Case 3:11-cv ST Document 29-1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 1 of 44 Page ID#: 150

Transcription

1 Case 3:11-cv ST Document 29-1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 1 of 44 Page ID#: 150 Michelle R Burrows Bar No Attorney At Law 618 NW Glisan Suite 203 Portland, OR michelle.r.burrows@gmail.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON Multnomah Division BRETT ELLIOT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ) ) SHERIFF DANIEL STATON, CHIEF ) DEPUTY TIM MOORE, CAPTAIN ) MONTYY REISER, MULTNOMAH ) COUNTY, by and through the Multnomah ) County Sheriff s office, a political subdivision ) of the State of Oregon, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 3:11-cv-1526ST First Amendment Retaliation; Due Process; Monell Policy Claims; Whistleblower 42 U.S.C Jury Trial Demanded 1

2 Case 3:11-cv ST Document 29-1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 2 of 44 Page ID#: 151 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff, by and through his attorney, Michelle Burrows, Attorney at Law, brings hiscomplaint herein and state and allege as follows: INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT 1. This action is filed by Plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. 1983, for events occurring from , in violation of the 1 st,14 th Amendment of the Constitution, Title VII 2. This court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims of violations of federal Constitutional Rights under 28 U.S.C and Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), in that one or more of the defendants reside in the District of Oregon and Plaintiffs claims for relief arose in this district. 4. The court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs pendent state law claims under 28 U.S.C PARTIES 5. At all material times Plaintiff Brett Elliot ( Plaintiff ) was a resident of the City of Vancouver, Clark County, Washington. 2

3 Case 3:11-cv ST Document 29-1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 3 of 44 Page ID#: At all material times Defendant Moore was a law enforcement officer working under color of law for the Multnomah County Sheriff s Office, an entity of Multnomah County, Oregon. Defendant Moore is sued in his individual capacity. 7. At all material times, Defendant Staton was a law enforcement officer working under the color of law for the Multnomah County Sheriff s Office, an entity of Multnomah County, Oregon. Defendant Staton is sued in his individual capacity. 8. At all material times, Defendant Reiser was a law enforcement officer working under the color of law for the Multnomah County Sheriff s Office, an entity of Multnomah County, Oregon. Defendant Reiser is sued in his individual capacity. 9. At all material times, Defendant Multnomah County was a political subdivision of the State of Oregon. As a local government entity, Defendant Multnomah County is a suable person under 42 U.S.C At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Multnomah County employed Defendant Moore, Defendant Staton, Defendant Hasler, Defendant Reiser, Defendant Skipper, and Defendant Does #1-10. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Moore, Defendant Staton, Defendant Hasler, Defendant Reiser, were acting pursuant to Defendant Multnomah County s laws, customs, and/or policies. As the employer of Defendant Moore, 3

4 Case 3:11-cv ST Document 29-1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 4 of 44 Page ID#: 153 Defendant Staton, Defendant Hasler, Defendant Reiser, Defendant Skipper, and Defendant Does #1-10, Defendant Multnomah County is vicariously liable for all of the tortuous and unconstitutional acts and omissions of the defendants committed within the course and scope of their employment, pursuant to ORS All Defendants acted under color of federal and state law at all times relevant to this Complaint. 11. All violations occurred while Plaintiff was at work and working as a Multnomah County Sheriff s Office employee. 12. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys fees and costs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C On February 1, 2011 Plaintiff sent a timely Notice of Tort Claim for all actions of misconduct and whistleblower violations pursuant to law. The Whistleblower violations continued after the service of the Tort Claim Notice until the time of the filing of this Amended Complaint. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 14. 4

5 Case 3:11-cv ST Document 29-1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 5 of 44 Page ID#: 154 Plaintiff started his career with the Multnomah County Sheriff s Office ( MCSO ) in He was certified as basic corrections deputy in 1985, intermediate corrections deputy in 1992, basic law enforcement in 1992, intermediate law enforcement in 1992, advanced law enforcement 1994, supervisory law enforcement 2004, management law enforcement 2003 and Executive law enforcement He was appointed as a corrections deputy in 1985, law enforcement ser4geant in 1997, law enforcement lieutenant 2001 and law enforcement captain He has no disciplinary matters. 15. Plaintiff has completed over 2000 documented hours of job-related training. Plaintiff is the recipient of the Basic Police Academy Defensive Tactics Award (1991), MSCO Unit Commendation for Community Service, Motorcycle Unit (1995), MCS) Distinguished Service Award (1996), MCSO Letter of Commendation (1996), MCSO Community Service Award (1997), Oregon Peace Officers Assoc. Non-Criminal Life Saving Award (1997), MCSO Unit Citation, Civil Process Unit (2000), Oregon Marine Board Award of Excellence (2004), FBI National Academy Graduate (2006). Plaintiff has served as a subject matter expert in preparation of multiple promotion exams for Sergeants and Lieutenants, worked as a firearms instructor for several years, and has participated in multiple state-wide task forces requiring high level knowledge, expertise, and experience. He is a 2006 Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy graduate which is an honor accorded only 1% of law enforcement personnel

6 Case 3:11-cv ST Document 29-1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 6 of 44 Page ID#: 155 Plaintiff was the Operations Captain in 2009 supervising all law enforcement personnel, the SWAT team and managing the entire patrol and public service aspects of the Sheriff s Office. The Multnomah County Sheriff s office is responsible for managing the jail facilities for all arrests inside Multnomah County and patrolling unincorpoated areas of Multnomah County. Plaintiff held this position for several years and was a highly respected law enforcement commander in Oregon. 17. In 2006, Defendant Moore was chief deputy of the Corrections Division of the MCSO. Defendant Moore sought transfer to the Law Enforcement Division but working as a police officer required state certification in a field to which he held no certifications and no experience. A mandatory portion of the law enforcement certification requires completion of a Field Training Evaluation Program ( FTEP ) and an accompanying Field Training Evaluation Manual signed by coaches who document progress by signature. 18. FTEP involves extensive in-the-field training and constant evaluation to ensure that the trainees are ready to work as law enforcement officers. Employees who have not completed FTEP cannot work solo as law enforcement officers nor may they receive state certification as required by Oregon s Department of Public Safety Standards and Training ( DPSST ). During FTEP, an officer is required to perform many skills in front of a certified FTEP coach in order to complete the Field Training Manual and become certified. Defendant Moore had received basic, 6

7 Case 3:11-cv ST Document 29-1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 7 of 44 Page ID#: 156 intermediate, and advanced corrections certifications during his career. When he was transferred from Corrections to Law Enforcement on January 17, 2006, he had no police officer certification nor had he completed his field training program; however, he was appointed Chief Deputy of the Law Enforcement Division of the MCSO by then-sheriff Giusto. 19. Sheriff Giusto was a highly controversial Sheriff engaging in extramarital affairs, demonstrating a lack of command structure, showed extreme favoritism, was fiscally irresponsible. The jail management was under particularly harsh attack as a place where significant disciplinary actions and lawsuits originated. This period of time Deputy Moore managed the jail. Giusto was decertified by DPSST in Sheriff Skipper was re-hired as Sheriff at that time. Sheriff Skipper had not worked as a law enforcement officer for over 10 years and was required by state law to be recertified with DPSST. Due to his long absence from law enforcement he was required to attend the DPSST academy and qualify both physically and mentally for certification. 20. In 2009 Sheriff Skipper delayed attending the academy under suspicion of being unable to pass the physical requirements of the job due to age and absence from law enforcement. A special legislative enactment allowed Skipper only to forego the DPSST academy and permitted his certification if he could pass a written exam. He relied on then Lieutenant, now Sheriff, Staten, to mentor him. Sheriff Skipper failed the written test twice and was forced to resign. 7

8 Case 3:11-cv ST Document 29-1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 8 of 44 Page ID#: Defendant Moore claimed that he completed the state certification requirements as to the FTEP restrictions, but instead he falsified the documentation demonstrating completion. Defendant Moore listed Plaintiff as a coach on his Field Training Manual, as well as other Deputies, none of whom signed off any portion of the Manual nor formally served as FTEP coaches. Plaintiff was never involved in Defendant Moore s FTEP training nor did he ever serve as a coach. Defendant Moore avoided the established FTEP program to which all other trainees were required to participate supervised by Sergeant Lange. Instead and under time constraint, lacking field demonstration of the police skills and required coaches signatures, Defendant Reiser signed off on significant portions of Defendant Moore s manual without ever working in the field, in uniform, in a patrol district, or in a patrol cruiser, with Defendant Moore. 22. In February 2009 Plaintiff in his role as Captain received complaints from working law enforcement deputies that Moore had lied and falsified documents allowing him benefits they were not entitled to. Plaintiff in response to these complaints began a confidential and informal investigation to determine whether these rumors were true. As Operations Captain Plaintiff had a statutory duty to stop or prevent illegal acts and had a duty under his oath of office as well as Multnomah County standing orders to determine whether any officer was unfit to serve. Any failure to investigate these allegations was a violation of Captain Elliotts statutory and 8

9 Case 3:11-cv ST Document 29-1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 9 of 44 Page ID#: 158 department duties. A police officer s integrity is often the single most important component of his job. 23. In February 2009 Captain Elliott approached his subordinate, then Lt. Staton, to request a copy of Chief Deputy Moore s training records which were all public records with both Multnomah County and DPSST. These are records which are readily and easily available to any citizen under the public records acts from either Multnomah County or DPSST. Lt. Staton accessed the records, advised Captain Elliott, then his superior officer, that Moore had lied and falsified documents. However, Staton refused to provide the FTEP documents to his commander when ordered to do so. Instead Staton, who became Sheriff one year later, reported the request by Elliott to Captain Hasler who in turn reported it to Skipper as some form of misconduct. Until that point Elliott was simply attempting to verify whether Moore had done anything wrong and was not accusing him of anything. Staton taking advantage of the opportunity to ingratiate himself with the sheriff misconstrued the information about Elliott. 24. At that juncture Captain Elliott had not filed any formal complaint about Moore, but did send a memorandum to Sheriff Skipper at Skipper s request outlining his concerns. Shortly after receipt of the Memo Sheriff Skipper took Captain Elliott to a restaurant away from the Sheriff s Office to tell him to drop the matter

10 Case 3:11-cv ST Document 29-1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 10 of 44 Page ID#: 159 In February 2009, after Staten reported Plaintiff to Skipper, Elliott was ordered to draft a formal complaint about Moore. At Skipper s order, Plaintiff submitted a formal complaint and was told by Skipper he would investigate by referring the complaint to DPSST or an outside agency. Defendant Skipper told Plaintiff that he would call the Superintendent and send the complaint to the Oregon State Police for investigation. Neither agency received a complaint or request to investigate by Skipper. It appears Skipper and Staton reported differently to the media and Elliott. Skipper never intended to investigate and only intended to hide and cover up the matter. Staten was involved in this decision. 26 On February 26, 2009 Elliott forwarded his complaint to Skipper about Moore and Reiser. 27 On or near March 1, 2009 Skipper called Elliott in for a meeting where Moore was present. Defendant Skipper told Elliott he would not investigate the claims of deceit and false swearing about Moore. Shortly thereafter Multnomah District Attorney s Office became aware of the complaint and request for investigation. Neither Skipper, Moore nor Staton reported the matter to the DA. The DA s office commenced a criminal investigation, but ultimately declined to prosecute. Despite being under formal criminal investigation, neither Defendant Moore nor Defendant Reiser were placed on administrative leave. This is contrary to the stated policies of the Department. 10

11 Case 3:11-cv ST Document 29-1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 11 of 44 Page ID#: On March 12, 2009 Defendant Skipper wrote a letter to Plaintiff, accusing Plaintiff of lack of loyalty and telling Plaintiff to stop spreading discontent. The memo is a broad, angry accusation against his Captain for using Staton improperly, asking for an investigation, challenging Moore s lack of qualifications due to the falsehoods, and spreading discontent.this memo accuses Plaintiff of improper action in making a request for investigation when Skipper had invited it. The letter does nothing to address the obvious actions by Moore in falisifying documents. Skipper s letter makes the following accusations and threats: 1. I view the request as improper 2. You asked a subordinate to obtain a record for you that, in normal course of events you would not be able to access. (This is false and a misstatement of the law by Skipper). 3. Lt. Staton showed proper conduct in not complying with the request and by bringing this issue forward. Staton did comply with the request and then went to the Sheriff. 4. Your inference that Chief Moore lacks the innate qualifications to be Chief Deputy is frankly incredible. 5. Instead you impugn the fact that he (Moore) later rightfully obtained a Law Enforcement certification so that he could fully discharge the duties assigned to him. 6. I am disappointed at your general lack of loyalty which is a necessity in a paramilitary organization. 11

12 Case 3:11-cv ST Document 29-1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 12 of 44 Page ID#: In a casual count of those you consider unworthy to fulfill the public trust includes five fellow command officers, all of whom deserve a basic level of loyalty from you as a colleague. Yet, you have no compunction about impugning their integrity in a public document. 8. Let me make very clear with you that you have no reason to fear retaliation as a result of your actions. 9. The fact that you have contributed to discord among the command team and have undoubtedly damaged the professional relationship with your fellow command officers is your personal responsibility. 10. It is also my expectation that you will cease spreading your discontent to the line staff and supervisors and that there will be no more activity from you that undermines the command structure of this Agency and contributes to disharmony in the workplace. 11. You have a fundamental obligation as a command officer to support the direction and decisions of the Sheriff. If you cannot fulfill this obligation, then you should notify me of that decision immediately. 12. In the future if you perceive a matter that requires investigation, please follow the established and official routes for registering complaints. 29. There are numerous misstatements of law and fact in the letter and an overall theme that illegal and unethical conduct will be tolerated by the Sheriff in his command staff despite the fact 12

13 Case 3:11-cv ST Document 29-1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 13 of 44 Page ID#: 162 that the integrity of a police officer is of the utmost importance. The sheriff refuses to address the misconduct by Moore or even investigate it, and by his action as a policymaker makes it part of the culture and practice of Multnomah County Sheriff office that lying, misconduct, untruthfulness and forging documents is acceptable. Most of the information in that letter came from Staton. 30 At that same time Sheriff Skipper requested Ms. Kari Kern and Ms. Rebecca Cranor to write a memo saying Captain Elliott had talked to them about Moore s issues. The request by Skipper was secret and the memo ultimately written by the two women who worked in Human Resources was confidential but was leaked to the press either by Skipper, Moore or Staton. Skipper refused to provide this memo to Captain Elliott or his lawyers. This memo appears to be contrived and a way to establish that Elliott disobeyed a direct order. 31 On April 9, 2009 Captain Elliott was at a pre-paid training in Lincoln City when he received a call from the Sheriff s secretary ordering him to return to the department for a meeting in the morning with the Sheriff. Captain Elliott advised her that he was in training and perhaps the meeting could wait until he returned. She told him that the Sheriff wanted him in his office in the morning. This abrupt order interrupted what would have been 12 hours of mandatory training and subjected Captain Elliott to scrutiny and adverse treatment

14 Case 3:11-cv ST Document 29-1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 14 of 44 Page ID#: 163 On April 10, 2009 Captain Elliott appeared in uniform for his meeting with the Sheriff. Plaintiff brought his attorney and Sheriff Skipper brought the County Counsel Agnes Sowles who only advised Elliott that she was merely there to observe. The Sheriff did not give Garrity warnings, did not advise of any investigation and failed to provide written notice of the meeting or its purpose which was clearly disciplinary in nature. Sheriff Skipper read verbatim from a prepared written statement. Skipper accused Elliott of talking and it appears it was because Elliott talked to individuals about Moore s actions and a lack of investigation and Skipper s endorsement of those illegal actions. 33 Skipper told Elliott that because the Captain had talked he was being transferred from patrol to corrections. Plaintiff was no longer certified in corrections. Skipper further said that this is not discipline. Captain Elliott went from managing the largest group of Multnomah County deputies and handling significant criminal cases to courthouse commander. He lost his office he had been in for several years, his command post, was physically removed from his staff and given duties which are normally given to a corrections officer. He was responsible for a small handful of officers. This move was retaliation for Elliott s complaint about Moore. 34 The transfer at that time was without a reduction in rank or pay. During this time not only was Moore under scrutiny for not being properly certified but so was Skipper. It was 14

15 Case 3:11-cv ST Document 29-1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 15 of 44 Page ID#: 164 rumored and mentioned that Skipper had to back Moore or his own certification process would be derailed. Therefore at every step Moore, Staton and Skipper had to keep Elliott from talking. 35. In April 2009 Elliott was scheduled to attend training in Bend being sponsored by the FBI. Elliott is the only FBI certified officer in Multnomah County. This training had been approved in January 2009 but in April Moore denied the training and cancelled it. Elliott had to pay a cancellation fee. The action in denying training which is required for all police officers was retaliation and intended to silence Elliott and punish him for his actions thus far. Moore was at that time on the career path to become Sheriff. 36. Between April 2009 and December 2009 Elliott was assigned as the court services captain assigned to the Multnomah County courthouse. He has been stripped of all previous powers and duties and he was no longer called upon to sit in on disciplinary matters, training matters or hiring matters which had been normal parts of his duties as a commander. During this time Elliott was supervised by a civilian employee. At or near the end of this time Skipper failed his written test with DPSST for the second time and resigned. 37. When Skipper stepped down he appointed Staten as the Acting Sheriff. Staton had made a meteoric rise from brand new lieutenant to Acting Sheriff in one year. Staton was also instrumental in bringing false accusations and information to Skipper about Captain Elliotts 15

16 Case 3:11-cv ST Document 29-1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 16 of 44 Page ID#: 165 request for information on Moore. Instead of supporting an environment of truth and accountability in officers, Staton was going to preserve the status quo of turning a blind eye to misconduct in officers. He was going to preserve the good old boy system that made him sheriff. 38. Captain Elliott believed sincerely that Staton would man up and do the right thing and fix what had been taken from him. Elliott believed that Staton would reverse the years of corruption and misconduct which had become the norm under Guisto and Skipper. Captain Elliott believed that Staton would put him back where he should be. 39. In December 5, 2009 Interim Sheriff Staton transferred Plaintiff back to Law Enforcement, under the supervision of the Business Services Director. Staton called Plaintiff into his office and indicated he was not going to reverse what had been done by Skipper. He endorsed the actions by Skipper. 40 When Staton was a sergeant he became deathly ill and was unable to work for an extended period of time, several months. Staton has had numerous complications from his illness requiring extended absences from work. At the time of the initial onset of his symptoms Elliott was Staton s supervisor and was called to the hospital and told that Staton was likely going to die. Staton was unable to physically perform the essential duties of his job and was given a desk job with Captain Hasler. Staton s medical condition has continued to deteriorate. 16

17 Case 3:11-cv ST Document 29-1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 17 of 44 Page ID#: In December 2009 Elliott was moved to a small cubicle in the Multnomah Building a distance from the Hansen Building where his tasks were to be performed. Elliott was assigned to work in a new position which had been created for him by Staton and Moore. This position had been previously done by several other individuals mostly sergeants and lieutenants. Elliott was assigned to be the hearings officer for exclusions, tows, concealed handgun permits. All the files and work product were in the Hanson building which is on 122d and Sandy while his official work site was on Hawthorne. Elliott was required to go to the Hanson building gather the files he needed and come all the way from east county to work downtown. 42 During the 8 months Elliott worked in this position he requested an office in the Hanson Building with the other officers as well as his work product sometime in January of Moore denied him this request. Plaintiff was the only Captain in the 1000 member organization to be assigned to a cubicle rather than an office. The county incurred significant costs in putting a Captain into this minor clerical position which included two hours of commuting a day. The situation was created and maintained by Deputy Chief Moore and Sheriff Staton to force Elliott into increasingly uncomfortable work environments so that he would quit. Elliott was one of two police officers in the Multnomah Building during this time. He was subject to constant ridicule and harassment by staff who saw his situation growing more desperate

18 Case 3:11-cv ST Document 29-1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 18 of 44 Page ID#: 167 These extreme and illegal management decisions by Moore and Staton were designed solely to cause Elliot extreme discomfort, forcing him to resign and were in punishment for Elliotts attempt to make complaints about corruption in the Sheriff s office. 44 In February or March 2011 Patrol Captain Gates, who had been promoted to Elliott s old position, approached Deputy Chief Moore requesting that Elliott be allowed to work in a spare and available office at the Hanson Building as it was obviously counterproductive and wasteful to have him at the downtown location. Moore denied this request as further action to retaliate and punish Elliott for his complaints. 45. In January 2011 Staton decided to run for election to Sheriff. He was accused of not being corrections certified which became a concern as the sheriff is responsible for running two large jails. During the election Staton promised to become corrections certified, but after he was elected changed his mind because he cannot pass the medical certification as Fit for Duty required by DPSST which would enable him to get into corrections academy. By this point Moore was passed over for Sheriff and is indicated his bitterness and blamed Elliott. 46 Instead of becoming corrections certified Staton ordered Reiser and Sgt. Harry Smith to become correction certified. Moore had just fired Sgt. Smith s wife from a clerical position. Reiser did not want to work in the jail to obtain his on the job FTEP coaching. Reiser, like 18

19 Case 3:11-cv ST Document 29-1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 19 of 44 Page ID#: 168 Moore, was required to complete an FTEP Manual indicating that he worked various posts over a short course of time. He was required to have his work observed by a coach who signed off that the work was completed competently. Reiser did not do this instead had an administrator sign the book who had no visual confirmation that Reiser had done the work. Reiser represented he had worked in the jail when that was a false. Not only did Reiser fail to complete the FTEP work but failed to even show up for corrections duty. Resier, like Moore, submitted the FTEP work to DPSST who certified Reiser. This action supports the culture and practice of Multnomah County Sheriff s office under Staton to reward corruption, lying and falsehoods. 47. On June 23, 2010 Staton called Elliott into a meeting without any prior due process notice, or advise of rights, failed to adminster Garrity warnings nor allow Elliot to obtain counsel. Staton advised Elliott he was being demoted to lieutenant with a reduction in pay of approximately $5000 annually at that time. The pay differential is much greater at this time. Staton gave a form to Elliot to sign indicating that failure to sign the agreement to take the demotion would result in immediate termination. There was no hearing, no investigation and no report on the reason for the actions. Elliott signed it on July 29, 2010 in the face of being fired. 48. At oral argument on April 2012 counsel for Multnomah County admitted that demotion and loss of pay would be unlawful retaliatory actions. These statements are contained in a transcript which has been ordered by Plaintiff. 19

20 Case 3:11-cv ST Document 29-1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 20 of 44 Page ID#: The demotion by Staton were retaliatory and punishment against Elliott for speaking out about Moore and were intended by Staton to force Elliott into resignation by creating an unbearable hostile environment. At this time no other officer within Multnomah County has come forward to complain about the unethical and illegal actions by Staton, Moore or Reiser because of what has happened to Captain Elliot a decorated hero. At court on oral argument on the last round of motions, counsel for Multnomah County, Ms. Morf, advised Plaintiff counsel that the sheriff just wanted Elliott to retire and go away. 50 On July 6, 2010 Sheriff Staton and Moore moved the demoted Captain Elliott to River Patrol in a remote office and location. Other officers made comments to Elliott about the retaliation and were in fear for their own jobs as they perceived how far the Sheriff was willing to go to punish and abuse his subordinate staff. This move was retaliatory and punishment. 51. In June 2010, Plaintiff celebrated his 25 years of service to the Multnomah County Sheriff s Office. Defendant Staton told Plaintiff that he had too many captains, even though the number of captains had not increased significantly in the recent time. There were no other captain demotions. The excuses given by Defendant Staton were contrived and the demotion was further punishment to retaliate against Plaintiff for exposing criminal activity by Defendants Moore, Skipper, and Reiser. 20

21 Case 3:11-cv ST Document 29-1 Filed 05/08/12 Page 21 of 44 Page ID#: In July 2010, Plaintiff received the formal Notice of Demotion. He was transferred by Defendant Staton to the River Patrol Unit as a Lieutenant. Plaintiff had previously served the River Patrol Unit as a Captain. Included with the transfer and demotion was a pay reduction, and a significantly lower potential maximum pay. According to the terms of the classification acceptance document, if Plaintiff did not accept this new classification, he would be considered resigning his employment with Multnomah County. Plaintiff was told by Defendant Staton and if he didn t like it, he could find employment elsewhere. By agency practice, it has been common for demoted command personnel to receive no pay reduction instead losing only title and rank. Through this demotion, Plaintiff suffered considerable anxiety and alarm. This change was retaliation for Plaintiff s actions in reporting illegal conduct by MCSO commanders as alleged herein, and intended to force Plaintiff to resign. 53. On October 22, 2010, Sheriff Staton issued Special Order limiting what weapons officers were authorized to carry. Plaintiff s ParaOrdnance LDA.45 was suddenly removed from the authorized list. It has always been on the list before this order. Plaintiff had purchased this weapon with his own money and had repeatedly qualified on it. This weapon was one he was comfortable with and knew intimately. 21