Cara that she was being investigated for running an anonymous Facebook page called “Big Boss Man”® that posts blogs about the Department and by Krumpter, including blogs where the author speaks as a citizen concerning matters of public concern, such as corruption within the Department.® Cara stated that she had no involvement with the Facebook site, and had never it. posted anything on 35. By letter dated January 25, 2017, Pl via counsel, sent a letter to the Nassau County Attorney, Carnell Foskey, at the Nassau County Atomey's office, complaining. regarding the aforementioned gender discrimination and retaliation, and advising him that she had been contacted by the County EEO officer. ‘The letter was cod via email on January 25, 2017 to a former Assistant Nassau County Attorney, who was at that time representing the County in employment diseri ination cases. 36. On January 26, 2017, Deputy Inspector Daniel Sheehan and Detective Lieutenant ‘Timothy Mensch conducted a five-hour IAB interview of Cara, Five hours is extremely long for an IAB interview, and, upon information and belief, may be the longest IAB interview ever conducted by the Department. As a result of this interview, Cara was ordered to write a letter to the Commanding Officer of the IAB reaffirming that she has never posted on the Big Boss Man 5 Someone using the moniker “Big Boss Man” also sometimes posted within the comments section of Newsday’s online edition. Upon information and belief, this poster was connected with, or a copycat of, the Big Boss Man Facebook page, and was believed by the Department to be the same individual who authored the Big Boss Man Facebook page. © Topics discussed in the period preceding January 11, 2017 include Krumpter shopping for Christmas gifts while on duty, the issuance of promotions based on loyalty to Krumpter and Krumpter's efforts to conceal this fact, Department resources being utilized to review media that ‘makes Krumpter look bad,” and pay-to-play schemes involving Nassau County and its vendors which have stalled repair work to a flooded precinct,Facebook page, nor has she ever disseminated any confidential information regarding the department to anyone. 37. On February 21, 2017, the Department instituted disciplinary action against Cara by serving her with Reports of Violation of Departmental Rules, also known as a 209s (the 209s”). The 209s alleged, inter alia, that Cara’s statements to IAB regarding the Big Boss Man Facebook page were “not credible,” and that she had improperly used a Department computer to email postings taken from the Big Boss Man Facebook page to other members of the Department. 38, Whereas it normally takes several months for a Department employee to be served with a 209 after being interviewed by IAB, Cara was served with the 209s a mere three weeks after her IAB interview. 39, Following issuance of a 209 to an employee, it is the Department's standard practice to submit the 209 to the Disciplinary Review Board (“DRB”). 40. The DRB is a panel consisting of five Department employees with the rank of Chief.” Atall relevant times, Krumpter was responsible for naming the Chiefs who served on the DRB. 41. During winter 2017, the five Chiefs who served on the DRB were Kevin Smith, Neil Delargy, Ron Walsh, Sean McCarthy, and John Berry, who, upon information and belief, knew 7 While the rules technically provide that pane! members may be selected from the ranks of Captain and above, in practice, panel members are always or almost always Chiefs. 10of Cara’s protected activities and/or perceived Cara to be Big Boss Man. 42, On March 2, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the New York State Division of Human Rights, alleging ation end retaliation relating to the aforementioned actions. The complaint was cross filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 43. On March 2, 2017, the DRB convened to evaluate Cara's 209s. For Cara’s case only, Krumpter removed Delargy from the DRB, fearing Delargy may be less apt to rubber stamp Krumpter desired disciplinary outcome. Significantly, Delargy had previously advised Cara that Sheehan (one of the individuals tasked with investigating Cara) had told him that Krumpter hoped Cara would retire once she discovered she was being investigated, and that the investigation was a witeh hunt. 44, Krumpter’s manipulation of the composition of the DRB was a departure from past practice, Since at least 1997, with just one exception, the Department has never altered the composition of the DRB in connection with any individual case. That is, while DRB members rotate on and off when their periods of service end, the Department has not removed a Chief from the DRB for one case, then placed that member back on the DRB for the next place. 45. Asa result of Krumpter’s influence, the improperly constituted DRB which considered Cara’s 209s upgraded the severity of the disciplinary action against Cara by converting the 209s to a “210s,” also known as Charges and Specifications. Unlike a 209, which has a maximum penalty of a loss of five paid days to be determined by the DRB, an employeefacing a 210 may suffer penalties up to and including termination, to be determined by a subsequent trial. 46, When the DRB upgrades a 209 to a 210, it is standard practice for the DRB to recommend a punishment to the Commissioner in the event the employee is later found guilty at trial. Contrary to this practice, the DRB did not recommend a punishment for Cara, as Krumpter ordered the DRB not to do so. Instead, Krumpter told that DRB that he would determine Cara’s punishment. 47. Since her protected activities, the Department has routinely refused to grant Cara night differential pay. Cara complained to Paul Visconte (Union Vice President) regarding same, who then investigated. Thereafter, on Match 24, 2017, Visconte advised Cara that he had determined Cara was entitled to night differential pay, but that Cara was not receiving it “because the Department is being vindictive.” This was an apparent reference Cara's protected activities. 48. On April 26, 2017, Cara again met with IAB, at which time she was accused of taking several photographs of Captain Tara Comiskey, which IAB discovered while searching through Cara’s emails. In violation of IAB procedure, IAB showed the photographs to Comiskey, and encouraged Comiskey to file a complaint in relation to same, which she did, IAB subsequently 8 On May 31, 2017, Cara received written notice that she was to appear at a trial in connection with the 210 on May 18, 2017, May 23-24, 2017, and May 30, 2017 —days which had already occurred, Cara's union attorney advised Cara that he never received the notice, and that Cara should ignore it since the dates had already passed. To date, Cata’s trial date remains pending. 12confirmed that Cara did not take the photographs.” 49, In May 2017, Lieutenant Labate advised Cara that the Department was forcing him to implement an overtime book in the Public Safety Department. Lieutenant Labate told Cara he felt this was unfair, as there was no job for Cara at the Publie Safety Department, and she would just be taking overtime away from him. Despite this conversation, Lieutenant Labate never implemented an overtime book, and Cara continued to be deprived of overtime opportunities. 50. On August 22, 2017, Cara requested a right-to-sue letter fiom the EEOC to pursue this ease in federal court. 51. On September 5, 2017, Cara took disability leave in connection with a work-related injury that vequired surgery. 52, On December 14, 2017, Black notified Cara that the Department was demanding that she attend another meeting before the DRB on December 20, 2017 to determine her punishment in the speculative event that she is later found guilty of the 210s. 53. Upon information and belief, the Department's unsubstantiated allegation that Cara was involved in the Big Boss Man Facebook page, IAB's subsequent investigation into this allegation, including the 209s and 210s, and the Department's demand that Cara attend a DRB 9 TAB determined that two of the photographs were taken by Chief Chris Cleary. [AB determined that the other photograph was taken by Chief of Patrol Kevin Canavan. 13meeting while she is on disability leave that wholly relates to a speculative future event, as well as the Department's denial of night differential pay and overtime opportunities to Cara were further retaliation for Cara's protected activities. Alternatively, to the extent any of these adverse actions were not based on Cara’s protected activities, they were based on the Department and Krumpter’s desire to retaliate against Cara for their perception that Cara was behind the Big Boss Man postings and Facebook page, where the author speaks as a citizen about matters of public concern, (CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 54, Defendant Corona, under color of state law, altered Plaintiff's terms, conditions and privileges of employment because of her gender, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (as enforced by 42 U.S.C. § 1983) by subjecting her to a gender based hostile work environment and adverse actions. 55. Defendant Krumpter, under color of state law, altered Plaintiff's terms, conditions and privileges of employment due to her opposition to discriminatory practices and/orbecause he believed Cara spoke as a citizen about matters of public concern, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (as enforced by 42 U.S.C. § 1983). 56. The County Defendant is subject to Monell liability because the County's maintained 4 policy, practice or custom, whereby it committed, condoned, and/or remained deliberately indifferent to the aforementioned constitutional violations, which may be inferred in the following ways:a, Defendants’ maintained a custom or practice of discriminating and retaliating against Plaintiff. The unlawful practices were so persistent and widespread that they constitute actual and/or constructive acquiescence of policymakers, b. ‘The County’s high-level supervisors and/or persons responsible for preventing Constitutional violations took the unconstitutional actions and/or failed to properly investigate, prevent, remedy, or correct the unlawful conduct. Inadequate training/supervision was so likely to result in discrimination that policymakers can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need to provide better training and supervision. d. Policymakers participated in and/or knéw of and failed to correct the unlawful conduct, 57. As set forth above, Defendant County subjected Plaintiff to a hostile work environment and adverse employment actions in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000¢, et seg, on the basis of her gender, and opposition to discriminatory practices. Plaintif?’s Title VII claims are only asserted against the County, not the Individual Defendants. 58. The Individual Defendants, Corona and Krumpter, aided, abetted, incited, compelled, coerced and/or condoned the aforementioned unlawful conduct in violation of New York State Executive Law, Human Rights Law § 296(6) by actually participating in the unlawful conduct, and/or by being aware of such conduct and failing to remediate same, 15WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, where applicable, for all compensatory, emotional, physical, punitive damages, lost pay, front pay, injunctive relief, and any other damages permitted by law. It is further requested that this Court grant reasonable attorneys” fees and the costs and disbursements of this action and any other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled, Plaintiff demands a trial by jury. Dated: Carle Place, New York December 21, 2017 LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff One Old Country Road, Ste. 347 Carle Place, New York 11514 (516) 873-9550‘AO 440 (Rex. 06/12) Surmons in Civil Action UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT forthe Eastem District of New York CARA TRIMBOLI Plains) v. Civil Action No. ‘THE COUNTY OF NASSAU, TOM CORONA and ‘THOMAS KRUMPTER,, in their official and individual capacities Defendants) SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION To: (Defendant’sname anu adress) Please see attached list. ‘A lawsuit has been filed against you. Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R, Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ‘The answer or motion must be served-on the plaintiff or plaints attorney, ‘whose name and address are: Leeds Brown Law, P.C. ‘One Old Couniry Road Suite 347 Carle Place, New York 11514 It you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. ‘You also must file your answer or motion with the court, DOUGLAS C. PALMER CLERK OF COURT Date: _ a _ ‘Signatre of Clerk or Deputy Clerk