anything about what Hill was doing to the women on March 15, 2019.

Page 15 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 16 of 39 PageID #: 16

130.

Taylor quoted an article from the IndyStar, which stated “it took a group of brave

women, because the men in leadership who were at the Sine Die Celebration, would not step up.”
131.

On November 19, 2019, the Indiana General Assembly held its Organization Day,

which is the first day of the legislative session. The Attorney General’s office typically does not
hold an event on Organization Day. However, on November 19, 2019, Hill held an event on safety
in the workplace.
132.

In or around December 2018, Ms. Reardon was removed as a member of the Black

Caucus. Upon information and belief, this action was taken against Ms. Reardon in retaliation for
reporting Hill’s unlawful conduct.
133.

On January 24, 2019, the Indiana Senate Democratic Caucus held its Annual Latino

Advocacy Day event, which Ms. Lozano attended.
134.

At the Latino Advocacy Day event, Ms. Lozano was standing outside of the

Governor’s office when Hill came up and stood right beside her for several minutes. Hill stood so
close to Ms. Lozano that their arms could have touched. Ms. Lozano felt very uncomfortable and
fearful. Ms. Lozano believes that Hill’s conduct was intended to physically intimidate her.
135.

On one (1) occasion, Tallian walked up to Ms. DaSilva and put her hand on Ms.

DaSilva’s shoulder. Tallian asked Ms. DaSilva if it was ok, or if she should ask for permission to
put her hand on Ms. DaSilva’s shoulder. Tallian then told Ms. DaSilva that if she were gay it would
not be sexual harassment.
136.

In the spring of 2019, Ms. Reardon was standing with Bosma, Senator Blake Doriot

(“Doriot”), and other lobbyists at a work-related reception. Doriot said, “What are we supposed to
do when these women wear a black bra under a white blouse, not look?” Upon hearing Doriot’s

Page 16 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 17 of 39 PageID #: 17

statement, Speaker Bosma replied that Senator Doriot should “…never say that again…” Ms.
Reardon walked away.
137.

At the close of the legislative session in April 2019, there was no official Sine Die

Celebration, “because of what happened last year,” a statement made by many in and around the
General Assembly. Many lawmakers and staff expressed resentment and disappointment that no
Sine Die Celebration was held, and overtly blamed the Plaintiffs.
138.

On April 24, 2019, the day of Sine Die, Ms. McLemore met with Senator Lanane

and House member Phil GiaQuinta to discuss a joint press conference. In Ms. McLemore’s
presence, GiaQuinta said to Lanane, “I know you want to get out of here early so you can make it
to AJ’s by 9 tonight, right Tim?” Lanane replied, “only if Curtis is going to be there!”
139.

On April 25, 2019, the day after Sine Die, the leaders of each Caucus go on Indiana

Lawmakers, a television program, to discuss how the session went. Ms. McLemore was in
attendance. Before starting the program, John Schwantes, the host of the show, made a joke about
everyone being at AJ’s the night before for the Sine Die Celebration and joked about Hill attending.
Lawmakers in attendance were Lanane, GiaQuinta, Bosma, and Rodric Bray.
140.

Whenever Ms. Reardon attends an event where Hill is present, Hill’s bodyguard,

an Indiana State Trooper, stares at Ms. Reardon in a menacing way and engages in similar
threatening behavior.
141.

Since reporting Hill’s unwelcome and unlawful conduct, all the Plaintiffs have

limited their attendance to work-related social events due to the negative, uncomfortable or
inappropriate reactions of lawmakers and staff. By not attending such events, the Plaintiffs have
been unable to make connections, develop relationships, and network within the political
community, all of which are necessary to advance their careers.

Page 17 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 18 of 39 PageID #: 18

The Inspector General and Special Prosecutor’s Investigations and Reports
142.

On July 5, 2018, the Indiana Inspector General (“IG”) received a request that the

Indiana Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) investigate the allegations against Hill.
143.

OIG Director of Investigations, Darrell Boehmer, led the OIG investigation. OIG

also had the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) assist. Sergeant Lawrence
Cahill (“Cahill”) with the IMPD attended the Plaintiffs’ interviews and most of the witness
interviews.
144.

On July 24, 2018, the Marion Superior Court appointed Daniel J. Sigler (“Sigler”)

as a Special Prosecutor In the Matter of Curtis Hill.
145.

The Special Prosecutor was appointed “to determine whether there was probable

cause to believe that Curtis Hill, as a private citizen of the State of Indiana, engaged in conduct
with the intent to commit a crime.”
146.

The Special Prosecutor’s investigation was conducted by and with the cooperation

of the IMPD and the OIG.
147.

OIG conducted fifty-six (56) interviews, including the Plaintiffs. The OIG also

subpoenaed receipts for food, drinks, and transportation for individuals who were with Hill on the
evening of March 14, 2018 and the early morning of March 15, 2018.
148.

On July 16, 2018, the OIG interviewed Ms. Lozano.

149.

On July 16, 2018, the OIG interviewed Ms. McLemore.

150.

On July 17, 2018, the OIG interviewed Ms. Reardon.

151.

On July 25, 2018, the OIG interviewed Ms. DaSilva.

152.

Neither the OIG nor the Special Prosecutor interviewed Hill. Instead, Hill submitted

a video-recorded statement with one of Hill’s attorneys asking him questions. Hill’s attorneys then

Page 18 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 19 of 39 PageID #: 19

provided the Special Prosecutor with a copy of the recorded statement. The Special Prosecutor
provided the recorded statement to OIG.
153.

The OIG submitted its investigative records to the Special Prosecutor for

consideration of criminal charges of felony sexual battery and misdemeanor battery.
154.

On October 22, 2018, the Plaintiffs were contacted by the Inspector General. The

Inspector General asked the Plaintiffs to report to the Office of the Inspector General at 9:30 am
on October 23, 2018 where they would be given a copy of the Inspector General Report and the
Special Prosecutor’s Report. The Plaintiffs were also told that the Special Prosecutor was holding
a press conference at 10:00 am on October 23, 2018 and then would be available to answer
questions after the press conference.
155.

On October 23, 2018, the Plaintiffs met with the Special Prosecutor and the

Inspector General. The Special Prosecutor told the Plaintiffs that he believed them, but that he did
not want to put them in harm’s way and subject them to a “circus environment.”
156.
on

October

The Inspector General’s Report, which consists of twenty-five (25) pages was filed
23,

2018

and

can

be

found

at

https://www.in.gov/ig/files/2018-07-

0184%20Attorney%20General%20Wrongdoing_WEB.pdf.
157.

The OIG made several conclusions in the Report, including that:
…Hill’s behavior at the sine die party at AJ’s is well documented.
Multiple eyewitnesses provided statements that Hill’s conduct was
inappropriate, creepy, unwelcome, and made many of the women at
the party uncomfortable.”

158.

The OIG also concluded:
The women affected indicated Hill’s actions caused emotional
distress, family distress and anger. At least one woman left the sine
die party in tears, others were upset enough to actively avoid any
contact with Hill the rest of the night, and still others sought the

Page 19 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 20 of 39 PageID #: 20

protection of men and other women who were there…All but one of
the women who alleged Hill inappropriately touched them were in
their 20’s and new in their careers. This demonstrates the disparate
power, influence, authority, and age that exists between Hill and
the women who made allegations against him.
[Emphasis supplied].
159.

The OIG further concluded:
None of the women initially intended for the allegations to become
public. One of the women said that the breaking point for the women
who publicly came forward was when Hill issued his first media
release via Twitter, stating that the allegations against him were
“vicious and false” and at no time did he “touch or grab anyone
inappropriately.” Several days thereafter, he reiterated that he was
falsely accused.

160.

The Special Prosecutor’s Report, which consists of seven (7) pages was filed on

October 23, 2018 and can be found at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5017385SPECIAL-PROSECUTOR-REPORT-CURTIS-HILL.html.
161.

In his Report, the Special Prosecutor explained that his role was to undertake the

criminal investigation. He recognized that he was not charged with investigating whether Hill
engaged in civil misconducted or employment harassment. The Special Prosecutor likened the
investigation to two (2) parallel rails of a railroad track:
In this case, there were two separate, distinct rails: the first rail
involved a potential employment harassment and civil misconduct
claim. The second rail was the criminal investigation I was asked to
undertake. Although these two rails are tied together by a particular
set of facts, each rail remains distinct and independent. The facts are
the ties that bind these separate legal tracks together. The issues
presented by the first rail, i.e. civil liability and the involvement of
a public official do not impact on the other rail, i.e. decision to
prosecute…
The same facts at issue (i.e. what occurred in A.J.’s on March 15,
2018) apply to both rails but involve an examination of the conduct
Page 20 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 21 of 39 PageID #: 21

of Curtis Hill in different contexts. The first rail involves Curtis Hill,
the public figure and office holder, while the second rail examines
Curtis Hill’s conduct as a private citizen for the purpose of
determining whether he violated the criminal law on March 15,
2018...
The first rail thus deals with employee claims of potential
inappropriate conduct and sexual harassment against a state official
and raise questions as to the appropriateness of the official’s conduct
in an Indianapolis bar on March 15, 2018. That investigation was
not a criminal investigation but a private legal opinion regarding
potential employer liability for sexual harassment…
The second rail – the one I was appointed to investigate – deals only
with the question of whether a man named Curtis Hill may have
violated a criminal statute…
162.

The Special Prosecutor took Plaintiffs’ claims as true and credible and noted that:
“Their motives appeared sincere and I found all to be credible in
their belief that Hill touched them in a way that was inappropriate.”

163.

The Special Prosecutor’s Report went on to provide:
“Hill, in his statement, did not deny certain touching occurred but
stated that the touching was either incidental to conversation or
movement in the crowded bar.”

164.

The Special Prosecutor also made several conclusions in his report, notably:
“…there is little public benefit to be served by filing a misdemeanor
charge or charges…it would not resolve the issue of main concern:
Did Curtis Hill behave inappropriately in the early morning hours of
March 15, 2018?”

165.

The Special Prosecutor went on the conclude:
The issues presented on rail one – did an elected official behave in
a manner inappropriate to his public office? – remain unresolved and
will necessarily be debated in other settings. Mr. Hill is a public
official and will have to answer to the public he serves for his
involvement and behavior in this matter…

166.

Finally, the Special Prosecutor observed:

Page 21 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 22 of 39 PageID #: 22

I thank the women affected who have cooperated with this
investigation despite having been placed in a position of having their
privacy invaded and their credibility questioned. The decision made
today should not and does not reflect on their credibility. They
addressed their concerns in an appropriate fashion and forum and
should be subjected to no criticism.
167.

After the release of the Inspector General’s Report, upon information and belief,

Hill met with at least one (1) of the witnesses interviewed for the OIG Report to influence the
witness to change his story.
The Indiana Disciplinary Commission’s Complaint Against Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
168.

On March 19, 2019, the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission (the

“Commission”) filed a Disciplinary Complaint against Hill in the Supreme Court of the State of
Indiana, Case No. 19S-DI-00156.
169.

The Commission filed the Disciplinary Complaint against Hill based on his conduct

at the March 2018 Sine Die Celebration at AJ’s Lounge and specifically Hill’s conduct towards
the Plaintiffs.
170.

With respect to Ms. Reardon, the Commission alleged in its Disciplinary Complaint

that Hill committed the criminal act of battery.
171.

With respect to Ms. McLemore, the Commission alleged in its Disciplinary

Complaint that Hill committed the criminal act of battery.
172.

With respect to Ms. Lozano, the Commission alleged in its Disciplinary Complaint

that Hill committed the criminal act of battery.
173.

With respect to Ms. DaSilva, the Commission alleged in its Disciplinary Complaint

that Hill committed the criminal act of sexual battery, or, in the alternative, criminal battery.

Page 22 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 23 of 39 PageID #: 23

174.

The Commission has alleged that by engaging in this conduct, Hill violated the

Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule Nos. 8.4(b) and 8.4(d), and engaged in “offensive
personality” in violation of Rule 22 of the Indiana Rules of Admission and Discipline.
175.

The Commission also cited several aggravating factors bringing the Disciplinary

Complaint against Hill.
176.

First, that Hill is the chief legal officer for the State of Indiana and as the elected

Attorney General, Hill holds a position of extreme public trust and his office touches virtually all
areas of state government. The Commission also noted that Hill has substantial experience in the
practice of law including many years as the elected Prosecuting Attorney for Elkhart County.
177.

Next, the Commission stated in the Disciplinary Complaint that when first

confronted by legislative leaders about his conduct at the Sine Die Celebration, Hill admitted
repeatedly that he had too much to drink or words to that effect. Thereafter, Hill changed his story
and claimed that he was not inebriated.
178.

The Commission went on to provide that Hill has held public news events in his

role at the Attorney General in which he denounced the allegations as untrue and implied that the
Plaintiffs falsified their accounts and later portrayed the Plaintiffs as mistaken or misperceiving
his conduct.
179.

Finally, the Commission further stated in its Disciplinary Complaint that Hill’s

conduct caused actual or potential injury to the Plaintiffs and their future careers by forcing them
to choose between reporting his conduct or remaining silent. Three (3) of Hill’s four (4) victims
were women in their early 20’s, had just begun their careers in government, and were subject to
the sexual misconduct by a powerful state official.

Page 23 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 24 of 39 PageID #: 24

180.

The Disciplinary Complaint remains pending and a hearing on the matter is

scheduled for October 21-25, 2019.
Sexual Harassment Policies and Procedures that Apply to Individuals Working In and Around
the Indiana General Assembly
181.

The State of Indiana has no uniform policy regarding sexual harassment that applies

to the entire General Assembly or the individuals that work in and around the Statehouse, such as
lobbyists and statewide elected officials.
182.

There is currently no sexual harassment policy that prohibits elected officials in

Indiana, or other State of Indiana employees, from sexually harassing other elected officials in
Indiana.
183.

The House and the Senate each have separate sexual harassment policies that apply

to their respective employees.
184.

However, the House policy does not apply to the Senate and the Senate policy does

not apply to the House.
185.

In addition, each policy has a separate reporting structure for complaints of sexual

harassment.
186.

An employee of the Senate who believes s/he has been sexually harassed by a

member of the Senate or employee, supervisor, agent of the Senate, or an individual with whom
the employee is required to have contact is required to first report the harassment to the employee’s
immediate supervisor. If the employee’s immediate supervisor is unavailable to receive the report
of harassment or is involved in the report of harassment, the report should be made to the Majority
Chief of Staff or to the Secretary of the Senate.
187.

An employee of the House who believes s/he has been sexually harassed by a

member of the House or staff, immediate supervisor, agent of the House, or an individual with
Page 24 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 25 of 39 PageID #: 25

whom the employee is required to have contact, is required to report the incident and names of the
individuals involved in the incident to her immediate supervisor, the appropriate Chief of Staff,
the appropriate Chief Counsel or the Clerk. The policy goes on to provide, “Alternatively, the
employee may directly contact the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.”
188.

Each year, employees of the House and the Senate attend a one (1) hour training,

which covers a variety of topics. Approximately five (5) minutes or less of the one (1) hour training
is devoted to the subject of sexual harassment. The sexual harassment training typically consists
of the person providing the training reading the sexual harassment policy out loud.
189.

In April 2018, legislation was passed that required the Personnel Subcommittee of

the Legislative Council to do the following: (1) Prepare recommended sexual harassment
prevention policies to govern the conduct of the members of the General Assembly; and (2) Submit
the recommended policies to the Legislative Council.
190.

In turn, the Legislative Council was charged with approving the sexual harassment

prevention policies no later than November 20, 2018.
191.

In January 2019, for the first time in state history, Indiana passed a sexual

harassment policy that applies to elected members of the General Assembly.
192.

However, the policy is deficient in many respects. For example, the policy lacks

penalties for elected members of the General Assembly who are in violation, among other
deficiencies. The policy also does not apply to many individuals working in and around the
Statehouse and does not provide a mechanism for third party investigations.
193.

Upon information and belief, there have been many claims of sexual harassment

reported by Indiana employees and others working in and around the Statehouse over the years.

Page 25 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 26 of 39 PageID #: 26

194.

However, despite the widely acknowledged problem of sexual harassment,

discrimination, and retaliation occurring within the Indiana Statehouse, the House and Senate
failed to implement adequate policies and procedures to prevent, address, and remediate such
unlawful conduct.
195.

It was widely recognized and publicly reported that both the current and prior

versions of policies and procedures pertaining to Statehouse employees were inadequate.
196.

For example, on November 15, 2018, it was reported in the Herald Bulletin article

“Legislature Developing Sexual Harassment Policy” that State Senator Karen Tallian stated
regarding the existing policy, “There wasn’t really a plan. There wasn’t a series of who you report
to

and

who

is

supposed

to

what

next.”

(Available

at

https://www.heraldbulletin.com/news/state_news/legislature-developing-sexual-harassmentpolicy/article_76dde482-309e-50a2-b085-44783a99365e.html).
197.

Senator Tallian was also quoted in the same article that neither the proposed nor

current policy in place at the time would prevent or address the sexual harassment committed by
Hill. “That is an independently elected official from the executive branch and would probably not
by covered by this. Although it might tell somebody what it is that they should do and who it is
they should go to, or make a complaint to.”
198.

In several news articles, other lawmakers, legal commentators, and experts were

also reported as finding both the prior policies and procedures as well as the newly enacted revised
policies and procedures to be deficient, out of date, and not in compliance with federal law or
employment best practices.
Other Relevant Facts

Page 26 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 27 of 39 PageID #: 27

199.

Defendants subjected the Plaintiffs to sexual harassment and failed to take

immediate and appropriate action to correct the sexual harassment.
200.

Defendants retaliated against the Plaintiffs for opposing Hill’s unlawful sexual

harassment.
201.

As a result of Defendants unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue

to suffer emotional distress and anguish.
202.

Defendants’ actions were taken with malice or reckless indifference to Plaintiffs’

203.

Defendants’ actions were taken under the color of state law.

204.

In particular, Hill’s actions on March 15, 2018 and thereafter were taken in the

rights.

exercise of power possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because he was clothed
with the authority of state law.
COUNT I – STATE OF INDIANA
(Title VII – Sexual Harassment)
205.

All preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

206.

The State of Indiana engaged in unlawful employment practices by intentionally

discriminating against Plaintiffs with respect to terms, conditions, and privileges of employment
on the basis of the sex of Ms. DaSilva, Ms. Lozano, and Ms. McLemore.
207.

The State of Indiana’s actions interfered with Ms. DaSilva, Ms. Lozano, and Ms.

McLemore’s work performance and created an intimidating, hostile and offensive work
environment, in violation of Title VII.
208.

The State of Indiana did not take any steps to correct the sexual harassment.

209.

As a direct and proximate cause of the State of Indiana’s actions to discriminate

against Ms. DaSilva, Ms. Lozano, and Ms. McLemore and creation of an intimidating, hostile and
Page 27 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 28 of 39 PageID #: 28

offensive work environment, the State of Indiana has caused Ms. DaSilva, Ms. Lozano, and Ms.
McLemore to suffer compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, loss of employment
benefits, mental anguish, pain and suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, degradation, loss of
reputation, attorney fees and other expenses as allowed by law.
210.

The State of Indiana’s conduct was willful, in that they knew and/or showed

reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct, described above, was prohibited by Title
VII.
COUNT II – STATE OF INDIANA
(Title VII – Retaliation)
211.

All preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

212.

By the actions described above, the State of Indiana retaliated against Ms. DaSilva,

Ms. Lozano, and Ms. McLemore because they engaged in protected activity.
213.

Ms. DaSilva, Ms. Lozano, and Ms. McLemore complained about Hill’s

inappropriate and unwelcome sexual harassment.
214.

Thereafter, the State of Indiana engaged in unlawful employment practices by

creating a retaliatory hostile work environment.
215.

The State of Indiana engaged in unlawful employment practices by intentionally

discriminating against Ms. DaSilva, Ms. Lozano, and Ms. McLemore with respect to the terms,
conditions, and privileges of employment, because Ms. DaSilva, Ms. Lozano, and Ms. McLemore
raised concerns about discrimination in the workplace and because they reported discrimination
and retaliation complaints against the State of Indiana.
216.

The State of Indiana’s actions interfered with Ms. DaSilva, Ms. Lozano, and Ms.

McLemore’s work performance and created an intimidating, hostile and offensive work
environment.
Page 28 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 29 of 39 PageID #: 29

217.

The State of Indiana’s conduct was willful, in that they knew and/or showed

reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct, described above, was prohibited by Title
VII.
218.

As a direct and proximate cause of the State of Indiana’s unlawful retaliation, Ms.

DaSilva, Ms. Lozano, and Ms. McLemore have suffered and will continue to suffer compensatory
damages, including, but not limited to, loss of employment benefits, mental anguish, pain and
suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, degradation, loss of reputation, attorneys’ fees and costs,
and other expenses as allowed by law.
COUNT III – CURTIS T. HILL JR., INDIVIDUALLY
(§ 1983 – Sexual Harassment and Discrimination
in Violation of Equal Protection Clause)
219.

All preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

220.

Hill, acting under the color of state law, caused or participated in the deprivation of

Ms. DaSilva’s, Ms. Lozano’s, Ms. McLemore’s, and Ms. Reardon’s constitutional rights and
privileges because of his abuse of authority as Indiana Attorney General.
221.

The result of these unlawful actions has subjected Ms. DaSilva, Ms. Lozano, Ms.

McLemore, and Ms. Reardon to a hostile work environment, and discrimination and denial of
equal employment opportunities because of their sex, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
222.

Hill, as Indiana Attorney General and long-time county prosecutor, was sufficiently

aware of the longstanding laws that existed prohibiting his conduct against Plaintiffs.
223.

Hill’s actions were the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiffs’ damages.

Page 29 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 30 of 39 PageID #: 30

224.

Hill’s actions have caused Plaintiffs to suffer compensatory damages, including,

but not limited to, loss of employment benefits, emotional pain, mental anguish, loss of reputation,
attorneys’ fees, and other expenses as allowed by law.
225.

As a direct and proximate result of Hill’s malicious and reckless actions in

depriving Plaintiffs of their equal protection rights provided by the United States Constitution, in
violation of § 1983, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages.
COUNT IV – CURTIS T. HILL JR., INDIVIDUALLY
(§ 1983 – Retaliation in Violation of Equal Protection Clause)
226.

All preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

227.

Hill, acting under the color of state law, caused or participated in the deprivation of

Ms. DaSilva’s, Ms. Lozano’s, Ms. McLemore’s, and Ms. Reardon’s constitutional rights and
privileges because of his abuse of authority as Indiana Attorney General.
228.

The result of these unlawful actions has subjected Ms. DaSilva, Ms. Lozano, Ms.

McLemore, and Ms. Reardon to a hostile work environment, and discrimination and denial of
equal employment opportunities because Plaintiffs raised concerns about discrimination in the
workplace and because they reported discrimination and retaliation complaints against Defendants,
in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
229.

Hill, as Indiana Attorney General and long-time county prosecutor, was sufficiently

aware of the longstanding laws that existed prohibiting his conduct against Plaintiffs.
230.

Hill’s actions were the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiffs’ damages.

231.

Hill’s actions have caused Plaintiffs to suffer compensatory damages, including,

but not limited to, loss of employment benefits, emotional pain, mental anguish, loss of reputation,
attorneys’ fees, and other expenses as allowed by law.
Page 30 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 31 of 39 PageID #: 31

232.

As a direct and proximate result of Hill’s malicious and reckless actions in

depriving Plaintiffs of their equal protection rights provided by the United States Constitution, in
violation of § 1983, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages.
COUNT V – CURTIS T. HILL JR., INDIVIDUALLY
(§ 1983 – Substantive Due Process Clause)
233.

All preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

234.

Hill, acting under the color of state law, caused or participated in the deprivation of

Ms. DaSilva’s, Ms. Lozano’s, Ms. McLemore’s, and Ms. Reardon’s constitutional rights and
privileges because of his abuse of authority as Indiana Attorney General.
235.

The result of these unlawful actions has deprived Ms. DaSilva, Ms. Lozano, Ms.

McLemore, and Ms. Reardon of the right to bodily integrity pursuant to the substantive component
of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
236.

Hill’s conduct toward Ms. DaSilva, Ms. Lozano, Ms. McLemore, and Ms. Reardon

shocks the conscience and evinces a deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs’ rights as individuals.
237.

Ms. DaSilva, Ms. Lozano, Ms. McLemore, and Ms. Reardon suffered unwanted

and unwelcome physical contact of a sexual nature that constitutes a violation of the Plaintiffs’
liberty interest in their bodily integrity, as provided by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution.
238.

Hill’s ability to commit a serious physical and sexual assault on Ms. DaSilva, Ms.

Lozano, Ms. McLemore, and Ms. Reardon was enabled by his governmental position and actions
taken as a state official.
239.

Hill, as Indiana Attorney General and long-time county prosecutor, was sufficiently

aware of the longstanding laws that existed prohibiting his conduct against Plaintiffs.
240.

Hill’s actions were the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiffs’ damages.

Page 31 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 32 of 39 PageID #: 32

241.

Hill’s actions have caused Plaintiffs to suffer compensatory damages, including,

but not limited to, loss of employment benefits, emotional pain, mental anguish, loss of reputation,
attorneys’ fees, and other expenses as allowed by law.
242.

As a direct and proximate result of Hill’s malicious and reckless actions in

depriving Plaintiffs of their equal protection rights provided by the United States Constitution, in
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages.
COUNT VI – STATE OF INDIANA
(§ 1983 – Sexual Harassment and Discrimination
in Violation of Equal Protection Clause)
243.

All preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

244.

The State of Indiana, acting under the color of state law, caused or participated in

the deprivation of Ms. DaSilva’s, Ms. Lozano’s, Ms. McLemore’s, and Ms. Reardon’s rights,
privileges and immunities under the Equal Protection Clause as secured by the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution by intentionally discriminating against Plaintiffs
with respect to terms, conditions, and privileges of employment on the basis of the sex of Ms.
DaSilva, Ms. Lozano, Ms. McLemore, and Ms. Reardon.
245.

The State of Indiana’s policy or custom, by its lawmakers, policymakers, and

officials, represents the official policy of the State of Indiana, and is responsible for the ongoing
harm to the Plaintiffs.
246.

The decisions of the State of Indiana’s lawmakers, acts of its policymaking

officials, and practices are so widespread and persistent to practically have the force and effect of
law.
247.

It is the policy or custom of the State of Indiana to fail to exercise reasonable care

in preventing constitutional violations on the basis of equal protection.

Page 32 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 33 of 39 PageID #: 33

248.

As a result of the above-described policies or customs, violations of the

constitutional rights to equal protection were not adequately prevented, investigated, sanctioned,
or remediated.
249.

The State of Indiana’s custom or policy is the moving force behind and

demonstrates a deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
250.

The same problem has arisen many times and the State of Indiana has acquiesced

in the outcome causing the deprivation of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
251.

The State of Indiana was sufficiently aware of the longstanding laws that existed

prohibiting their conduct against Plaintiffs.
252.

The State of Indiana’s actions were the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiffs’

damages.
253.

The State of Indiana’s actions have caused Plaintiffs to suffer compensatory

damages, including, but not limited to, loss of employment benefits, emotional pain, mental
anguish, loss of reputation, attorneys’ fees, and other expenses as allowed by law.
254.

As a direct and proximate result of the State of Indiana’s malicious and reckless

actions in depriving Plaintiffs of their equal protection rights provided by the United States
Constitution, in violation of § 1983, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages.
COUNT VII – STATE OF INDIANA
(§ 1983 – Retaliation)
255.

All preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

256.

The State of Indiana, acting under the color of state law, caused or participated in

the deprivation of Ms. DaSilva’s, Ms. Lozano’s, Ms. McLemore’s, and Ms. Reardon’s rights,
privileges and immunities under the Equal Protection Clause as secured by the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution by intentionally discriminating against Plaintiffs
Page 33 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 34 of 39 PageID #: 34

with respect to terms, conditions, and privileges of employment, because Plaintiffs raised concerns
about discrimination in the workplace and because they reported discrimination and retaliation
complaints against the State of Indiana.
257.

The State of Indiana’s policy or custom, by its lawmakers, policymakers, and

officials, represents the official policy of the State of Indiana, and is responsible for the ongoing
harm to the Plaintiffs.
258.

The decisions of the State of Indiana’s lawmakers, acts of its policymaking

officials, and practices are so widespread and persistent to practically have the force and effect of
law.
259.

It is the policy or custom of the State of Indiana to fail to exercise reasonable care

in preventing constitutional violations on the basis of equal protection.
260.

As a result of the above-described policies or customs, violations of the

constitutional rights to equal protection were not adequately prevent, investigated, sanctioned, or
remediated.
261.

The State of Indiana’s custom or policy is the moving force behind and

demonstrates a deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
262.

The same problem has arisen many times and the State of Indiana has acquiesced

in the outcome causing the deprivation of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
263.

The State of Indiana was sufficiently aware of the longstanding laws that existed

prohibiting their conduct against Plaintiffs.
264.

The State of Indiana’s actions were the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiffs’

damages.

Page 34 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 35 of 39 PageID #: 35

265.

The State of Indiana’s actions have caused Plaintiffs to suffer compensatory

damages, including, but not limited to, loss of employment benefits, emotional pain, mental
anguish, loss of reputation, attorneys’ fees, and other expenses as allowed by law.
266.

As a direct and proximate result of the State of Indiana’s malicious and reckless

actions in depriving Plaintiffs of their equal protection rights provided by the United States
Constitution, in violation of § 1983, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages.
COUNT VIII – CURTIS T. HILL JR., INDIVIDUALLY
(Battery)
267.

All preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

268.

By the actions described above, Hill touched Ms. DaSilva, Ms. Lozano, Ms.

McLemore, and Ms. Reardon in a rude, insolent, and angry manner at the Sine Die Celebration on
March 15, 2018, thereby committing battery.
269.

All of the Plaintiffs have suffered pain, humiliation, and mental anguish as a result

of Hill’s unlawful and unwanted touching.
COUNT IX – CURTIS T. HILL JR., INDIVIDUALLY
(Sexual Battery)
270.

All preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

271.

By the actions described above, the Plaintiffs did not consent when Hill touched

them in a harmful or offensive matter at the Sine Die Celebration on March 15, 2018, thereby
committing sexual battery.
272.

All of the Plaintiffs have suffered pain, humiliation, and mental anguish as a result

of Hill’s unlawful and unwanted touching.
COUNT X – CURTIS T. HILL JR., INDIVIDUALLY
(Defamation)
273.

All preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

Page 35 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 36 of 39 PageID #: 36

274.

Plaintiffs have the right to be secure in the possession of their good names and

reputations.
275.

Hill has repeatedly attacked the Plaintiffs’ reputations and good names by falsely

stating that Plaintiffs’ complaints and reports about his unlawful conduct were, among other things,
“vicious and false,” “continue to change,” are “deeply troubling,” and “contain numerous
misstatements and misrepresentations.”
276.

Hill’s statements were published throughout Indiana, across the United States, on

television, in newspapers, and on the Internet.
277.

Hill’s statements about Plaintiffs are defamatory per se.

278.

As a direct and proximate result of Hill’s publication of defamatory statements

against Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ reputations have been harmed and Plaintiffs have sustained damages.
COUNT XI– CURTIS T. HILL JR., INDIVIDUALLY
(False Light Invasion of Privacy)
279.

All preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

280.

Hill placed the Plaintiffs in a false light before the public by publishing statements

that directly or implicitly accused the Plaintiffs of misconduct in their trade, profession, office or
occupation.
281.

Hill’s published statements that directly or implicitly accused Plaintiffs of

misconduct in their trade, profession, office or occupation would be highly offensive to a
reasonable person.
282.

Hill had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the published

statements that directly or implicitly accused Plaintiffs of misconduct in their trade, profession,
office or occupation and the false light in which Plaintiffs would be placed by those statements.

Page 36 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 37 of 39 PageID #: 37

283.

As a direct and proximate result of Hill’s placing Plaintiffs in a false light by

publishing statements that directly or implicitly accused Plaintiffs of misconduct in their trade,
profession, office or occupation, Plaintiffs have sustained damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Niki DaSilva, Samantha Lozano, Gabrielle McLemore, and Mara
Reardon respectfully request that this Court:
A.

Award judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants;

B.

Enter an order declaring Defendants’ conduct unconstitutional;

C.

Enter a permanent injunction, upon proper motion, requiring the State of Indiana to

adopt appropriate policies related to sexual harassment, retaliation, and protection of individuals’
rights to equal protection and substantive due process under the United States Constitution;
D.

Require Defendant Hill to retract all defamatory statements and/or apologize for

such statements;
E.

Award compensatory damages against Defendants in an amount to be determined

at trial to make Plaintiffs whole for the mental anguish, emotional distress and other non-pecuniary
damages they have suffered because of Defendants’ unlawful conduct;
F.

Award punitive damages against Defendant Hill to be determined at trial to punish

Defendants for the unlawful conduct which was malicious or undertaken with reckless indifference
to Plaintiffs’ rights and to deter others from similar conduct;
G.

Award the costs of maintaining this action, including an award of reasonable

attorneys’ fees; and
H.

Award all other relief proper in the premises.

Page 37 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 38 of 39 PageID #: 38

Dated this 18th day of June 2019.
Respectfully submitted,
s/Kimberly D. Jeselskis
William J. Brinkerhoff, Attorney No. 24811-53
Kimberly D. Jeselskis, Attorney No. 23422-49
Hannah Kaufman Joseph, Attorney No. 24974-49
KATZ KORIN CUNNINGHAM PC
334 North Senate Avenue
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-1708
317-464-1100; 317-464-1111-fax
bbrinkerhoff@kkclegal.com
kjeselskis@kkclegal.com
hjoseph@kkclegal.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs

Page 38 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 39 of 39 PageID #: 39

TRIAL BY JURY
Plaintiffs Niki DaSilva, Samantha Lozano, Gabrielle McLemore, and Mara Reardon demand a
trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Dated this 18th day of June 2019.
Respectfully submitted,
s/Kimberly D. Jeselskis
William J. Brinkerhoff, Attorney No. 24811-53
Kimberly D. Jeselskis, Attorney No. 23422-49
Hannah Kaufman Joseph, Attorney No. 24974-49
KATZ KORIN CUNNINGHAM PC
334 North Senate Avenue
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-1708
317-464-1100; 317-464-1111-fax
bbrinkerhoff@kkclegal.com
kjeselskis@kkclegal.com
hjoseph@kkclegal.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs

Page 39 of 39
DaSilva, Lozano, McLemore and Reardon v. The State of Indiana and Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

 Case Document 1-1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID 4O

 

 

EEOC Form 161?8 (11i16) U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE (ISSUED ON REQUEST)
To: Niki DaSiIva From: Indianapolis District Office
207 S. Meridian Street 101 West Ohio St
Apt 4-D Suite 1900
Indianapolis, IN 46225 Indianapolis, IN 46204

On benaif of person(s) aggrieved whose identity is
CONFIDENTIAL {29 CFR 

 

EEOC Charge No. EEOC Representative Telephone No.
Frederick J. BruBaker,
470-2019-00422 Enforcement Supervisor (317) 226-7350

 

(See aiso the additional information encioseo' with this form.)

NOTICE TO THE PERSON Acomsveo:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination
Act (GINA): This is your Notice of Right to Sue, issued under Title VII, the ADA or GINA based on the above-numbered charge. It has

been issued at your request. Your lawsuit under Title VII, the ADA or GINA must be filed in a federal or state court WITHIN 90 DAYS
of your receipt of this notice; or your right to sue based on this charge will be test. (The time limit for filing suit based on a claim under

state law may be different.)
More than 180 days have passed since the ?ling of this charge.

I: Less than 180 days have passed since the of this charge, but I have determined that it is unlikely that the EEOC will
be able to complete its administrative processing within 180 days from the filing of this charge.

The EEOC is terminating its processing of this charge.

I: The EEOC will continue to process this charge.
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA): You may sue under the ADEA at any time from 60 days after the charge was ?led until
90 days after you receive notice that we have completed action on the charge. In this regard. the paragraph marked below applies to
your case:

The EEOC is closing your case. Therefore, your lawsuit under the ADEA must be filed in federal or state court WITHIN
90 DAYS of your receipt of this Notice. Otherwise, your right to sue based on the above-numbered charge will be lost.

The EEOC is continuing its handling of your ADEA case. However, if 60 days have passed since the ?ling of the charge,
you may file suit in federal or state court under the ADEA at this time.

Equal Pay Act (EPA): You already have the right to sue under the EPA (?ling an EEOC charge is not required.) EPA suits must be brought
in federal or state court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment. This means that backpay due for
any violations that occurred more than 2 years (3 years) before you file suit may not be collectible.

If you ?le suit, based on this charge, please send a copy of your court complaint to this of?ce.

3&7

On behalf of the mission

15? MAY It 2019

 

 

Enclosures(s) Michelle Eisele, (Date Matted)
District Director
cc: - -
Kimberly D. 
KATZ KORIN CUNNINGHAM, PC
STATE OF INDIANA - LEGISLATIVE SERVICES AGENCY 334 N. Senate Avenue
200 W. Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204

Suite 301
Indianapolis, IN 46204

EXHIBIT

Case Document 1-1 Filed 06/18/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID 41

Enclosure with EEOC
Form 151-3 (11i16)

INFORMATION RELATED To FILING SUIT
UNDER THE LAWS ENFORCED BY THE EEOC

(This information relates to filing suit in Federal or State court under Federal law.
If you also plan to sue claiming violations of State law, please be aware that time limits and other
provisions of State law may be shorter or more limited than those described below)

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
PRIVATE RIGHTS the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), or the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA):

In order to pursue this matter further, you must file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) named in the charge within
90 days of the date you receive this Notice. Therefore, you should keep a record of this date. Once this 90?
day period is over, your right to sue based on the charge referred to in this Notice will be lost. If you intend to
consult an attorney, you should do so Give your attorney a copy of this Notice, and its envelope, and tell
him or her the date you received it. Furthermore, in order to avoid any question that you did not act in a timely
manner, it is prudent that your suit be filed within 90 days of the date this Notice was mailed to you (as
indicated where the Notice is signed) or the date of the postmark, if later.

Your lawsuit may be filed in US. District Court or a State court of competent jurisdiction. (Usually, the appropriate
State court is the general civil trial court.) Whether you file in Federal or State court is a matter for you to decide
after talking to your attorney. Filing this Notice is not enough. You must file a "complaint" that contains a short
statement of the facts of your case which shows that you are entitled to relief. Courts often require that a copy of
your charge must be attached to the complaint you file in court. If so, you should remove your birth date from the
charge. Some courts will not accept your complaint where the charge includes a date of birth. Your suit may include
any matter alleged in the charge or, to the extent permitted by court decisions, matters like or related to the matters
alleged in the charge. Generally, suits are brought in the State where the alleged unlawful practice occurred, but in
some cases can be brought where relevant employment records are kept, where the employment would have
been, or where the respondent has its main office. If you have simple questions, you usually can get answers from
the office of the clerk of the court where you are bringing suit, but do not expect that office to write your complaint
or make legal strategy decisions for you.

PRIVATE SUIT RIGHTS -- Equal Pay Act (EPA):

EPA suits must be filed in court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment: back
pay due for violations that occurred more than 2 years (3 years) before you file suit may not be collectible. For
example, if you were underpaid under the EPA for work performed from 7/1/08 to 12/1/08, you should file suit
before 7/1/10 not 12/1/10 -- in order to recover unpaid wages due for July 2008. This time limit for filing an EPA
suit is separate from the 90-day filing period under Title VII, the ADA, GINA or the ADEA referred to above.
Therefore, if you also plan to sue under Title VII, the ADA, GINA or the ADEA, in addition to suing on the EPA
claim, suit must be filed within 90 days of this Notice within the 2? or 3?year EPA back pay recovery period.

ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION -- Title VII, the ADA or GINA:

If you cannot afford or have been unable to obtain a lawyer to represent you, the US. District Court having jurisdiction
in your case may, in limited circumstances, assist you in obtaining a lawyer. Requests for such assistance must be
made to the US. District Court in the form and manner it requires (you should be prepared to explain in detail your
efforts to retain an attorney). Requests should be made well before the end of the 90-day period mentioned above,
because such requests do 391 relieve you of the requirement to bring suit within 90 days.

ATTORNEY REFERRAL AND EEOC ASSISTANCE -- All Statutes:

You may contact the EEOC representative shown on your Notice if you need help in finding a lawyer or if you have any
questions about your legal rights, including advice on which US. District Court can hear your case. If you need to
inspect or obtain a copy of information in EEOC's file on the charge, please request it in writing and provide
your charge number (as shown on your Notice). While EEOC destroys charge files after a certain time, all charge files
are kept for at least 6 months after our last action on the case. Therefore, if you file suit and want to review the charge
file, please make your review request within 6 months of this Notice. (Before filing suit, any request should be

made within the next 90 days.)

IF YOU FILE SUIT, PLEASE SEND A COPY OF YOUR COURT COMPLAINT TO THIS OFFICE.

Case Document 1-2 Filed 06/18/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID 42
Form 161-Bt11l16) U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE (ISSUED ON REQUEST)

 

 

To: Samantha Lozano From: Indianapolis District Office
825 Camp Street 101 West Ohio St
Indianapolis, IN 46202 Suite 1900

Indianapolis, IN 46204

On behalf of person(s) aggrieved whose identity is
CONFIDENTIAL (29 CFR 

 

EEOC Charge No. EEOC Representative Telephone No.
Frederick J. BruBaker,
470-2019-00299 Enforcement Supervisor (317) 226-7350

 

(See also the additional information enclosed with this form.)

NOTICE TO THE PERSON AGGRIEVED:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination
Act (GINA): This is your Notice of Right to Sue. issued under Title VII. the ADA or GINA based on the above-numbered charge. It has
been issued at your request. Your lawsuit under Title VII. the ADA or GINA must be filed in a federal or state court WITHIN 90 DAYS
of your receipt of this notice; or your right to sue based on this charge will be lost. (The time limit for ?ling suit based on a claim under
state law may be different.)

More than 180 days have passed since the ?ling of this charge.

El Less than 180 days have passed since the filing of this charge, but I have determined that it is unlikely that the EEOC will
be able to complete its administrative processing within 180 days from the filing of this charge.

IE The EEOC is terminating its processing of this charge.
CI The EEOC will continue to process this charge.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA): You may sue under the ADEA at any time from 60 days after the charge was filed until
90 days after you receive notice that we have completed action on the charge. In this regard, the paragraph marked below applies to

your case:

The EEOC is closing your case. Therefore, your lawsuit under the ADEA must be ?led in federal or state court WITHIN
90 DAYS of your receipt of this Notice. Otherwise, your right to sue based on the above?numbered charge will be lost.

I: The EEOC is continuing its handling of your ADEA case. However. if 60 days have passed since the ?ling of the charge,
you may file suit in federal or state court under the ADEA at this time.

Equal Pay Act (EPA): You already have the right to sue under the EPA (?ling an EEOC charge is not required.) EPA suits must be brought

in federal or state court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment. This means that backpay due for
any violations that occurred more than 2 vears i3 Vea?l before you file suit may not be collectible.

If you ?le suit, based on this charge, please send a copy of your court complaint to this of?ce.

On behalf of the Commission

- MAY 1 I 2019

 

 

 

Enclosures(s) Michelle Eisele, (Date Mailed)
District Director

Kimberly D. Jeselskis

KATZ KORIN CUNNINGHAM PC
STATE OF INDIANA 334 North Senate Avenue
Office of The Attorney General Indianapolis, IN 46204

402 West Washington St., Rm. W161

Indianapolis, IN 46204

EXHIBIT

 Document 1-2 Filed 06/18/19 Page 2 of 2 PagelD 43

Form 161-B (11l16)
INFORMATION RELATED To FILING SUIT

UNDER THE LAws ENFORCED BY THE EEOC

(This information relates to ?ling suit in Federal or State court under Federal law.
If you also plan to sue claiming violations of State law, please be aware that time limits and other
provisions of State law may be shorter or more limited than those described below.)

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), or the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA):

PRIVATE SUIT RIGHTS

In order to pursue this matter further, you must file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) named in the charge within
90 days of the date you receive this Notice. Therefore, you should keep a record of this date. Once this 90-
day period is over, your right to sue based on the charge referred to in this Notice will be lost. If you intend to
consult an attorney. you should do so Give your attorney a copy of this Notice, and its envelope, and tell
him or her the date you received it. Furthermore, in order to avoid any question that you did not act in a timely
manner, it is prudent that your suit be filed within 90 days of the date this Notice was mailed to you (as
indicated where the Notice is signed) or the date of the postmark, if later.

Your lawsuit may be filed in US. District Court or a State court of competentjurisdiction. (Usually, the appropriate
State court is the general civil trial court.) Whether you file in Federal or State court is a matter for you to decide
after talking to your attorney. Filing this Notice is not enough. You must file a "complaint" that contains a short
statement of the facts of your case which shows that you are entitled to relief. Courts often require that a copy of
your charge must be attached to the complaint you file in court. If so, you should remove your birth date from the
charge. Some courts will not accept your complaint where the charge includes a date of birth. Your suit may include
any matter alleged in the charge or, to the extent permitted by court decisions, matters like or related to the matters
alleged in the charge. Generally, suits are brought in the State where the alleged unlawful practice occurred, but in
some cases can be brought where relevant employment records are kept, where the employment would have
been, or where the respondent has its main office. If you have simple questions, you usually can get answers from
the office of the clerk of the court where you are bringing suit, but do not expect that office to write your complaint
or make legal strategy decisions for you.

PRIVATE SUIT RIGHTS -- Equal Pay Act (EPA):

EPA suits must be filed in court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment: back
pay due for violations that occurred more than 2 years (3 years) before you file suit may not be collectible. For
example, if you were underpaid under the EPA for work performed from 7/1/08 to 12/1/08, you should file suit
before 7/1/10 not 12/1/10 in order to recover unpaid wages due for July 2008. This time limit for filing an EPA
suit is separate from the 90?day filing period under Title VII, the ADA, GINA or the ADEA referred to above.
Therefore, if you also plan to sue under Title VII, the ADA, GINA or the ADEA, in addition to suing on the EPA
claim, suit must be filed within 90 days of this Notice within the 2- or 3-year EPA back pay recovery period.

ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION -- Title VII, the ADA or GINA:

If you cannot afford or have been unable to obtain a lawyer to represent you, the US. District Court having jurisdiction
in your case may, in limited circumstances, assist you in obtaining a lawyer. Requests for such assistance must be
made to the US. District Court in the form and manner it requires (you should be prepared to explain in detail your
efforts to retain an attorney). Requests should be made well before the end of the 90?day period mentioned above,
because such requests do go_t relieve you of the requirement to bring suit within 90 days.

ATTORNEY REFERRAL AND EEOC ASSISTANCE -- Statutes:

You may contact the EEOC representative shown on your Notice if you need help in ?nding a lawyer or if you have any
questions about your legal rights, including advice on which US. District Court can hear your case. If you need to
inspect or obtain a copy of information in EEOC's file on the charge, please request it in writing and provide
your charge number (as shown on your Notice). While EEOC destroys charge files after a certain time, all charge files
are kept for at least 6 months after our last action on the case. Therefore, if you file suit and want to review the charge
file, please make your review request within 6 months of this Notice. (Before filing suit, any request should be
made within the next 90 days.)

IF YOU FILE PLEASE SEND A COPY OF YOUR COURT COMPLAINT TO OFFICE.

Case Document 1-3 Filed 06/18/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID 44

 

 

EEOC Form 161-Bt11i15) U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE (ISSUED ON REQUEST)
To: Gabrielle McLemore From: Indianapolis District Office
4122 Magnolia Drive 101 West Ohio St
Franklin, IN 46131 Suite 1900

Indianapolis, IN 46204

El On behalf ofperson(s) aggrieved whose identity is
CONFIDENTIAL (29 CFR 

 

EEOC Charge No. EEOC Representative Telephone No.
Frederick J. BruBaker,
470-2019-00300 Enforcement Supervisor (317) 226-7350

 

{See also the additional information enclosed with this form. 

NOTICE TO THE PERSON 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination
Act (GINA): This is your Notice of Right to Sue, issued under Title VII, the ADA or GINA based on the above-numbered charge. It has

been issued at your request. Your lawsuit under Title VII, the ADA or GINA must be filed in a federal or state court WITHIN 90 DAYS
of your receipt of this notice; or your right to sue based on this charge will be lost. (The time limit for ?ling suit based on a claim under

state law may be different.)
More than 180 days have passed since the ?ling of this charge.

Less than 180 days have passed since the filing of this charge, but I have determined that it is unlikely that the EEOC will
be able to complete its administrative processing within 180 days from the ?ling of this charge.

The EEOC is terminating its processing of this charge.

The EEOC will continue to process this charge.

DE 

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA): You may sue under the ADEA at any time from 60 days after the charge was filed until
90 days after you receive notice that we have completed action on the charge. In this regard, the paragraph marked below applies to

your case:

The EEOC is closing your case. Therefore, your lawsuit under the ADEA must be ?led in federal or state court WITHIN
90 DAYS of your receipt of this Notice. Otherwise, your right to sue based on the above-numbered charge will be lost.

The EEOC is continuing its handling of your ADEA case. However. if 60 days have passed since the ?ling of the charge,
you may ?le suit in federal or state court under the ADEA at this time.

Equal Pay Act (EPA): You already have the right to sue under the EPA (?ling an EEOC charge is not required.) EPA suits must be brought

in federal or state court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment. This means that backpay due for
any violations that occurred more than Zyears (3 years) before you file suit may not be collectible.

If you ?le suit, based on this charge, please send a copy of your court complaint to this of?ce.
On behalf of the Commission

Ez?r?w

Enc'osureslsl Michelle Eisele, 
District Director

HAY Ill 2019

(Date Mailed)

00' Kimberly D. Jeselskis
KATZ KORIN CUNNINGHAM
STATE OF INDIANA 334 North Senate Avenue
Office of the Attorney General Indianapolis, IN 46204

402 West Washington Street, Room W161
Indianapolis, IN 46204

EXHIBIT

Endogasegt?w-cv-OMSB-JRS-DLP Document 1-3 Filed 06/18/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID 45
Form 161-8 (11i16i
INFORMATION RELATED TO FILING SUIT

UNDER THE LAWS ENFORCED BY THE EEOC

This information relates to filing suit in Federal or State court under Federal law.
If you also plan to sue claiming violations of State law, please be aware that time limits and other
provisions of State law may be shorter or more limited than those described below.)

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
PRIVATE SUIT RIGHTS the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), or the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA):

In order to pursue this matter further, you must file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) named in the charge within
90 days of the date you receive this Notice. Therefore, you should keep a record of this date. Once this 90-
day period is over, your right to sue based on the charge referred to in this Notice will be lost. If you intend to
consult an attorney, you should do so Give your attorney a copy of this Notice, and its envelope, and tell
him or her the date you received it. Furthermore, in order to avoid any question that you did not act in a timely
manner, it is prudent that your suit be filed within 90 days of the date this Notice was mailed to you (as
indicated where the Notice is signed) or the date of the postmark, if later.

Your lawsuit may be filed in US. District Court or a State court of competentjurisdiction. (Usually, the appropriate
State court is the general civil trial court.) Whether you file in Federal or State court is a matter for you to decide
after talking to your attorney. Filing this Notice is not enough. You must file a "complaint" that contains a short
statement of the facts of your case which shows that you are entitled to relief. Courts often require that a copy of
your charge must be attached to the complaint you file in court. If so, you should remove your birth date from the
charge. Some courts will not accept your complaint where the charge includes a date of birth. Your suit may include
any matter alleged in the charge or, to the extent permitted by court decisions, matters like or related to the matters
alleged in the charge. Generally, suits are brought in the State where the alleged unlawful practice occurred, but in
some cases can be brought where relevant employment records are kept, where the employment would have
been, or where the respondent has its main office. If you have simple questions, you usually can get answers from
the office of the clerk of the court where you are bringing suit, but do not expect that office to write your complaint
or make legal strategy decisions for you.

PRIVATE SUIT RIGHTS -- Equal Pay Act (EPA):

EPA suits must be filed in court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment: back
pay due for violations that occurred more than 2 years (3 years) before you file suit may not be collectible. For
example, if you were underpaid under the EPA for work performed from 7/1/08 to 12/1/08, you should file suit
before 7/1/10 - not 12/1/10 in order to recover unpaid wages due for July 2008. This time limit for filing an EPA
suit is separate from the 90-day filing period under Title VII, the ADA, GINA or the ADEA referred to above.
Therefore, it you also plan to sue under Title Vll, the ADA, GINA or the ADEA, in addition to suing on the EPA
claim, suit must be filed within 90 days of this Notice within the 2- or 3-year EPA back pay recovery period.

ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION -- Title VII, the ADA or GINA:

If you cannot afford or have been unable to obtain a lawyer to represent you. the US. District Court having jurisdiction
in your case may, in limited circumstances, assist you in obtaining a lawyer. Requests for such assistance must be
made to the US. District Court in the form and manner it requires (you should be prepared to explain in detail your
efforts to retain an attorney). Requests should be made well before the end of the 90-day period mentioned above,
because such requests do go; relieve you of the requirement to bring suit within 90 days.

ATTORNEY REFERRAL AND EEOC ASSISTANCE -- All Statutes:

You may contact the EEOC representative shown on your Notice if you need help in finding a lawyer or if you have any
questions about your legal rights, including advice on which US. District Court can hear your case. If you need to
inspect or obtain a copy of information in EEOC's file on the charge, please request it in writing and provide
your charge number (as shown on your Notice). While EEOC destroys charge files after a certain time, all charge files
are kept for at least 6 months after our last action on the case. Therefore, if you file suit and want to review the charge
file, please make your review request within 6 months of this Notice. (Before filing suit, any request should be
made within the next 90 days.)

IF YOU PLEASE SEND A COPY OF YOUR COURT COMPLAINT TO OFFICE.

Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1-4 Filed 06/18/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 46

CIVIL COVER SHEET

JS 44 (Rev. 08/18)

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I.Niki
(a)DaSilva,
PLAINTIFFS
Samantha Lozano, Gabrielle McLemore and Mara

DEFENDANTS

STATE OF INDIANA and CURTIS T. HILL, JR., individually and in his
capacity as the Indiana Attorney General,

Candelaria Reardon
Marion County

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
NOTE:

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

Attorneys (If Known)

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
BJ Brinkerhoff, Kimberly D. Jeselskis and Hannah Kaufman Joseph
Katz Korin Cunningham PC
334 North Senate Avenue, Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 464-1100
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
u 1

U.S. Government
Plaintiff

u 3

Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)

u 2

U.S. Government
Defendant

u 4

Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
Citizen of This State
u 1

DEF
u 1

Citizen of Another State

u 2

u

2

Incorporated and Principal Place
of Business In Another State

u 5

u 5

Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country

u 3

u

3

Foreign Nation

u 6

u 6

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
CONTRACT
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u

u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u

u
u
u
u
u
u

Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

TORTS

110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran’s Benefits
160 Stockholders’ Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise
REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property

u
u
u
u
u
u
u

PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product
Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
330 Federal Employers’
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product
Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Injury
362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other
448 Education

and One Box for Defendant)
PTF
DEF
Incorporated or Principal Place
u 4
u 4
of Business In This State

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

PERSONAL INJURY
u 365 Personal Injury Product Liability
u 367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
u 368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
u 370 Other Fraud
u 371 Truth in Lending
u 380 Other Personal
Property Damage
u 385 Property Damage
Product Liability
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
u 463 Alien Detainee
u 510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
u 530 General
u 535 Death Penalty
Other:
u 540 Mandamus & Other
u 550 Civil Rights
u 555 Prison Condition
u 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement

u 625 Drug Related Seizure
of Property 21 USC 881
u 690 Other

LABOR
u 710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
u 720 Labor/Management
Relations
u 740 Railway Labor Act
u 751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
u 790 Other Labor Litigation
u 791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act

BANKRUPTCY
u 422 Appeal 28 USC 158
u 423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
u 820 Copyrights
u 830 Patent
u 835 Patent - Abbreviated
New Drug Application
u 840 Trademark
SOCIAL SECURITY
u 861 HIA (1395ff)
u 862 Black Lung (923)
u 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
u 864 SSID Title XVI
u 865 RSI (405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
u 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
u 871 IRS—Third Party
26 USC 7609

IMMIGRATION
u 462 Naturalization Application
u 465 Other Immigration
Actions

OTHER STATUTES
u 375 False Claims Act
u 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
3729(a))
u 400 State Reapportionment
u 410 Antitrust
u 430 Banks and Banking
u 450 Commerce
u 460 Deportation
u 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
u 480 Consumer Credit
u 485 Telephone Consumer
Protection Act
u 490 Cable/Sat TV
u 850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
u 890 Other Statutory Actions
u 891 Agricultural Acts
u 893 Environmental Matters
u 895 Freedom of Information
Act
u 896 Arbitration
u 899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
u 950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
u 1 Original
Proceeding

u 2 Removed from
State Court

u 3

Remanded from
Appellate Court

u 4 Reinstated or
Reopened

u 5 Transferred from
Another District

u 6 Multidistrict
Litigation Transfer
(specify)
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

u 8 Multidistrict
Litigation Direct File

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Indiana State law claims

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:

sexual harassment, retaliation, battery, sexual battery, defamation, and false light invasion of privacy

u CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
VII. REQUESTED IN
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY
JUDGE
DATE

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
u Yes
u No
JURY DEMAND:

DEMAND $

DOCKET NUMBER

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

s/Kimberly D. Jeselskis

06/18/2019
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT #

AMOUNT

APPLYING IFP

JUDGE

MAG. JUDGE

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1-4 Filed 06/18/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 47

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 08/18)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a)
(b)
(c)

Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".

,, 

Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X" 
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here. 
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment 
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes 
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the 
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity 
cases.)

,,, 

Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this 
section for each principal party.

,9 

Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code 
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

9 

Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.
Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. 
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing 
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date. 
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or 
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. 
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket. PLEASE
NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in
statue.

9, 

Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional 
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

9,, 

Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

9,,,  Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket 
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1-5 Filed 06/18/19 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 48
$2      5HY          6XPPRQV LQ D &LYLO $FWLRQ

81,7(' 67$7(6 ',675,&7 &2857
IRU WKH

6RXWKHUQ 'LVWULFW RI ,QGLDQD
1,., '$6,/9$  6$0$17+$ /2=$12  *$%5,(//(
0&/(025( DQG 0$5$ 5($5'21

Plaintiff(s)

Y 
67$7( 2) ,1',$1$ DQG &857,6 7  +,//  -5  
LQGLYLGXDOO\ DQG LQ KLV FDSDFLW\ DV WKH ,QGLDQD
$WWRUQH\ *HQHUDO 
Defendant(s)

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

&LYLO $FWLRQ 1R 

6800216 ,1 $ &,9,/ $&7,21
7R  (Defendant’s name and address) &857,6 7  +,//  -5   LQGLYLGXDOO\ DQG LQ KLV FDSDFLW\ DV WKH ,QGLDQD $WWRUQH\ *HQHUDO
F R 2IILFH RI ,QGLDQD $WWRUQH\ *HQHUDO
*RYHUQPHQW &HQWHU 6RXWK   WK )ORRU
    :HVW :DVKLQJWRQ 6WUHHW
,QGLDQDSROLV  ,QGLDQD      

$ ODZVXLW KDV EHHQ ILOHG DJDLQVW \RX 
:LWKLQ    GD\V DIWHU VHUYLFH RI WKLV VXPPRQV RQ \RX  QRW FRXQWLQJ WKH GD\ \RX UHFHLYHG LW  ² RU    GD\V LI \RX
DUH WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV RU D 8QLWHG 6WDWHV DJHQF\  RU DQ RIILFHU RU HPSOR\HH RI WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV GHVFULEHG LQ )HG  5  &LY 
3      D     RU     ² \RX PXVW VHUYH RQ WKH SODLQWLII DQ DQVZHU WR WKH DWWDFKHG FRPSODLQW RU D PRWLRQ XQGHU 5XOH    RI
WKH )HGHUDO 5XOHV RI &LYLO 3URFHGXUH   7KH DQVZHU RU PRWLRQ PXVW EH VHUYHG RQ WKH SODLQWLII RU SODLQWLII¶V DWWRUQH\ 
ZKRVH QDPH DQG DGGUHVV DUH  %- %ULQNHUKRII  .LPEHUO\ '  -HVHOVNLV DQG +DQQDK .DXIPDQ -RVHSK
.DW] .RULQ &XQQLQJKDP 3&
    1RUWK 6HQDWH $YHQXH
,QGLDQDSROLV  ,1      

,I \RX IDLO WR UHVSRQG  MXGJPHQW E\ GHIDXOW ZLOO EH HQWHUHG DJDLQVW \RX IRU WKH UHOLHI GHPDQGHG LQ WKH FRPSODLQW  
<RX DOVR PXVW ILOH \RXU DQVZHU RU PRWLRQ ZLWK WKH FRXUW 

CLERK OF COURT
'DWH 
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1-5 Filed 06/18/19 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 49
$2      5HY          6XPPRQV LQ D &LYLO $FWLRQ  3DJH   

&LYLO $FWLRQ 1R 
3522) 2) 6(59,&(
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
7KLV VXPPRQV IRU (name of individual and title, if any)
ZDV UHFHLYHG E\ PH RQ (date)

 

u , SHUVRQDOO\ VHUYHG WKH VXPPRQV RQ WKH LQGLYLGXDO DW (place)
RQ (date)

  RU

u , OHIW WKH VXPPRQV DW WKH LQGLYLGXDO¶V UHVLGHQFH RU XVXDO SODFH RI DERGH ZLWK (name)
  D SHUVRQ RI VXLWDEOH DJH DQG GLVFUHWLRQ ZKR UHVLGHV WKHUH 
RQ (date)

  DQG PDLOHG D FRS\ WR WKH LQGLYLGXDO¶V ODVW NQRZQ DGGUHVV  RU
  ZKR LV

u , VHUYHG WKH VXPPRQV RQ (name of individual)
 GHVLJQDWHG E\ ODZ WR DFFHSW VHUYLFH RI SURFHVV RQ EHKDOI RI (name of organization)
RQ (date)

  RU

u , UHWXUQHG WKH VXPPRQV XQH[HFXWHG EHFDXVH

  RU

u 2WKHU (specify):

0\ IHHV DUH  

IRU WUDYHO DQG  

IRU VHUYLFHV  IRU D WRWDO RI  

, GHFODUH XQGHU SHQDOW\ RI SHUMXU\ WKDW WKLV LQIRUPDWLRQ LV WUXH 

'DWH 
Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

$GGLWLRQDO LQIRUPDWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ DWWHPSWHG VHUYLFH  HWF 

    

 

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1-5 Filed 06/18/19 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 50
$2      5HY          6XPPRQV LQ D &LYLO $FWLRQ

81,7(' 67$7(6 ',675,&7 &2857
IRU WKH

6RXWKHUQ 'LVWULFW RI ,QGLDQD
1,., '$6,/9$  6$0$17+$ /2=$12  *$%5,(//(
0&/(025( DQG 0$5$ 5($5'21

Plaintiff(s)

Y 
67$7( 2) ,1',$1$ DQG &857,6 7  +,//  -5  
LQGLYLGXDOO\ DQG LQ KLV FDSDFLW\ DV WKH ,QGLDQD
$WWRUQH\ *HQHUDO 
Defendant(s)

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

&LYLO $FWLRQ 1R 

6800216 ,1 $ &,9,/ $&7,21
7R  (Defendant’s name and address) 67$7( 2) ,1',$1$
F R 2IILFH RI ,QGLDQD $WWRUQH\ *HQHUDO
*RYHUQPHQW &HQWHU 6RXWK   WK )ORRU
    :HVW :DVKLQJWRQ 6WUHHW
,QGLDQDSROLV  ,QGLDQD      

$ ODZVXLW KDV EHHQ ILOHG DJDLQVW \RX 
:LWKLQ    GD\V DIWHU VHUYLFH RI WKLV VXPPRQV RQ \RX  QRW FRXQWLQJ WKH GD\ \RX UHFHLYHG LW  ² RU    GD\V LI \RX
DUH WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV RU D 8QLWHG 6WDWHV DJHQF\  RU DQ RIILFHU RU HPSOR\HH RI WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV GHVFULEHG LQ )HG  5  &LY 
3      D     RU     ² \RX PXVW VHUYH RQ WKH SODLQWLII DQ DQVZHU WR WKH DWWDFKHG FRPSODLQW RU D PRWLRQ XQGHU 5XOH    RI
WKH )HGHUDO 5XOHV RI &LYLO 3URFHGXUH   7KH DQVZHU RU PRWLRQ PXVW EH VHUYHG RQ WKH SODLQWLII RU SODLQWLII¶V DWWRUQH\ 
ZKRVH QDPH DQG DGGUHVV DUH  %- %ULQNHUKRII  .LPEHUO\ '  -HVHOVNLV DQG +DQQDK .DXIPDQ -RVHSK
.DW] .RULQ &XQQLQJKDP 3&
    1RUWK 6HQDWH $YHQXH
,QGLDQDSROLV  ,1      

,I \RX IDLO WR UHVSRQG  MXGJPHQW E\ GHIDXOW ZLOO EH HQWHUHG DJDLQVW \RX IRU WKH UHOLHI GHPDQGHG LQ WKH FRPSODLQW  
<RX DOVR PXVW ILOH \RXU DQVZHU RU PRWLRQ ZLWK WKH FRXUW 

CLERK OF COURT
'DWH 
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Case 1:19-cv-02453-JRS-DLP Document 1-5 Filed 06/18/19 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 51
$2      5HY          6XPPRQV LQ D &LYLO $FWLRQ  3DJH   

&LYLO $FWLRQ 1R 
3522) 2) 6(59,&(
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
7KLV VXPPRQV IRU (name of individual and title, if any)
ZDV UHFHLYHG E\ PH RQ (date)

 

u , SHUVRQDOO\ VHUYHG WKH VXPPRQV RQ WKH LQGLYLGXDO DW (place)
RQ (date)

  RU

u , OHIW WKH VXPPRQV DW WKH LQGLYLGXDO¶V UHVLGHQFH RU XVXDO SODFH RI DERGH ZLWK (name)
  D SHUVRQ RI VXLWDEOH DJH DQG GLVFUHWLRQ ZKR UHVLGHV WKHUH 
RQ (date)

  DQG PDLOHG D FRS\ WR WKH LQGLYLGXDO¶V ODVW NQRZQ DGGUHVV  RU
  ZKR LV

u , VHUYHG WKH VXPPRQV RQ (name of individual)
 GHVLJQDWHG E\ ODZ WR DFFHSW VHUYLFH RI SURFHVV RQ EHKDOI RI (name of organization)
RQ (date)

  RU

u , UHWXUQHG WKH VXPPRQV XQH[HFXWHG EHFDXVH

  RU

u 2WKHU (specify):

0\ IHHV DUH  

IRU WUDYHO DQG  

IRU VHUYLFHV  IRU D WRWDO RI  

, GHFODUH XQGHU SHQDOW\ RI SHUMXU\ WKDW WKLV LQIRUPDWLRQ LV WUXH 

'DWH 
Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

$GGLWLRQDO LQIRUPDWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ DWWHPSWHG VHUYLFH  HWF