Complaint Against San Juan County Sheriff Ken Christesen

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

SHANE UTLEY, BETH UTLEY,
LISA HAWS, and MATT WILCOX,
Plaintiffs,
v. CV_____________________
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SAN JUAN COUNTY,
SAN JUAN COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE,
KEN CHRISTESEN, in his individual capacity,
RON ANDERSON, in his individual capacity, and
BRICE CURRENT, in his individual capacity.
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION42 U.S.C. 1983,
BREACH OF AN IMPLIED CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT, AND
VIOLATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT CONDUCT ACT
COME NOW Plaintiffs Shane Utley, Beth Utley, Lisa Haws, and Matt Wilcox, by and
through their counsel, Law Offices of Michael E. Mozes, P.C., and hereby submit their
Complaint for Violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution42 U.S.C. 1983, Breach of an Implied Contract of Employment, and Violations of
the Government Conduct Act.
I. JURISDICTION
1. This cases arises under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violations of the First and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution and New Mexico common law.
2. Plaintiff Shane Utley is, and at all times material hereto has been, a resident of the
County of San Juan, State of New Mexico.
3. Plaintiff Beth Utley is, and at all times material hereto has been, a resident of the
Case l:l4-cv-00357-KBM-SMV Document l Filed 04/l6/l4 Page l of 3l
4. Plaintiff Lisa Haws is, and at all times material hereto has been, a resident of the
5. Plaintiff Matt Wilcox is, and at all times material hereto has been, a resident of the
6. Defendant Board of Commissioners, San Juan County is, and at all times material
hereto has been, a governmental entity of the County of San Juan, located and principally doing
business in, the County of San Juan, State of New Mexico.
7. Defendant San Juan County Sheriffs Office [hereinafter SJCSO] is, and at all
times material hereto has been, a governmental entity of the County of San Juan, located and
principally doing business in, the County of San Juan, State of New Mexico.
8. Defendant Ken Christesen [hereinafter Christesen] is, based upon information
and belief, a resident of the County of San Juan, State of New Mexico.
9. Defendant Ron Anderson [hereinafter Anderson], is, based upon information
and belief, a resident of the County of San Juan, State of New Mexico.
10. Defendant Brice Current [hereinafter Current] is, based upon information and
belief, a resident of the County of San Juan, State of New Mexico.
11. The federal District Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of Plaintiffs
claims through 28 U.S.C. 1331, federal question jurisdiction, and pendent jurisdiction on
Plaintiffs state law claims.
12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties to this action.
13. Venue is proper in this Court.
2
Case l:l4-cv-00357-KBM-SMV Document l Filed 04/l6/l4 Page 2 of 3l
II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
14. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 13 as
set forth above.
15. Christesen, at all times relevant to Plaintiffs claims, exercised the job duties and
responsibilities of the Sheriff of San Juan County. In his position of Sheriff, Christesen
constituted the policy-making authority and highest operational authority of the SJCSO.
Christesen also constituted the ultimate authority in the SJCSO with respect to the application of
San Juan County personnel policies and procedures.
16. During the period of time relevant to Plaintiffs claims, Anderson exercised the
duties and responsibilities of the Undersheriff of San Juan County. Anderson exercised policy-
making authority and had operational authority over the nature of Plaintiffs duties and the
application of San Juan County personnel policies and procedures.
17. Current, who occupied principally the duties of a lieutenant or captain during the
period of time pertinent to Plaintiffs claims, often acted as the proxy and spokesperson for the
will, opinions, and directions of Christesen and Andersonas set forth more fully below.
18. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs were employees of the SJCSO. Plaintiffs
continue to remain employed with the SJCSO.
19. Shane Utley, during all times relevant hereto, performed the job duties and
responsibilities of a Captain. In that position, Mr. Utleys principal job duties were related to
Sheriffs Office Operations Division Captain. Mr. Utley was directly supervised by Christesen
and Anderson.
20. Beth Utley, during all times relevant hereto, performed the job duties and
3
responsibilities of a Public Information Officer (PIO) and Community Relations Coordinator. At
all times relevant hereto, Ms. Utleys direct supervisor was Christesen and her indirect supervisor
was Anderson.
21. Lisa Haws, during the relevant time pertinent to her claims, principally performed
the job duties and responsibilities of a Lieutenant. In that position, Haws mainly supervised the
patrol division. Haws supervisors were Mr. Utley and, indirectly, Anderson and Christesen.
22. Matt Wilcox, during the period of time pertinent to his claims, performed the
duties and responsibilities of a Lieutenant and Sergeant. Mr. Wilcoxs direct supervisors were
Ms. Haws, Shane Ferrari and, indirectly, Mr. Utley, Anderson and Christesen.
23. On March 1, 2010, Mr. Wilcox received a SJCSO promotion from Sergeant to
Lieutenant. The Sheriff at the time was Mark McCloskey. Based upon the feedback from the
great majority of the Sergeants, McCloskey instituted in February 2010 a promotion process from
sergeant to lieutenant a Command Staff interview process. This process involved a written
exercise, an interview with command staff, and staff evaluations. These same elements appeared
in the discretionary assessment process set forth in Policy No. 3000-12 for promotions.
24. As a result of the approved promotional process, the SJCSO promoted Mr.
Wilcox into a Support Lieutenant position, effective March 7, 2010.
25. On September 25, 2010, Captain Jim Smith of the SJCSO gave Mr. Wilcox a 6-
month performance review, noting that Mr. Wilcox had done an excellent job as Support
Lieutenant. The review concluded that Mr. Wilcox had no areas of performance that needed
improvement.
26. In early 2011, the citizens of San Juan County elected Christesen as the new
4
Sheriff. During the election, Mr. Wilcox publicly supported the candidacy of Marlyn Wyatt for
Sheriff and vocally opposed Christesen.
27. While the Sheriffs campaign was in full swing, a number of salaried SJCSO
employees approached Mr. Wilcox and advised him that Christesen was stating that Mr. Wilcox
would be demoted if Christesen won the Sheriffs election.
28. Shortly before the vote for Sheriff, Christesen went to Mr. Wilcoxs house and
requested that Mr. Wilcox cease speaking against Christesen. When Mr. Wilcox remarked that
he had heard that Christesen intended to demote him, Christesen promised Mr. Wilcox that in
exchange for Mr. Wilcoxs refusal to publicly speak out against Christesen that if Christesen
were elected, he would not demote Mr. Wilcox.
29. Christesen won the election for sheriff and took office in January 2011.
30. On February 2, 2011, Christesen wrote Mr. Wilcox a memorandum, advising that
Mr. Wilcoxs rank of lieutenant was being rescinded and a different assessment process was
being utilized. In addition, Christesen stated that Mr. Wilcox could not grieve this personnel
action. Christesen, by rescinding Mr. Wilcoxs lieutenancy, violated both the promotional policy
in place and the Command Staff interview process established by McCloskey.
31. While the assessment process Christesen explained ran its course, Mr. Wilcox
maintained his Lieutenant rank and pay. On April 11, 2011, Christesen advised Mr. Wilcox that
effective April 17, 2011 Mr. Wilcox would be demoted to a sergeants position with reduced pay.
32. According to the assessment administered by a panel under Christesens control,
Mr. Wilcox scored out from among the seven eligible sergeants with the lowest point total for the
assessment. This score is outlandish and constitutes Christesens attempt to not only foreclose
5
Mr. Wilcox from holding on to his lieutenants position, but also any future lieutenant opening.
Christesen represented to other SJCSO employees that Mr. Wilcox would never be promoted
while Christesen remained Sheriff.
33. The recision of Mr. Wilcoxs rank, the failure to promote Mr. Wilcox into the
lieutenant position, and the loss of pay and level of duties associated with the demotion are
adverse employment actions in which Mr. Wilcoxs exercise of free speech and political
associations were a substantial or motivating factor.
34. During the period of time Mr. Wilcox has performed duties as a sergeant his
performance evaluations have been Excellent. In addition, during the period of time he has
been a sergeant, Mr. Wilcox has received awards and commendations for his performance.
35. On January 31, 2013, the SJCSO, under Currents signature, issued Mr. Wilcox a
letter of reprimand for allegations related to communications with SJCSO deputies. The letter of
reprimand was an unsupported, groundless, and retaliatory over-reaction to a minor incident.
Written reprimands, pursuant to SJCSO Policy No. 3000-05, are to issue for substantial or
repeated violations of policy in which verbal warnings or verbal counseling is not appropriate or
has proven to be ineffective. A number of provisions in the SJCSO were violated, not the least
of which are the investigatory requirements. This was investigated, but no progressive discipline
was handed out. There are no similar violations in Mr. Wilcoxs file.
36. As of this date, Mr. Wilcox continues to be a target or retaliatory conduct and
disparate treatment because now, in the midst of another electoral season involving the Sheriff,
Mr. Wilcox is not politically supporting Christesens re-election.
37. Mr. Wilcox as recently as late March 2014 has reported to San Juan Countys
6
Human Resources Department (HR) that he is being subject to retaliation and a hostile work
environment. Based on Mr. Wilcoxs knowledge, the HR Department has done nothing to
protect him and investigate his complaints. By and large, the HR Department has been
unresponsive to Mr. Wilcoxs concerns.
38. Ms. Haws, who for a period of time has supervised Mr. Wilcox, has suffered an
on-going campaign of retaliation, hostility, and disparate treatment from the SJCSO and the
individually-named defendants.
39. Effective February 8, 2009, the SJCSO promoted Ms. Haws into the position of
Patrol Lieutenant in the SJCSO. Ms. Haws worked a few months on patrol before being
promoted to the Detective Division, where she became the Detective Lieutenant of the SJCSO.
Ms. Haws is the first and only female ever promoted into a lieutenants position at the SJCSO.
40. During the 2010-11 campaign for Sheriff, Ms. Haws vocally supported the
candidacy of Marlyn Wyatt. Christesen repeatedly commented during the Sheriffs campaign
that he intended to get rid of the Haws mafia. Ms. Haws husband, Neil Haws, is also a
lieutenant with the SJCSO.
41. Christesen actually went door-to-door during the campaign and stated to voters
that if Christesen was elected he would get rid of the Haws mafia. There are numerous
witnesses to these comments. Indeed, on the night of his election, Christesen reiterated to a
group of people that he now intended to get rid of the Haws mafia.
42. Shortly after being elected as Sheriff in January 2011, Christesen began his
retaliatory campaign. In April 2011, Christesen demoted Ms. Haws to a patrol lieutenant
position. Although the demotion did not result in a loss of pay to Ms. Haws, the demotion did
7
lead to reduced job duties, diminished promotional opportunities, and prestige. The male who
replaced Ms. Haws in the detective lieutenant position was significantly lesser-qualified.
43. Christesen communicated to other SJCSO employees that he had demoted Ms.
Haws for the purpose of forcing Ms. Haws to involuntarily resign.
44. At all times relevant during to Ms. Haws claims, she performed her job duties and
responsibilities in an excellent manner, as noted in the relevant performance evaluations. In
addition, during the period 2011-2014, Ms. Haws has received a number of commendations for
her outstanding performance.
45. Ms. Haws has made known for years within the SJCSO her desire to attend the
prestigious FBI National Academy (NA). The NA is a training for command stafflieutenant
or abovethat has limited attendance. In July 2011, Shane Ferrari, who had recently received a
promotion into a lieutenants position and was still a probationary employee was selected by
Christesen to attend the NA.
46. In late 2011 or early 2012, Daniel Webb, another recently promoted lieutenant,
advised Ms. Haws that he would be going to the NA next. Ms. Haws became rightfully upset
and complained to Christesen that although she was the senior lieutenant she was being
improperly passed over to receive the NA training. Males were being regularly selected in the
face of Ms. Haws known desire to attend the training.
47. The NA training can and does affect promotional opportunities within the SJCSO.
48. In September 2012, Ms. Haws again learned that she was being passed over for
the NA training in favor of another recently promoted male lieutenant. Ms. Haws approached
Christesen and asked if she could be considered for the NA. Christesen responded Yes and
8
elaborated that it did not matter to him whether Ms. Haws or another male lieutenant attended the
training first. Ms. Haws was senior to the male applicant in time in service.
49. Nevertheless, time passed and Ms. Haws was not selected by Christesen to attend
the NA training.
50. In September 2013, Luke Miller, the Albuquerque Coordinator of the NA,
specifically stated to the SJCSO that the FBI wanted Ms. Haws to attend the training. Christesen
refused to allow Ms. Haws to attend the training. Even contact from the FBI SAC in
Albuquerque could not convince Christesen to allow Ms. Haws to attend the training. The FBI
request was due, in part, to the shortage of females who qualified for and attended the NA.
51. On March 12, 2014, Current entered Ms. Haws office to speak with her about
Mr. Utleys support for Christesen related to the upcoming June 2014 election for Sheriff.
Current essentially stated that Mr. Utley was required to actively support Christesen during the
election. Otherwise, negative consequences would be attached to Mr. Utleys lack of support.
On March 17, 2014, Christesen told Ms. Haws that Mr. Utley is playing a dangerous game and
going down a dangerous road. Ms. Haws understood that Christesen was referring to Mr.
Utley supporting the Sheriff during the election campaign.
52. On March 17, 2014, Christesen advised Ms. Haws that she had been chosen to
attend the NA but Christesen would not permit it at the time. Christesen also explained that he
had notified the FBI that his refusal was due to Christesens view that sending Ms. Haws because
she was a female was inappropriate. This conversation occurred in the context of the upcoming
elections and Ms. Haws statement to Christesen that she would support him. Haws made this
statement because she was tired of three years of disparate treatment and hardship. Ms. Haws
9
believed she had no other choice and feared further retaliation.
53. Ms. Haws commented to Christesen that she was being passed over repeatedly by
males who had lesser service time and experience in the SJCSO. Ms. Haws squarely asked
Christesen if she was being discriminated against because of the fact that Ms. Haws had not
supported Christesen in the last Sheriffs election.
54. When Ms. Haws requested on March 17
th
that Christesen give her a definitive
answer on whether she would ever be able to attend the NA, Christesen responded that the
decision would not be made until after the upcoming Sheriffs election.
55. Ms. Haws understood at that point that Christesen was connecting any possibility
of her ever attending the NA to her electoral support for Christesen.
56. On March 20, 2014, Ms. Haws attended a luncheon sponsored by the NA. Ms.
Haws spoke with Miller. Miller related to Ms. Haws the fact that the FBI had provided two
positions in the NA to the SJCSO for the express purpose of having Ms. Haws attend. Miller
also shared the conversation the FBI had in which it was specifically requested of the Sheriff that
he allow Ms. Haws to attend the NA.
57. On March 24, 2014, Ms. Haws filed an Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) complaint, alleging that she had been treated differently from other males
with respect to attendance at the NA because she is female.
58. By the date of the filing EEOC complaint, Ms. Haws was senior in time in rank
and service to the following males who had attended or were scheduled or promised to attend the
NAShane Ferrari, Cory Tanner, and Daniel Webb.
59. On March 25, 2014, Ms. Haws contacted the San Juan County HR for the purpose
10
Case l:l4-cv-00357-KBM-SMV Document l Filed 04/l6/l4 Page l0 of 3l
of filing a complaint against the SJCSO and Christesen related to the workplace discrimination
harassment, and hostility she encountered. San Juan County HR refused to take her complaints,
improperly stating that since a complaint had been filed in the EEOC that HR could do nothing
for Ms. Haws. Such is not supported in the San Juan County Employee Handbook generally and
specifically in Sections 18 and 19.
60. Following the filing of her EEOC Complaint, Ms. Haws has been subjected to a
hostile work environment by the SJCSO, Christesen, and Anderson. The Sheriff no longer
speaks with Ms. Haws, ignores her in the workplace, and has created a work environment where
Ms. Haws is isolated, alienated, and separate.
61. On March 27, 2014, Undersheriff Anderson met with the SJCSO staff and stated
that Anderson would henceforth monitor the comings and goings of staff. For many years the
policy had been that SJCSO employees could come and go freely as long as they worked their
40-hour weeks. This new policy was clear retaliation for the complaints lodged by Ms. Haws
and others.
62. On January 1, 2011, Ms. Utley became the Public Information Officer (PIO) for
the SJCSO. Her direct supervisor was the Sheriff, Ken Christesen and her indirect supervisor
was the Undersheriff, Ron Anderson.
63. In December 2011, Ms. Utley received an Exceptional Service Award for her
outstanding work ethic and job performance.
64. During the period January 1, 2011 until April 11, 2013, Ms. Utley received no
complaints from Anderson or Christesen related to her work performance. It is an obligation of a
SJCSO to advise employees of any performance-related problems. Ms. Utleys performance was
11
Case l:l4-cv-00357-KBM-SMV Document l Filed 04/l6/l4 Page ll of 3l
evaluated by Anderson on April 25, 2012 for the 2011 work year. Anderson rated Ms. Utley as a
good employee. No needs improvement ratings appear on this evaluation
65. In January 2013, Ms. Utley received a certification that qualified her as the only
certified PIO in San Juan County.
66. On April 11, 2013, Christesen and Anderson met with Ms. Utley. Prior to this
meeting, Anderson and Current had for several weeks ignored Ms. Utley and refused to speak
with her. Ms. Utley did not know what caused this behavior.
67. Christesen and Anderson presented Ms. Utley with her 2012 evaluation, which
included an number of Needs Improvement ratings. Prior to presenting Ms. Utley with this
evaluation, neither Christesen nor Anderson had complained to Ms. Utley about any facet of her
work performance.
68. The anniversary date of Ms. Utleys employment with the SJCSO was January
2012. The 2012 performance evaluation, according to San Juan County personnel policies, was
to be completed within 30 days of Ms. Utleys anniversary date. It was not.
69. In such circumstances, the San Juan County Employee Handbook, Section 13.3,
the presumption is that the employees performance is satisfactory and a step increase is awarded.
70. Ms. Utley is the only female employee supervised by Anderson. Other male
employees supervised by Anderson received notice of performance deficiencies and were given
opportunities to improve. Ms. Utley was not. In addition, Ms. Utley asserts that the needs
improvement ratings noted on the April 11, 2013 evaluation were fictitious, retaliatory, and
made with evil intent. Christesen and Anderson ignored and gave no consideration to Ms.
Utleys explanations related to the allegations of poor performance. In large part, the
12
deficiencies noted on the performance evaluation were due to the negligence and failure to
respond appropriately of Christesen and Anderson.
71. This evaluation meeting turned hostile and threatening when Ms. Utley opposed
the ratings given or tried to present explanations for the performance deficiencies alleged.
72. Christesen and Anderson forced Ms. Utley to resign from SJCSO Foundation
Board, of which she was President, as an order that surfaced during the evaluation conference.
73. On April 11, 2013, as a condition of continued employment, Christesen and
Anderson compelled Ms. Utley to sign a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). Some of the
conditions of the PIP were the following: (1) a monthly activity report to be presented to
Christesen and Anderson; (2) any meetings with any and all contacts outside the Sheriffs
Office were to be sent to Christesen and Anderson; and (3) on-going monthly meetings with
Christesen and Anderson for the purpose of updating Ms. Utleys activities.
74. These PIP requirements were not required of other SJCSO employees and
constituted harassment of Ms. Utley and an improper attempt to control the movements and
interactions of Ms. Utley.
75. In August 2013, Ms. Utley met with Christesen and Anderson to supposedly
review how Ms. Utley was performing under the provisions of the PIP. During the meeting,
neither Christesen nor Anderson stated anything that directly corresponded to any of Ms. Utleys
job duties or her general work performance. This was supposedly the first meeting called for
under the provisions of the PIP. The meeting was a farce with Christesen and Anderson referring
to golf games and television shows.
76. Ms. Utley did not have another update meeting related to the PIP with
13
Christesen and Anderson until December 18, 2013. This meeting was not much better than the
August meeting; however, Christesen and Anderson did communicate to Ms. Utley that she was
doing a good job.
77. In January 2014, the SJCSO, under the direction of Christesen, began to curtail
the PIO duties of Ms. Utleywithout reason or explanation.
78. In January 2014, Ms. Utley learned that Elizabeth Valdez was retiring from her
position of Office Manager with the SJCSO. At that time, Ms. Utley was the only qualified
SJCSO employee who could meet the requirements of the position.
79. Christesen mentioned that he was going to place an under-qualified male, Eli
Lisko, into Valdezs former position. When Christesen received disagreement with this decision,
he then promoted two under-qualified females into Valdezs former position. He also gave Eli
Lisko a promotion.
80. In order to make these personnel decisions, Christesen had to (1) change the
qualifications for the position; (2) fail to provide any consideration for Ms. Utleys interest in the
position; (3) change the position(s) to a non-exempt job; and (4) manipulate and pervert the
promotion and classification policies of the SJCSO. At no point did Christesen engage the
required assessment process for this position.
81. By now Current was speaking negatively about Ms. Utley in the workplace and
criticizing Ms. Utleys work performance. At no point in time did Current exercise any direct
supervision of Ms. Utley.
82. Current stated to Shane Utley that Ms. Utley was just trying to sabotage the
Sheriff and make him look bad after Current believed Ms. Utley had not done all in her power
14
to make a SJCSO golf tournament a success. Current even told this to people outside the
Sheriffs Office. During a separate golf outing, Current spent a considerable amount of time bad
mouthing Ms. Utley to the Chief of Police of the City of Bloomfield, Mike Kovacs. Currents
charges were without any evidence and patently false.
83. Current expressed that Ms. Utley was not a good PIO and should be fired. During
a March 2014 meeting related to budget cuts, Current expressed publicly his opinion that if any
jobs are to be cut, then Beths should be the first to go.
84. Ms. Utley is an exempt employee.
85. It has been the custom and practice at the SJCSO for years that exempt employees
could take care of personal matters during a regular work dayas long as the employee made up
the time lost during the work week so that the total time at work amounts to at least 40 hours. In
addition, if an exempt employee works over 40 hours a week, the employee could take the extra
time off during a subsequent week.
86. Ms. Utley is the only exempt employee that is required to notify Anderson and
Christesen of her whereabouts during the work day.
87. Current has stated that Ms. Utley makes too much money and that Valdez also
made too much money. The only SJCSO employees Current has made these comments about are
these two females.
88. The individually-named Defendants have isolated and alienated Ms. Utley in the
workplace by not speaking with her, refusing to address her work concerns and complaints, using
ambush techniques to evaluate work performance, and spreading negative, false, and malicious
rumors about her as an employee and person. These efforts to discredit Ms. Utley have created a
15
hostile work environment in which Ms. Utley feels alone, without recourse, and abandoned.
89. On March 24, 2014, Ms. Utley filed an EEOC complaint alleging that she had
been subjected to a hostile work environment and discriminated against because of her sex.
90. Ms. Utley also filed a harassment complaint with San Juan County HR. As of the
date of this complaint, Ms. Utley is unaware of any investigation or other activity related to this
harassment complaint.
91. Mr. Utley learned in early March 2014 that a close family friend, Mike Kovacs,
would be running for Sheriff of San Juan County. Although Kovacs was a long-time friend of
the Utley family, Mr. Utley told Kovacs that Mr. Utley had already disclosed to Christesen that
Mr. Utley would support Christesens re-election. The election for Sheriff is to be held in June
2014.
92. During the course of the last three years, Christesen has represented to Mr. Utley
and others in the SJCSO on a number of occasions that Mr. Utley would be appointed
Undersheriff should Christesen prevail in the June 2014 elections.
93. In March 2014, Mr. Utley learned through other sources that Christesen was
unhappy with Mr. Utley because Christesen believed that Mr. Utley would support Kovacs in the
upcoming election.
94. Mr. Utley then spoke with Christesen in the SJCSO workplace that Mr. Utley
remained loyal to Christesen and would support Christesen in the election.
95. On March 11, 2014, a conversation took place in the SJCSO workplace that
involved Mr. Utley, Christesen, Shane Ferrari, Anderson, and Current. The conversation
centered on the June 2014 election for Sheriff. During the conversation Christesen stated he
16
needed to know that he had the support of all present. Current directly asked Mr. Utley if
Christesen could count on his support.
96. Under the guise of taking a phone call, Christesen, Anderson, and Ferrari then left
the room, leaving Mr. Utley and Current behind. Current, acting as the mouthpiece of
Christesen, then began questioning the support of Mr. Utley. When Mr. Utley reiterated his
support for Christesen, Current responded by stating that Mr. Utley needed to get donations for
Christesens re-election bid, needed to have a campaign sign put in his front yard that supported
Christesen, needed to get his entire family involved in getting Christesen re-elected, and needed
to do more towards Christesens re-election.
97. While this conversation ensued between Mr. Utley and Current, Christesen
roamed the hallway outside the room, constantly looking inside. It was obvious that Current was
acting at the behest of Christesen and merely repeating questions and comments Current and
Christesen had discussed beforehand. As proof of this motive, Current, who had no authority to
speak about or direct such matters, stated that Mr. Utley would only be Christesens Undersheriff
if he complied with the demands Current was making. On March 12, 2014, Captain Brice
Current, while on duty, reiterated the above conversation he had with Mr. Utley to Lieutenant
Lisa Haws (Mr. Utleys subordinate) in Ms. Haws office.
98. On March 18, 2014, Current again spoke with Mr. Utley in the workplace about
supporting Christesen during the election. Current noted that Mr. Utley did not sufficiently
support the re-election of Christesen. Current complained once more that Utley needed to
support Christesen financially and do more. Current demanded that Mr. Utley have his parents
place a large campaign sign supporting Christesen on their property. When Mr. Utley responded
17
that he could not do that because his family supported Kovacs, Current angrily replied that Mr.
Utley could force his parents to place such a sign. That evening Mr. Utley attended a campaign
function with Christesen, demonstrating his support for Christesens re-election.
99. On March 18, 2014, Mr. Utley also spoke with Christesen, stating that he feared
for his job security because of what Ms. Haws had communicated about Christesen remarking
that Mr. Utley was playing a dangerous game. Mr. Utleys concern was genuine and he feared
that he could be terminated at any time.
100. A few days later Ferrari advised Mr. Utley that Christesen was concerned about
whether Mr. Utley would support Christesens re-election bid.
101. Mr. Utley also learned through Lieutenant Neil Haws that Christesen was
complaining about Mr. Utleys supposed lack of support. Lt. Haws also stated that Christesen
made the comment to him that Mr. Utley was playing a dangerous game. During this period,
Christesen made known to a number of SJCSO employees that Christesen was unhappy with the
level of Mr. Utleys political support.
102. In an under-handed effort to try to win the Utleys campaign support, Christesen
delayed giving both Mr. and Ms. Utley their yearly evaluations, which were due in January 2014.
Based upon Christesens comments to other SJCSO employees, Christesen believed that he
needed the Utleys political support to win the June 2014 election; however, once that support
was no longer necessary, it was rumored Christesen would remove both Utleys from the SJCSO.
103. During March 2014, the SJCSO was permeated with political conversations
related to garnering support for Christesen. These conversations were coercive and placed
enormous amounts of pressure upon the Utleys and others. In the Utleys case, Christesen made
18
it clear to that political support for his re-election equated with retention of employment in the
SJCSO.
104. In the midst of these circumstances, Mr. Utley decided to write Christesen in late
March 2014. Mr. Utley, by now mentally and emotionally worn down by the pressure exerted
upon him to support Christesen, told Christesen that he would no longer support Christesens re-
election. Mr. Utley also requested that Christesen notify Current to quit speaking poorly about
his wife.
105. On March 24, 2014, Mr. Utley filed a claim with the San Juan County HR,
claiming that Christesen and Anderson were violating County policy by campaigning while on
duty, violating the Governmental Conduct Act through their unethical behavior, and subjecting
him to a hostile work environment.
106. After filing his complaint, on the very same day, Christesen and Anderson
confronted Mr. Utley about the filing of his claims. Christesen asked Mr. Utley why Mr. Utley
had gone to HR and filed his complaint. The conversation was inappropriate and caused Mr.
Utley great discomfort because Mr. Utley was forced to justify the filing of the hostile work
environment claim.
107. The head of San Juan County HR, Charlene Scott, notified Mr. Utley that his
complaint was going nowhereleading Mr. Utley to believe that he would be quickly retaliated
against and the hostile work environment would turn more hostile. Scott is required under the
policies and procedures of Ordinance 34 of San Juan County to investigate Mr. Utleys
claimsnot summarily dismiss them.
108. Unsurprisingly, retaliation quickly began. The custom and practice, as stated
19
above, was to allow employees time to handle personal and other matters during the workday as
long as the employee made the time up during the week. On March 27, 2014, Anderson advised
the SJCSO staff that employees would henceforth be required to report any off-work activities
directly to Anderson for approval. This by-passed the clear chain of command and removed
supervisory duties from Mr. Utleys and others purviews. Moreover, since the facts and
circumstances related to Mr. Utleys political support for Christesen arose and the filing of the
hostile work environment complaint, Mr. Utley has been subjected to on-going harassment and
workplace hostility, including, but not limited to removal of some of his supervisory duties,
workplace intimidation and alienation, and intimidation from the individually-named
Defendants.
109. Employees of the SJCSO were required to abide by the policies and procedures of
both the SJCSO and the County. On repeated and numerous occasions, as set forth more fully
below, Defendants violated these policies and procedures.
COUNT I
42 U.S.C. 1983
VIOLATIONS OF FREEDOM OF POLITICAL ASSOCIATION
FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
set forth above.
111. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits public
employers from disparately treating employees because of their political beliefs, associations, and
affiliations. The only exception to this prohibition corresponds to where the employment
20
includes a requirement of political allegiance.
112. In this matter, due to the nature of the duties and responsibilities of Plaintiffs, no
requirement of political allegiance exists.
113. The Plaintiffs were subjected to official pressure to work for the candidacy of
Christesen at the risk of losing their employment and/or suffering adverse employment actions.
This coercion is a violation of each and every Plaintiffs fundamental constitutional rights.
114. These Plaintiff have suffered a number of adverse employment actions where their
political affiliations and beliefs were substantial or motivating factors, including, but not limited
to, the creation of hostile work environments, refusals to allow and attend trainings, demotion,
retaliation, removal of job duties, unjustified and unfair disciplinary actions, disparate treatment
with respect to the terms and conditions of employment, abuse and perversion of mandatory
policies and procedures, unjustifiable performance evaluations and/or the lack thereof,
banishment to what are now dead-end jobs without prospects of promotion, and the conditioning
of employment privileges and rights on political support of Christesen.
115. In violating the Plaintiffs First Amendment rights, the Defendants acted under the
color of state law.
116. Plaintiffs are entitled to all remedies and relief available to them under the
provisions of 42 U.S.C. 1983, including, but not limited to, punitive damages against the
individually-named Defendants for their willful, wanton, malicious, and grossly reckless conduct.
21
Case l:l4-cv-00357-KBM-SMV Document l Filed 04/l6/l4 Page 2l of 3l
COUNT II
42 U.S.C. 1983
VIOLATIONS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH/RETALIATION
FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
set forth above.
118. At no time with respect to the constitutional violations of the Plaintiffs freedom
of speech rights did Plaintiffs speak according to their official duties.
119. Plaintiffs, in expressing their political opinions and beliefs regarding their reasons
to support or not support Christesen, spoke out on matters of public concern. This speech
constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment.
120. The governmental entities named as Defendants and the individually-named
Defendants interests in Plaintiffs comments related to political speech and other speech do not
outweigh the constitutional interests of Plaintiffs.
121. As set forth in paragraph 113 above, the Plaintiffs exercise of free speech was a
substantial factors in a number of adverse employment actions that these Plaintiffs suffered and
continue to suffer.
122. The adverse actions Plaintiffs complain of in relation to their exercise of their
First Amendment rights of free speech would not have occurred but for the exercise of that
speech. A causal connection exists between the adverse actions complained of and the protected
speech.
123. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants acted under the color of state law.
22
124. The Plaintiffs exercise of their free speech rights and privileges was not sufficient
to disrupt the operations of the SJCSO.
125. There exist no legitimate, constitutional reasons for the Defendants to have
retaliated against these Plaintiffs for the exercise of their free speech rights.
126. The retaliatory conduct Plaintiffs have suffered would have deterred a similarly-
situated employee from exercising his or her constitutional rights.
127. Plaintiffs are entitled to all remedies available under 42 U.S.C. 1983, including,
but not limited to, punitive damages against the individually-named Defendants for their willful,
wanton, malicious, and grossly reckless conduct.
COUNT III
42 U.S.C. 1983
VIOLATIONS OF EQUAL PROTECTION
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
set forth above.
129. Plaintiffs were subjected by Defendants to a hostile work environment because of
either their gender, political associations, or both.
130. San Juan County and the SJCSO, as well as the individually-named Defendants,
selectively and adversely subjected Plaintiffs to disparate treatment and actions because of their
gender, female, and/or their refusals to politically support Christesen and his illegal and unethical
administration.
131. The unlawful acts and failures to act Plaintiffs complain of constitute intentional
23
harassment and punishment for protected speech and classification.
132. In subjecting Plaintiffs to adverse employment actions such as a hostile work
environment, violations of policies and procedures that detrimentally affected their work status,
failures to promote, failures to provide training, unlawful prohibitions on speech, coercion
related to their political affiliations, and other adverse actions, Defendants acted under the color
of state law.
133. When compared with other SJCSO employees, Plaintiffs were treated differently
and deprived of workplace benefits and considerations freely given to other employees.
134. The selective treatment Mss. Utley and Haws complain of was motivated by an
intent to discriminate against them on the impermissible bases of gender as well as political
association and free speech.
135. The hostile work environment Mss. Haws and Utley complain of was objectively
severe and pervasive that a reasonable person would have found hostile or abusive.
136. Mss. Haws and Utley did find the work environment at the SJCSO to be hostile
and abusive.
137. The unlawful conduct Plaintiffs complain of unreasonably interfered with their
work performance and duties.
138. Plaintiffs decisions to not politically support and associate with Christesens
political campaign contributed to the formation of the hostile work environment.
139. Defendants failed to appropriately address Plaintiffs complaints of this hostile
work environment. Although Defendants knew about the hostile work environment Plaintiffs
reported, Defendants did nothing to remediate the environment.
24
140. Defendants have no legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for engaging in the
unlawful conduct Plaintiffs complain of. Any reason put forward by Defendants is but a pretext
for unconstitutional and unlawful conduct.
141. Plaintiffs are entitled to all remedies and relief available under 42 U.S.C. 1983,
including, but not limited to, punitive damages for the willful, malicious, wanton, and grossly
reckless acts and failures to act of the individually-named Defendants.
COUNT IV
42 U.S.C. 1983
VIOLATIONS OF DUE PROCESS
142. Plaintiff hereby adopt and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 141 as
set forth above.
143. Christesen and the SJCSO acted under the color of state law when they decided to
demote Mr. Wilcox.
144. The demotion of Mr. Wilcox from a lieutenant to a sergeant resulted in the loss of
pay and benefits.
145. At all times relevant hereto, Mr. Wilcox had and exercised a protected
constitutional interest in his employment with the SJCSO.
146. Constitutional due process requires that Mr. Wilcox have received a meaningful
opportunity to be heard prior to depriving him of any benefit associated with his protected
property interest in employment.
147. Mr. Wilcox had no opportunity to participate in any process prior to the decision
25
being made to demote him. Indeed, the SJCSO and Christesen expressly prohibited Mr. Wilcox
from participating in any due process hearing prior to or after the demotion became effective on
April 17, 2011.
148. Christesen, in deciding to demote Mr. Wilcox, and deprive him of his
constitutional interests, was not impartial and had stated previous to the demotion that such
would occur because Mr. Wilcox did not support him during Christesens election as Sheriff.
149. Christesen engaged in this unconstitutional conduct for the sole purpose of
unconstitutionally retaliating against Mr. Wilcox. This unconstitutional conduct extends to
prohibiting Mr. Wilcox from being promoted into other positions for which Mr. Wilcox is
eminently qualified.
150. The constitutional rights the SJCSO and Christesen deprived Mr. Wilcox of were
clearly established at the time of the deprivation and a reasonable public officer would have
known of these rights.
151. Mr. Wilcox is entitled to all remedies and relief available to him under 42 U.S.C.
1983, including, but not limited to, punitive damages against Christesen for his willful, wanton,
malicious, and grossly reckless violations of Mr. Wilcoxs constitutional rights and privileges.
COUNT V
42 U.S.C. 1983
CONSPIRACY
set forth above.
26
153. The individually-named Defendants became significantly involved and
intertwined in a concerted effort to unlawfully deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutionally-
protected rights.
154. These Defendants acted intentionally to cause the deprivation of Plaintiffs
constitutional rights. By so acting, these Defendants committed unlawful acts by unlawful
means, inflicting injuries upon Plaintiffs.
155. These Defendants acted under the color of state law in conspiring against
Plaintiffs to deprive them of their substantive constitutional rights as set forth herein.
156. These Defendants conspired with and among themselves to cause the loss of
Plaintiffs constitutional rights and further the unlawful purposes of the conspiracy.
157. These Defendants knew or should have known that their conspiratorial actions
violated the Plaintiffs clearly-established constitutional rights and those rights and privileges
secure by New Mexico statute, common law, and San Juan Countys and the SJCSOs policies
and procedures.
158. As a result of the conspiracy between the individually-named Defendants,
Plaintiffs have suffered damages and are entitled to all remedies and relief available to them
under 42 U.S.C. 1983, including punitive damages for the willful, wanton, intentional, and
grossly reckless acts of the individually-named Defendants.
COUNT VI
NMSA 1978 10-16-1, et. seq.
VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW MEXICO GOVERNMENTAL CONDUCT ACT
159. Plaintiff hereby adopt and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 158 as
27
set forth above.
160. Public officers are to treat their government positions as a public trust. Such
officers are not to use the power and resources of their offices to advance personal and private
interests over public interests.
161. Every public officer, including the individually-named Defendants, is prohibited
from directly or indirectly coercing or attempting to coerce another public officer or employee for
contributing anything of value to a person or party for a political purpose.
162. Moreover, the Governmental Conduct Act provides that threatening to deny a
promotion to an employee or advising an employee to take part in political activities in the
context of job benefits is a violation of New Mexico statute.
163. The facts here show that Christesen, Anderson, and Current engaged in gross
violations of the Governmental Conduct Act by basing employment decisions, promotional
opportunities, training opportunities, and other work-related benefits on political
patronageincluding the placement of campaign signs, financial contributions to Christesens
campaign, the recruitment of others for Christesens political benefit, the holding of campaign
events, and other matters that clearly violate the Governmental Conduct Act.
164. Additionally, Plaintiffs have been threatened by the individually-named
Defendants with respect to job security, have had duties and responsibilities removed because of
political patronage issues, and have had the terms and conditions of their employment altered
because of their political beliefs and support or lack thereof for particular candidates.
165. As a result of these violations of the Plaintiffs have suffered damages. Plaintiffs
are entitled to all remedies and relief available to them under the Governmental Conduct Act.
28
COUNT VII
NEW MEXICO COMMON LAW
VIOLATIONS OF AN IMPLIED CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
DEFENDANT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF SAN JUAN COUNTY
set forth above.
167. Defendant San Juan County maintained and published personnel policies and
procedures through an Employee Handbook made available to all County employees.
168. The County required and expected all employees, including Plaintiffs and the
individually-named Defendants named herein, to comply with and abide by these policies and
procedures.
169. Based upon the Countys representations regarding these policies and procedures,
Plaintiffs reasonably expected that County authorities, including the Sheriff, Undersheriff, and
the Countys HR Department would follow these policies and procedures in relation to the terms
and conditions of Plaintiffs employment.
170. The Countys published policies and procedures constitute an agreement, an
implied contract of employment between the parties which by the course of conduct and usage
the parties demonstrated an intent to be bound.
171. This implied contract, per the Countys policies and procedures, provided, among
other things: (1) that cause would be needed to discipline Plaintiffs in any fashion; (2) that San
Juan County employees were prohibited from campaigning for political office during regular
work hours; (3) that employees could not be coerced into campaigning for an elected official to
29
ensure continued employment; (4) that all employees were required to abide by the
Governmental Conduct Act; (5) that performance evaluations will occur on and about the
employees anniversary date; (6) that a failure to conduct timely performance evaluations would
result in a presumption that the employees performance was satisfactory and that the employee
merited a step increase, if applicable; (7) that employees would enjoy a harassment-free
workplace; (8) that an employee who believes he or she is being harassed or discriminated
against has a right to file a formal charge with the Countys Chief HR Officer; (9) that any charge
of harassment and/or discrimination will be promptly investigated and a written report prepared;
(10) that the County prohibits retaliation against employees who submit harassment complaints;
(11) that the County will encourage training opportunities for employees; (12) that the County
will ensure that promotion, demotions, and other employment-related matters will be fair and
non-discriminatory; (13) that the County adheres to a progressive disciplinary action policy; (14)
that County employees have adequate information regarding job performance prior to
disciplinary action being meted out; (15) that an employee can only be demoted for a serious
offense, a repeated minor offense, or for unsatisfactory performance or behavior that the
employee is unable or unwilling to correct; and (16) that all employees have rights to grieve
deprivations of rights.
172. The County breached each and every one of the policy requirements set forth in
paragraph 170, among others, in dealing with and deciding the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs
employment.
173. As a result of these breaches, Plaintiffs have suffered damages.
174. Plaintiffs are entitled to all remedies and relief available to them under New
30
Mexico law for these breaches of the implied contract of employment.
III. DAMAGES AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF
set forth above.
176. Plaintiffs seek damages for past lost wages and benefits, where appropriate.
177. Plaintiffs seek damages for future lost wages and benefits, where appropriate.
178. Plaintiffs seek damages for mental, emotional, and psychological distress.
179. Plaintiffs seek pre- and post-judgment interest.
180. Plaintiff seeks attorneys fees and costs, as allowable by law, statute, or rule.
181. Plaintiffs seek punitive damages against the individually-named Defendants for
their intentional, willful, wanton, and grossly reckless conduct.
WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray this Court enter judgment in their favor, award the
damages sought herein, and such further relief the Court deems just and appropriate under the
circumstances.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Michael E. Mozes
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL E. MOZES, P.C.
Attorney for Plaintiffs
5732 Osuna Road NE
Albuquerque, NM 87109-2527
(505) 880-1200
(505) 881-2444
31
Case l:l4-cv-00357-KBM-SMV Document l Filed 04/l6/l4 Page 3l of 3l

Complaint Against San Juan County Sheriff Ken Christesen

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Complaint Against San Juan County Sheriff Ken Christesen

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen