Case3:13-cv-02930-JSC Document1-1 Filed06/26/13 Page1 of 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 DAN SIEGEL, SBN 56400 MICHAEL SIEGEL, SBN 269439 KEVIN BRUNNER, SBN 271510 SIEGEL&YEE 499 14th Street, Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 839-1200 Facsimile: (510) 444-6698 dansiegel@siegelyee.com michael@siegelyee.com keyjbrunner@gmail.com Attorneys for Plaintiff JONATHAN BELLUSA 10 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 I 14 15 16 CaseNo. JONATHAN BELLUSA, C 3- 2930 J C COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Plaintiff, 1 (Civil Rights) l8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ) BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE OAKLANDUNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT;) Demand for Jury Trial JACQUELINE MINOR, General Counsel, ~ ) in her official and individual capacities; ) his in ANTHONY SMITH, Superintendent, official and individual capacities; PETER ~ ) SARNA,former Chief of Police, in his official and individual capacities; JAMES ) WILLIAMS, Acting Chief of Police, in his ) ) official and individual capacities; and ~ DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. ~ 26 27 28 Plaintiff JONATHAN BELLUSAcomplains against defendants BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE OAKLANDUNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, JACQUELINE Bellusa v. Board of Education, No. Complaint 1 Case3:13-cv-02930-JSC Document1-1 Filed06/26/13 Page2 of 22 1 MINOR, ANTHONY SMITH, PETER SARNA,JAMES WILLIAMS, and DOES 1-50, 2 inclusive (collectively, "District"), as follows: 3 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 4 1. On January 22, 2011, two police officers for the Oakland Unified School 5 6 District ("District"), Barbin Bhatt and Jonathan Bellusa, conducted a traffic stop that 7 culminated with Sergeant Bhatt firing multiple shots at passenger Raheim Brown, 8 resulting in his death. Subsequent to the incident, while Bhatt and Bellusa were being 9 simultaneously interviewed at Oakland Police Department headquarters pursuant to 10 established protocol, District officials including Superintendent Anthony Smith and 11 12 General Counsel Jacqueline Minor interrupted the interviews and proceeded to 13 contaminate an otherwise sterile debrief process. Later, as various investigations and 14 legal processes developed, Sergeant Bellusa communicated to District lawyers and 15 officials that his testimony regarding the events of January 22, 2011 would diverge from 16 . 17 the testimony of Sergeant Bhatt, and that Sergeant Bhatt may have unnecessarily fired 18 the bullets that killed Raheim Brown. After District officials and their agents learned of 19 Sergeant Bellusa's likely testimony regarding the shooting, they attempted to coerce 20 Bellusa to conform his testimony to the version proffered by Bhatt, but to no avail. 21 2. On July 18, 2011, Peter Sarna, the Police Chief of the District Police 22 23 Department, engaged in a drunken, racist rant in which he uttered outrageous and 24 offensive epithets concerning African American and Asian American children and 25 police officers; Sarna also threatened to kill two officers present, including Sergeant 26 Bellusa. Bellusa also witnessed a subsequent racist remark by Chief Sarna, and 27 proceeded to file a written complaint with District General Counsel Minor. Bellusa met 28 with Minor regarding the complaint, and during that meeting Bellusa also sought to Bellusa v. Board of Education, No. Complaint 2 Case3:13-cv-02930-JSC Document1-1 Filed06/26/13 Page3 of 22 1 discuss his concerns regarding the January 22, 2011, shooting of Raheim Brown. Minor 2 responded by ordering Bellusa out of her office and notifying other District officials, 3 including Superintendent Smith and Police Chief Sarna, of Sergeant Bellusa's concerns. 4 5 As a result of Sergeant Bellusa's formal complaints regarding Police Chief 3. 6 Sarna's racist and derogatory remarks, and as a result of Sergeant Bellusa's resistance 7 to the efforts of District officials and their agents to suborn testimony he believed to be 8 false regrrding the shooting of Raheim Brown, District officials collectively and 9 individually engaged in acts of retaliation against Bellusa. Superintendent Smith and 10 General Counsel Minor accused Bellusa of lying. Superintendent Smith selected Bhatt 11 12 as interim Police Chief (after Peter Sarna resigned under duress), despite Sergeant 13 Bellusa's testimony that Bhatt may have been responsible for the unnecessary killing of 14 Raheim Brown. Sergeant Bellusa filed formal complaints regarding various acts of 15 retaliation that he suffered - which only led to further retaliation. Without legitimate 16 justificat:Jon, the District placed Bellusa on administrative leave; deprived him of his I 17 18 duty weapon and badge; subjected him to an Internal Affairs investigation; and ordered 19 him to submit to repeated fitness for duty examinations. 20 21 4. Sergeant Bellusa brings claims for retaliation based upon protected whistleblower conduct under California Labor Code §1102.5 and the Reporting by 22 23 24 School Employees of Improper Government Activities Act, Education Code §§ 4411044114. He brings a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for retaliation based 25 upon protected disclosures of racist misconduct and another claim under 42 U.S.C. § 26 1983 for retaliation based upon protected First Amendment conduct. He also brings 27 claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and threats of violence in violation 28 of California's Bane Act, based upon the coercive conduct of certain District agents and Bellusa v Board Comp) · Education, No. 3 Case3:13-cv-02930-JSC Document1-1 Filed06/26/13 Page4 of 22 1 officials who threatened that Bellnsa would be "sitting in jail" and would face economic 2 ruin if he contradicted Bhatt's testimony regarding the shooting of Raheim Brown. 3 5. As a result of defendants' conduct, Sergeant Bellusa has suffered economic 4 harm, emotional distress, humiliation and anguish. He seeks general, compensatory, 5 6 and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. JURISDICTION 7 8 9 6. This action arises under two federal statutes: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2oooe, et seq., to redress retaliation based upon complaints of racial 10 11 discrimination; and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to redress deprivations of constitutional rights 12 under color of law. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U .S.C. § 1331 13 (arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States) and under § 1343 (an 14 action to recover damages under an Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil 15 rights). 16 17 7. The state law claims in this action are so related to claims in the action within 18 original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III 19 of the United States Constitution. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the 20 related state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 21 VENUE 22 23 24 8. omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 25 26 27 Venue is proper in the Northern District of California because the events or 9. A substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the City of Oakland in the County of Alameda. Assignment to either the San Francisco 28 or Oakland Division is proper pursuant to Local Rule 3-2(d). Bellusa v. Board of Education, No. Complai~t 4 Case3:13-cv-02930-JSC Document1-1 Filed06/26/13 Page5 of 22 PARTIES 1 2 3 At all times relevant to this controversy, plaintiff JONATHAN BELLUSA was 10. a sworn police officer employed by the Oakland Unified School District and a resident o 4 Lafayette, California. 5 6 At all times relevant to this controversy, defendant BOARD OF EDUCATION 11. 7 OF THE OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT was a public agency that governs the 8 public school system in the city of Oakland, California. As part of its operations, the 9 District employs, trains, and supervises its own police force. 10 At all times relevant to this controversy, defendant JACQUELINE MINOR 12. 11 12 was the General Counsel of the Oakland Unified School District and was acting in said 13 capacity . 14 13. 15 At all times relevant to this controversy, defendant ANTHONY SMITH was the Superintendent of the Oakland Unified School District and was acting in said 16 capacit:}1 I 17 18 14. At all times relevant to this controversy, defendant PETER SARNA was the 19 Chief of Police of the Oakland Unified School District Police Department and was acting 20 in said capacity. 21 15. At all times relevant to this controversy, defendant JAMES WILLIAMS was 22 23 24 25 26 27 acting Chief of Police of the Oakland Unified School District and was acting in said capacity. 16. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of the defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each said Doe defendant is employed by the BOARD OF EDUCATION OF . 28 THE OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, and therefore sues such defendants by Bellusa v. Board of Education, No. Complaint 5 Case3:13-cv-02930-JSC Document1-1 Filed06/26/13 Page6 of 22 1 such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave of the Court to amend this complaint 2 when the true names of these defendants have been ascertained. 3 4 STATEMENT OF FACTS 17. Jonathan Bellusa is a decorated police officer who has served the Oakland 5 6 Unified School District (OUSD) for over ten years. He served OUSD as an officer from 7 1999 8 rehired when the force was reinstated in 2006. 9 until 2002, when the District's police force was temporarily disbanded. He was Bellusa was promoted to police sergeant in 2008. He later served as watch commander, served as acting police lieutenant from 10 2010 11 12 to present, and served as interim chief of the department on multiple occasions. 18. On January 22, 2011, Sergeant Bellusa and Sergeant Barbin Bhatt were 13 engaged in the stop and attempted apprehension of Raheim Brown, who was a 14 passenger in a parked automobile on Joaquin Miller Road in Oakland. During that 15 incident Sergeant Bhatt fired approximately seven shots at Mr. Brown, who died of his 16 17 18 injuries. 19. Immediately following the shooting of Mr. Brown, OUSD Superintendent 19 Anthony Smith, OUSD General Counsel Jacqueline Minor, and OUSD Police Chief Peter 20 Sarna intervened and interfered in the simultaneous questioning of Sergeant Bellusa 21 and Sergeant Bhatt by Oakland Police Department homicide investigators in a manner 22 23 24 25 26 27 that compromised the investigators' ability to conduct complete and sterile interviews of the two sergeants. 20. From that date up to the present date, OUSD officials and their attorneys have attempted to coerce Sergeant Bellusa into conforming his account of the shooting of Raheim Brown to that of Sergeant Bhatt, despite Sergeant Bellusa's disagreement with 28 Sergeant Bhatt's account. In particular, Sergeant Bellusa has questioned whether it was Bellusa ~ Board of Education, No. Complairlt 6 Case3:13-cv-02930-JSC Document1-1 Filed06/26/13 Page7 of 22 1 necessary for Sergeant Bhatt to have fired a second volley of approximately five shots at 2 Mr. Brown some seconds after his first two shots. 3 21. Subsequent to Officer Bellusa' s actions to bring charges against Chief Sarna 4 5 6 7 8 9 and to refuse to conform his testimony to support Officer Bhatt, the District retaliated against Bellusa in diverse and punitive ways. 22. From about July 2009 through July 2011, Sergeant Bellusa often brought to Chief Sarna's attention the illegal and improper conduct of certain officers of the OUSD Police Department. For example, he reported that Officer "L" often stole drinks and fi 10 11 items from merchants in the Fruitvale area of East Oakland. He also reported that 12 Sergeant "B" drank alcoholic beverages while on duty. Chief Sarna refused to take 13 disciplinary action against these officers and others whose improper conduct Sergeant 14 Bellusa reported. From August 2010 to June 2011, Bellusa also reported improper 15 _ practices by OUSD Legal in the reporting of child sexual abuse to Chief Sarna, as well as 16 17 18 the OUSD administration. 23. On July 18, 2011, Chief Sarna engaged in a drunken, racist rant in which he 19 grossly insulted OUSD Sergeant Michael Anderson and made racist remarks concerning 20 African American and Asian American individuals. He also called Sergeant Bellusa a 21 "nigger," called Officer Greg Hom a "gook" and threatened to kill them. Sergeant 22 23 24 25 26 Anderson reported Chief Sarna's actions to OUSD police department employee Lou Silva. On information and belief, Silva failed to act on Anderson's complaint. 24. On August 2, 2011, Chief Sarna made another racist remark regarding Sergeant Anderson. 27 28 Bellusa ti·Board of Education, No. Complai~t 7 Case3:13-cv-02930-JSC Document1-1 Filed06/26/13 Page8 of 22 1 2 3 25. On August 4, 2011, Sergeant Bellusa filed a written complaint concerning Chief Sarna's racially discriminatory behavior and Silva's failure to report the incident with OUSD General Counsel Jacqueline Minor. 4 26. During a meeting with Ms. Minor that same day, Sergeant Bellusa attempted 5 6 to speak with her about the shooting of Raheim Brown on January 22, 2011. Ms. Minor 7 refused to listen to Sergeant Bellusa and ordered him to leave her office. 8 9 27. On information and belief, Ms. Minor immediately advised Superintendent Smith of Sergeant Bellusa's discrimination complaint. Superintendent Smith then 10 notified Chief Sarna of Bellusa's complaint. Later that day Chief Sarna telephoned 11 12 Sergeant Bellusa and Sergeant Anderson in an effort to discuss the complaint that 13 Sergeant Bellusa had filed with Ms. Minor. 14 15 28. Following Sergeant Bellusa's complaint, Superintendent Smith and Ms. Minor accused him of making false allegations regarding Chief Sarna. Ms. Minor told OUSD 16 17 officers that she did not believe the allegations against Chief Sarna. Superintendent 18 Smith stated that Sergeant Bellusa was "trying to screw the chief." OUSD released 19 statements to the press in which the District attempted to trivialize Chief Sarna's 20 actions. 21 29. After Sergeant Bellusa's complaints about Chief Sarna became widely known, 22 the District formally placed Chief Sarna on administrative leave on August 5, 2011. The 23 24 . 25 26 27 District then appointed Sergeant Bhatt as interim OUSD police chief. 30. On August 9, 2011, Superintendent Smith and General Counsel Minor addressed the entire O USD police department. They explained that Sarna had been placed on administrative leave. They asked for officers to visit with them confidentially 28 and provide information about the incident in question. Sergeant Bellusa asked Minor Bellusa v. Board of Education, No. Complaint 8 Case3:13-cv-02930-JSC Document1-1 Filed06/26/13 Page9 of 22 1 and Smith how the District would prevent retaliation against any officers that make 2 allegations against Chief Sarna. Smith and Minor ignored the question. 3 31. On or about August 9, 2011, Superintendent Smith told District police officers 4 that he was continuing to speak with Peter Sarna, "because he is still the chief." In fact, 5 6 Sarna was no longer police chief at this point, as Bhatt had been appointed to that 7 position. In addition, Smith's ongoing association with Sarna communicated a clear 8 message to Sergeant Bellusa and other potential whistle blowers: namely, that the 9 Superintendent was going to support Sarna - even to the extent of compromising the 10 11 12 internal District investigation into serious charges of misconduct. 32. During the month of August 2011, District officials including General Counsel 13 Minor conducted an investigation of the complaint against Peter Sarna. On information 14 15 and belief, instead of focusing their questions on Sarna's misconduct, Minor and others interrogated OUSD police officers regarding Sergeant Bellusa's prior conduct, asking if 16 Bellusa "has ever done anything inappropriate." 17 18 33. On or about August 15, 2011, Sergeant Bellusa learned that the San Francisco 19 Chronicle had published an article, "Top schools cop suspended in slur probe," 20 regarding then-Chief Sarna's racist tirade. District officials were quoted minimizing the 21 incident, claiming that Sarna had merely "used the word 'n-' in an offhand manner 22 23 while trying to be funny at a golf tournament." The officials also claimed that "[t]he 24 remark was not directed at anyone in particular ... [it] was banter among guys playing 25 golf." 26 34. 27 Later on August 15, 2011, an attorney representing Sergeant Bellusa gave a press conference for Bay Area media, rebutting some of the District's allegations 28 regarding the incident and explaining the substance of Bellusa's discrimination Bellusa v. Board of Education, No. Complaint 9 Case3:13-cv-02930-JSC Document1-1 Filed06/26/13 Page10 of 22 1 complaint against Peter Sarna. Local ABC affiliate Channel 7 aired Bellusa's rebuttal, as 2 did other media outlets, including the Bay Citizen, a local affiliate of the New York 3 Times. 4 35. In the Bay Citizen article published on August 16, 2011, Sergeant Bellusa's 5 6 attorney clarified that Chief Sarna had not only used the word "n-," but that Sarna had 7 called a Black officer (Sergeant Anderson) a "n-" who "should be hung in the town 8 square.'' Bellusa's attorney also related additional details of the incident that 9 contradicted the public statements of District officials. 10 36. 11 Beginning on or about August 16, 2011, Sergeant Bellusa began to feel serious 12 physical and mental strain as a result of the January 22, 2011 shooting of Raheim 13 Brown, the July 18, 2011 racial tirade by Chief Sarna, and the hostile work environment 14 in the District police department. He sought medical attention and began to receive 15 treatment. 16 37. On or about August 17, 2011, the District announced that Peter Sarna had 17 18 retired as Chief and had written an apology letter to the President of the School Board in 19 which he admitted to his actions. 20 21 38. On August 18, 2011, acting Chief Bhatt informed Sergeant Bellusa that he would now report to Lou Silva. Silva was a known ally of Peter Sarna and had previously 22 23 24 25 26 27 protected Sarna by failing to report Sergeant Anderson's complaint of racial discrimination. 39. On August 24, 2011, and August 29, 2011, Sergeant Bellusa filed complaints with OUSD alleging that he was suffering retaliation and was fearful of suffering further retaliation because of his complaints regarding Chief Sarna and the Raheim Brown 28 shooting. Bellusa v. Board of Education, No. Complaint 10 Case3:13-cv-02930-JSC Document1-1 Filed06/26/13 Page11 of 22 1 2 3 40. On August 31; 2011, Sergeant Bellusa visited a doctor regarding his ongoing mental and physical stress. The doctor recommended that Bellusa be placed on medical leave until September 14, 2011, when he would be re-evaluated for duty. 4 41. On September 1, 2011, the District notified all police department staff that it 5 6 would be conducting an investigation of the police department, led by Pete Peterson. 7 Peterson was a known ally of former Chief Sarna. Sarna had previously hired Peterson 8 to investigate the Raheim Brown shooting. 9 42. On September 2, 2011, Pete Peterson on behalf of the District placed Sergeant 10 11 12 13 14 15 Bellusa on administrative leave for medical reasons. Peterson took Bellusa's duty weapon, badge, and other work-related equipment and items. 43. On September 6, 2011, the District named James Williams as interim Police Chief, replacing Sergeant Barbin Bhatt. 44. On September 7, 2011, Chief Williams advised Sergeant Bellusa that he was 16 17 the subject of an OUSD Internal Affairs investigation into accusations that he had 18 "engaged in unprofessional/disgraceful 19 harassment/hostile 20 described in OSPD Policy 340.3.8), 21 conduct against others, sexual work environment, breach of supervision responsibilities (as and falsification of work-related records." OUSD hired Pete Peterson, Sarna's ally, to investigate the charges against Sergeant Bellusa. 22 23 45. On information and belief, former Chief Sarna continued to communicate 24 with District agents and officials after his resignation, including acting Chief Bhatt and 25 Pete Peterson, in order to pursue his goal of retaliating against Jonathan Bellusa. 26 27 46. On September 8, 2011, Sergeant Bellusa was admitted to a hospital emergenc room after experiencing chest pains. He believed that he was experiencing a heart 28 attack. He was released from the hospital later that day. Bellusa v. Board of Education, No. Complaint 11 Case3:13-cv-02930-JSC Document1-1 Filed06/26/13 Page12 of 22 1 47. Orr September 9, 2011, a doctor extended Sergeant Bellusa's medical leave. 2 48. In December 2011, Sergeant Bellusa received a letter from attorneys 3 representing the District in a lawsuit filed by family members of Raheim Brown. The 4 District indicated that it would henceforth provide separate counsel for Bellusa and 5 6 Sergeant Bhatt. Later, Bellusa learned that his former attorneys still represented both 7 Bhatt and Peter Sarna, as well as the District. 8 9 49. Also in December 2011, Bellusa was informed by his new, District-appointed counsel, Jeff Olsen, that he should not disclose certain issues regarding the Raheim 10 Brown shooting, or else Olsen would have to report the issues to counsel for Sarna, 11 12 13 14 15 Bhatt, and the District. 50. On January 3, 2012, Olsen asked Bellusa to verify an answer to a wrongful death complaint filed in federal court by the family of Raheim Brown. The proffered facts diverged from Bellusa's recollection of the events in question, and Bellusa refused 16 17 to sign. Later in January 2012, Sergeant Bellusa began to consult separate counsel, 18 19 with the goal of defending his interests in the Raheim Brown wrongful death litigation. 20 He also continued to cooperate with his District-appointed counsel, Jeff Olsen. 21 52. In January 2012, OUSD ordered Sergeant Bellusa to submit to a fitness for 22 23 24 duty examination on January 25. 53. During a phone call in March 2012, Jeff Olsen communicated a series of 25 threats to Bellusa, demanding that Bellusa provide the District with any information 26 that contradicted Sergeant Bhatt's version of the events regarding the shooting of 27 Raheim Brown. Bellusa told Olsen that he was willing to share this information-with 28 him, but that he did not want to share the information with the lawyers for Barbin Bhatt Bellusa v. Board of Education, No. Complaint 12 , Case3:13-cv-02930-JSC Document1-1 Filed06/26/13 Page13 of 22 1 and Peter Sarna. Olsen accused Bellusa of "maliciously causing the district harm" and 2 told Bellusa that if he did not share the requested information with the District, that he 3 would become liable for attorneys' fees, and that the District could file a lien against 4 him. 5 6 7 8 9 01information and belief, Olsen permitted an unknown District official to listen to this phf e call while it was occurring. 54. On March 22, 2012, Olsen wrote to Bellusa and told him that there was a significant difference between the respective testimonies of Bellusa and Bhatt regarding the Raheim Brown shooting. Olsen stated that it was his duty to warn Bellusa of certain 10 "consequences" of his testimony. 11 12 55. During March and April 2012, Olsen repeatedly contacted Bellusa and 13 requested to share Bellusa's recollections of the Raheim Brown shooting with the 14 attorneys for Bhatt and Sarna. On at least one occasion Olsen implied that Bellusa, and 15 not Bhatt, could become liable for Brown's wrongful death. 16 56. On April 7, 2012, Bellusa gave Olsen authority to share information about his 17 18 recollections of the Raheim Brown shooting with the District-retained attorneys for 19 Bhatt and Sarna. Olsen told Bellusa that sharing this information would facilitate the 20 settlement of the case. 21 57. On April 9, 2012, Olsen informed Bellusa that he had spoken with James 22 23 24 Marzan, an attorney for the firm representing Bhatt and Sarna, and that Olsen had told Marzan about the discrepancies between the testimony of Bellusa and Bhatt. Olsen 25 stated tat 26 58. 27 Marzan was "concerned" about the discrepancies. On April 18, 2012, Olsen told Bellusa that even ifhe tells the truth he could end up "sitting in jail" as a result of his testimony regarding the shooting of Raheim 28 Brown. Bellusa v. Board of Education, No. Complaint 13 Case3:13-cv-02930-JSC Document1-1 Filed06/26/13 Page14 of 22 1 2 3 59. On April 19, 2012, Olsen reported to Bellusa regarding a conversation he had with Peter Edrington, another attorney representing Bhatt and Sarna. According to Olsen, Edrington stated that Bellusa was not "playing ball" and asked, "Why does John 4 want to sink ships? Why doesn't he just go along with what Bhatt is saying and then 5 6 everyone can go on with their lives?" Edrington then told Olsen that he wanted to "talk 7 sensett into Bellusa and get him "on the same page as Bhatt." Olsen convinced Bellusa to 8 meet with Edrington directly, but Bellusa later cancelled the appointment after 9 consultation with his independent counsel. 10 60. On April 25, 2012, Olsen told Bellusa that Peter Edrington said that he was 11 12 preparing to ask the Alameda County District Attorney to file perjury charges against 13 Sergeant Bellusa. At the same time that Olsen communicated this threat, he continued 14 to recommend that Bellusa meet directly with Peter Edrington. 15 61. In May 2012, OUSD ordered Sergeant Bellusa to submit to ano~er fitness for 16 17 18 duty examination on May 10. 62. On May 14, 2012, Olsen wrote to Bellusa and stated that he had spoken to 19 Edrington and that the District was now considering forcing Bellusa to pay for his own 20 legal defense. Olsen also communicated that, according to Edrington, the District might 21 withdraw its indemnification of Bellusa for his actions taken pursuant to official duties. 22 63. On May 18, 2012, Bellusa suffered heart pain and called 911. Although he 23 24 25 26 27 believed he might be suffering from a heart attack, it turned out to be heart pain caused by extreme anxiety. 64. On May 19, 2012, the San Francisco Chronicle published an article citing District sources who falsely claimed that Jonathan Bellusa was no longer an employee·o 28 Bellusa v. Board of Education, No. Compla,int 14 Case3:13-cv-02930-JSC Document1-1 Filed06/26/13 Page15 of 22 1 the District. Bellusa contacted the author of the article, Henry Lee, who confirmed that a 2 District official had made this statement. 3 65. In August 2012 the District rescinded Bellusa's paid administrative leave. 66. In November 2012, OUSD ordered Sergeant Bellusa to attend a fitness for 4 5 6 duty examination on November 14. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 7 8 9 67. On October 14, 2011, Mr. Bellusa filed charges against the Oakland Unified School District with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging certain 10 11 12 13 14 15 acts of discrimination and retaliation motivated by his protected conduct of complaining about racial discrimination, as described above. 68. On October 17, 2011, Mr. Bellusa filed a complaint against the Oakland Unified School District with the California Labor Commission, alleging certain acts of retaliation motivated by his protected whistle blower activities, as described above. 16 17 18 19 20 21 69. On November 9, 2011, the California Labor Commission referred Mr. Bellusa's complaint to the EEOC. 70. On March 1, 2013, Mr. Bellusa gave notice to the District pursuant to the California Government Tort Claims Act, describing his claims under the common law and under state and federal statutes. On March 21, 2013, representatives of the District 22 23 24 served Mr. Bellusa with notice that his claim had been rejected. 71. On March 13, 2013, attorneys for plaintiff Jonathan Bellusa filed a complaint 25 with th~ Alameda County District Attorney, describing how Mr. Bellusa had been 26 subject ~o retaliation based upon his protected conduct, in violation of the California 27 Education Code, Section 44114. In conjunction with his attorneys' letter, -Mr. Bellusa 28 verified that he had suffered acts of reprisal based upon his protected conduct of Bellusa v. Board of Education, No. Complrnt 15 Case3:13-cv-02930-JSC Document1-1 Filed06/26/13 Page16 of 22 1 reporting instances of racial discrimination and harassment by District employees. 2 Bellusa also verified facts demonstrating that he lawfully resisted efforts by District 3 4 personnel to coerce what he believed to be perjured testimony in regards to the shooting death of Raheim Brown, and that he suffered retaliation as a result. 5 6 7 72. On May 15, 2013, the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division issued Mr. Bellusa a right-to-sue notice based upon his pending EEOC charges. 8 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 9 (Retaliation Motivated by Charges of Racial Discrimination, 42 U.S.C. §2oooe-3) (Defendant Board of Education) 10 11 12 73. Plaintiff realleges and fully incorporates herein paragraphs 1-72, above. 74. By virtue of the foregoing, Jonathan Bellusa was engaged in an activity 13 protected under federal law, namely: making a formal complaint of racial discrimination 14 regarding an official of the Oakland Unified School District. As a result of Sergeant 15 Bellusa's protected activities, officials and agents of the District subjected him to 16 17 multiple adverse employment actions, including: accusing Bellusa oflying; accusing him 18 of making complaints for improper reasons; placing him on administrative leave; 19 depriving him of his duty weapon and badge; subjecting him to an unwarranted Internal 20 Affairs investigation; and ordering him to submit to repeated and unwarranted fitness 21 for duty examinations. The adverse actions taken by the District were motivated by 22 23 Sergeant Bellusa's charges of racial discrimination. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 24 (Retaliation Motivated by First Amendment Conduct, 42 U.S.C. § 1983) (Defendants Minor, Smith, Sarna and Williams) 25 26 27 75. Plaintiff realleges and fully incorporates herein paragraphs 1-74, above. 76. By virtue of the foregoing, defendants Jacqueline Minor, Anthony Smith, 28 Peter Sarna, James Williams, and Does 1 to 50 inclusive, acting under color of law, took Bellusa v. Board of Education, No. Complaint 16 Case3:13-cv-02930-JSC Document1-1 Filed06/26/13 Page17 of 22 1 action individually and collectively to retaliate against Jonathan Bellusa based upon his 2 protected First Amendment activities to share truthful information about an issue of 3 public concern, namely: the racially discriminatory conduct of the Chief of Police of the 4 Oakland Unified School District, Peter Sarna. Mr. Bellusa made protected statements to 5 6 the media including the Bay Citizen to correct false information that the District caused 7 to be published in the San Francisco Chronicle. Defendants were motivated to take acts 8 of retaliation against Sergeant Bellusa, as described above, after he made public 9 statements regarding Chief Sarna's conduct. 10 . THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Whistleblower Retaliation, California Labor Code § 1102.5) (Defendant Board of Education) 11 12 13 77. Plaintiff realleges and fully incorporates herein paragraphs 1-76, above. 14 78. By virtue of the foregoing, Sergeant Jonathan Bellusa was a District employee 15 who m1de protected disclosures regarding racial discrimination by District officials. 16 17 Sergeant Bellusa had reasonable cause to believe that the information he disclosed 18 regarding Chief Peter Sarna constituted a violation of state and federal civil rights laws. 19 As a result of Sergeant Bellusa's protected disclosure of racial discrimination, officials 20 and agents of the District violated California Labor Code § 1102.5 by subjecting Sergeant 21 Bellusa to multiple adverse employment actions, including: accusing Bellusa of lying; 22 23 24 accusing him of making complaints for improper reasons; placing him on administrativ leave; depriving him of his duty weapon and badge; subjecting him to an unwarranted 25 Internal Affairs investigation; and ordering him to submit to repeated and unwarranted 26 fitness for duty examinations. The adverse actions taken by the District were motivated 27 by Sergeant Bellusa's charges of racial discrimination. 28 Bellusa. v. Board of Education, No. Complrnt 17 Case3:13-cv-02930-JSC Document1-1 Filed06/26/13 Page18 of 22 1 2 3 79. In addition, by virtue of the above, Sergeant Bellusa was a District employee who refused to participate in illegal conduct, namely: the demands of District agents an officials that he give testimony he believed to be false in regards to the shooting of 4 Raheim Brown. Bellusa had reasonable cause to believe that the demands of District 5 6 agents and officials that he conform his testimony to the version proffered by Sergeant 7 Bhatt constituted a demand that he commit a crime against the government, namely: 8 perjury, in violation of California Penal Code, § 118. As a result of Sergeant Bellusa's 9 protected conduct in resisting the District's demands that he alter his testimony, 10 11 officials and agents of the District violated Labor Code § 1102.5 by subjecting Sergeant 12 Bellusa to multiple adverse employment actions, including: .accusing Bellusa of lying; 13 accusing him of making complaints for improper reasons; placing him on administrativ 14 leave; 1epriving him of his duty weapon and badge; subjecting him to an unwarranted 15 Intem1 Affairs investigation; and ordering him to submit to repeated and unwarranted 16 17 18 fitness for duty examinations. The adverse actions taken by the District were motivated by Sergeant Bellusa' s charges of racial discrimination. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Reporting by School Employees of Improper Government Activities Act, California Education Code §§ 44110-44114) (All Defendants) 19 20 21 22 80. Plaintiff realleges and fully incorporates herein paragraphs 1-79, above. 23 81. By virtue of the foregoing, defendants Board of Education of the Oakland 24 Unifi; School District, Jacqueline Minor, Anthony Smith, Peter Sarna, James 25 26 27 · 28 Williaips, and Does 1 to 50, inclusive, violated the Reporting by School Employees of Improper Government Activities Act, California Education Code §§ 44110-44114, by intentionally engaging in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, and similar acts Bellusa v. Board of Education, No. Complaint 18 Case3:13-cv-02930-JSC Document1-1 Filed06/26/13 Page19 of 22 1 against Jonathan Bellusa, a public school employee, motivated by Bellusa's efforts to 2 both disclose racist conduct by District officials and resist efforts by District agents and 3 officials ~o coerce him to give testimony he believed to be false regarding the shooting of I 4 Raheim Brown. 5 FIFfH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Bane Act, California Civil Code§ 52.1) (All Defendants) 6 7 8 9 82. Plaintiff realleges and fully incorporates herein paragraphs 1-81, above. 83. By virtue of the foregoing, defendants Board of Education of the Oakland 10 Unified School District, Jacqueline Minor, Anthony Smith, Peter Sarna, James 11 12 Williams, and Does 1 to 50 inclusive, violated the Bane Act, California Civil Code§ 52.1, 13 when they interfered by threats, intimidation, and/ or coercion with the rights of 14 Sergeant Bellusa secured by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution _ 15 of the State of California. Defendants threatened that Sergeant Bellusa would be "sitting 16 17 in jail" if he did not conform his testimony to the version proffered by Sergeant Bhatt 18 regarding the shooting of Raheim Brown. Defendants also threatened to seek a lien for 19 attorneys' fees and to withhold indemnification for his actions pursuant to formal 20 duties, both actions that would result in Bellusa's economic ruin. Sergeant Bellusa 21 reasonably believed that defendants had the apparent ability to carry out their threats of 22 23 24 incarceratio~ and economic ruin. Defendants were motivated to retaliate against Sergeant Bellusa based upon his exercise of a protected right, namely: refusing the 25 . demand of District agents and officials that he commit what he believed to be perjury, a 26 crime against the government and a violation of California Penal Code, § 118. 27 28 Bellusa v. Board of Education, No. Complaint 19 Case3:13-cv-02930-JSC Document1-1 Filed06/26/13 Page20 of 22 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) (All Defendants) 1 2 3 4 84. Plaintiff realleges and fully incorporates herein paragraphs 1-83, above. 85. By virtue of the foregoing, defendants Board of Education of the Oakland 5 6 Unified School District, Jacqueline Minor, Anthony Smith, Peter Sarna, James 7 Williams, and Does 1 to 50 inclusive, took outrageous measures, including the abuse of 8 District fnvestigatory powers and threats of incarceration and economic ruin. 9 Defena,nts intended to cause Jonathan Bellusa emotional distress, and/or acted in 10 11 reckless/disregard of the probability that Sergeant Bellusa would suffer emotional 12 distress. As a result of defendants' conduct, Sergeant Bellusa did suffer severe emotional 13 distress, and defendants' conduct was a substantial factor in causing his severe 14 emotional distress. 15 DAMAGES 16 17 86. As a result of the actions of defendants Board of Education of the Oakland 18 Unified School District, Jacqueline Minor, Anthony Smith, Peter Sarna, James 19 Williams, and Does 1 to 50 inclusive, Sergeant Bellusa suffered severe emotional 20 distress, embarrassment, and humiliation. Defendants have injured Bellusa's reputation 21 in the law enforcement community and have denied Bellusa opportunities for 22 23 professional advancement and increased income. PUNITIVE DAMAGES 24 25 26 27 87. In taking the actions alleged above, defendants Jacqueline Minor, Anthony Smith, Peter Sarna, James Williams, and Does 1 to 50, inclusive, acted willfully, intentionally, and maliciously in order to deny Bellusa the benefits and privileges to 28 which he was otherwise entitled, all without lawful justification and because of both Bellusa v. Board of Education, No. Complaint 20 ' . Case3:13-cv-02930-JSC Document1-1 Filed06/26/13 Page21 of 22 1 Bellusa's protected conduct to report charges of racial discrimination and his protected 2 conduct 3 r resist defendants' attempts to suborn what he believed to be perjured testimo,,. Accordingly, Bellusa is entitled to punitive damages in this action. 4 PRAYER 5 6 WHEREFORE, Jonathan Bellusa prays for judgment against defendants Board o 7 Education of the Oakland Unified School District, Jacqueline Minor, Anthony Smith, 8 Peter Sarna, James Williams, and Does 1 to 50, inclusive, and requests that this Court 9 grant him relief as follows: 10 ( ) Compensatory damages; 11 12 General damages; 13 Punitive damages; 14 Civil penalties of $10,000 15 ) Attorneys' fees; 6) Costs of the suit; per violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; 16 17 18 Injunctive relief; and 19 Such other relief as the Court may deem proper. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Bellusa v. Board of Education, No. Comp,aint 21 Case3:13-cv-02930-JSC Document1-1 Filed06/26/13 Page22 of 22 DEMAND FORJURYTRIAL 1 2 3 In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 38(b), and Northern District 11,ocalRule 3-6(a), Jonathan Bellusa hereby demands a jury trial. 4 5 D~ted: June 25, 2013 6 7 8 By:--1-,111 ~--L.4,e.~---Dan Siegel 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff JONATHAN BELLUSA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Bellusa v. Board of Education, No. Complaint 22