8/16/2019 Leonard Williamson v. Oregon Department of Corrections, Colette Peters
1/21
Page 1 - COMPLAINT
Andrew Altschul, OSB No. 980302E-mail: [email protected] Ferrer, OSB No. 140814E-mail: [email protected] ANGELI ALTSCHUL
& SULLIVAN LLP321 SW Fourth Avenue, Suite 600Portland, OR 97204Telephone: 503.974.5015Facsimile: 971.230.0337
Attorneys for Plaintiff
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
LEONARD WILLIAMSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OFCORRECTIONS, an Oregon State Agency, and COLETTE PETERS, an individual, in her personal capacity,
Defendants.
Civil No. 6:16-cv-00783
COMPLAINT
(42 U.S.C. §1983 – Violation of First
Amendment and Due Process Rights;Whistleblowing Retaliation in violation
of ORS 659A.203, 659A.230 and659A.199; Wrongful Discharge)
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
INTRODUCTION
1.
This is an action for declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief, including
attorneys’ fees and costs, to redress unlawful actions and employment practices to which
Defendants subjected Plaintiff, in violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional, statutory, and common
law and contractual rights.
Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 16
8/16/2019 Leonard Williamson v. Oregon Department of Corrections, Colette Peters
2/21
Page 2 - COMPLAINT
JURISDICTION
2. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. §1331, federal question
jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §1343, 28 U.S.C. §2201, and 42 U.S.C. §1983. This Court has
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.
3. Venue is proper in the District of Oregon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) because
the claims arose in this judicial district.
PARTIES
4. Plaintiff Leonard Williamson (“Plaintiff”) is a resident of Salem, Oregon. During
the relevant period, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant Oregon Department of Corrections
(“DOC”), serving as Inspector General and working in Salem, Oregon.
5. Defendant DOC is an Oregon state agency. DOC officials acting in their official
capacity were, at all relevant times, acting under color of state law.
6. Defendant Colette Peters (“Defendant Peters”) is, on information and belief, a
resident of Sherwood, Washington County, Oregon. Defendant Peters was appointed Director of
DOC in February 2012, and held that position during the relevant period. Plaintiff brings this
suit against Defendant Peters in her personal capacity.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
7. Plaintiff held the position of Inspector General for DOC from September 2011
until his termination on October 23, 2015. Before becoming DOC Inspector General, Plaintiff
worked as Attorney-in-Charge of the Torts and Employment Section in Trial Division of the
Oregon Department of Justice.
8. Defendant Peters was appointed DOC Director in February 2012. She previously
held the positions of Inspector General and Assistant Director for Public Service.
Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 2 of 16
8/16/2019 Leonard Williamson v. Oregon Department of Corrections, Colette Peters
3/21
Page 3 - COMPLAINT
9. Defendant Peters has terminated several employees during her tenure for
questionable reasons. In 2007, for example, while Defendant Peters was working as DOC’s
Inspector General, she created a new lead worker role for her friend Daryl Borello, and then had
Borello take the lead in investigating a long-term employee, Teri Gill, for alleged wrongdoing
that occurred years before Peters and Borello assumed their managerial roles over Gill. Peters
and Borello also attempted to justify Gill’s termination based on her alleged dishonesty. An
arbitrator later reversed Gill’s termination, expressly finding that he “does NOT question [Gill’s]
credibility” but instead, the arbitrator noted in his ruling that he “discounted Peters’ testimony on
credibility grounds.”
10.
Defendant Peters has also demonstrated a pattern of intentionally creating job
vacancies by terminating employees or causing them to quit in order to create opportunities for
her to appoint her personal friends, even if not the most qualified, to the positions. In 2013
Defendant Peters terminated the Director of Oregon’s Correction Enterprises and replaced him
with her longtime friend Ken Jeske, who dubbed himself as Defendant Peters’ “handbag,”
against the advice of the Policy Group and the Deputy Director at the time. In 2014, Defendant
Peters ordered the termination of the DOC Assistant Director of Government Efficiencies and
Communications, and then hired a personal friend, Heidi Stewart, for the position. Also in 2014,
the DOC Assistant Director of General Services took early retirement due to the treatment she
received from Defendant Peters. Defendant Peters appointed her friend Borello to fill the
position, despite Borello’s relatively low qualifications and low ranking among the many
applicants and against the advice of the recruitment team.
11. Plaintiff received consistently positive performance reviews and feedback during
his first three years as Inspector General.
Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 3 of 16
8/16/2019 Leonard Williamson v. Oregon Department of Corrections, Colette Peters
4/21
Page 4 - COMPLAINT
12. In November 2013 and 2014, Plaintiff was awarded paid leave in recognition of
his “exceptional performance.”
13. Starting in or about May 2015, Defendant Peters began taking overt steps to
undermine Plaintiff’s reputation within DOC for the purpose of creating an opportunity to
appoint one of her friends to replace him. Defendant Peters told her friend Jeske that she
planned to appoint him as Inspector General.
14. Around the same time, Defendant Peters told an executive coach who had been
hired from outside of the DOC that Plaintiff had “credibility issues with his staff.” The
executive coach expressed surprise and strong disagreement with Peters’ statement.
15.
In May 2015, Peters ordered an investigation into two stale allegations regarding
Williamson: a previously resolved complaint raised two years prior in 2013 by another DOC
employee, and Plaintiff’s September 2014 statement regarding the DOC’s K-9 handler unit,
where Plaintiff relayed information provided by then-Deputy Inspector General Garrett Laney
which, unbeknownst to Plaintiff at the time, was untrue.
16.
As Defendant Peters knew, the 2013 complaint already had been resolved. The
complainant had acknowledged that her concerns stemmed from a misunderstanding between
herself and Plaintiff, and Plaintiff had received no disciplinary action in connection with the
incident.
17. Both DOC Deputy Director Kim Brockamp and Oregon State Police
Superintendent Rich Evans had advised Defendant Peters that further investigation into
Plaintiff’s 2014 statement regarding the K-9 handler unit was not warranted. Nevertheless,
Defendant Peters persisted in her efforts to find a way to oust Plaintiff.
18. Defendant DOC’s investigation, ordered by Defendant Peters, began on June 12,
2015.
Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 4 of 16
8/16/2019 Leonard Williamson v. Oregon Department of Corrections, Colette Peters
5/21
Page 5 - COMPLAINT
19. Martin Imhoff, a low-ranking DOC Human Resources employee, conducted the
investigation.
20. DOC assigned Imhoff to lead the investigation despite multiple conflicts of
interest; Imhoff was seeking a promotion to a position for which Laney—the source of the false
information that Plaintiff had repeated regarding the K-9 handler unit—was on the hiring
committee. Laney was also Imhoff’s mentor at DOC and was close friends with Imhoff’s direct
supervisor, Assistant Director of Human Services Chris Popoff.
21. Almost immediately, Plaintiff became concerned about the fairness of the
investigation, and he shared those concerns with the DOC Deputy Director and other DOC
employees during the following weeks and months.
22. On July 31, 2015, Plaintiff made a public records request for emails of Defendant
Peters and several other DOC employees, believing that the records would assist him in
revealing the baselessness of the investigation against him. After being advised that the cost of
his request was extremely high, Plaintiff made a second narrower request on August 24, 2015.
DOC never responded to the second request.
23. On or about August 17, 2015, Laney told Plaintiff that Jeske had boasted that
Defendant Peters had planned to replace Plaintiff and appoint Jeske as Inspector General, but
that Jeske had turned down the position because it would have entailed a pay cut.
24. Plaintiff shared this information with the DOC Deputy Director, who expressed that
Defendant Peters was “very angry” about the public records request that Plaintiff had made on July
31, 2015.
25. Based on his concerns about the fairness of the ongoing investigation and
suspecting that the investigation was simply a ruse to create an opportunity for Defendant Peters
Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 5 of 16
8/16/2019 Leonard Williamson v. Oregon Department of Corrections, Colette Peters
6/21
Page 6 - COMPLAINT
to replace Plaintiff with one of her friends, Plaintiff filed a tort claim notice on September 3,
2015 indicating his intent to sue Defendant DOC and Defendant Peters.
26. Also on September 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed an ethics complaint with the Oregon
Government Ethics Commission. His ethics complaint detailed his concerns that, since her
appointment as DOC Director, Defendant Peters had engaged in a pattern and practice of
removing employees from their positions and appointing her friends who were not the most
qualified candidates.
27. Also on September 3, 2015, Plaintiff and his then-attorney met with Deputy
Attorney General Fred Boss regarding Plaintiff’s concerns that the investigation was a sham.
Plaintiff also advised Boss about his concerns regarding the investigator’s conflicts of interest,
and called attention to Defendant Peters’ pattern and practice of removing DOC employees,
either by terminating them or making their working conditions intolerable, and then appointing
her friends, at times not qualified, to the vacant positions.
28. Plaintiff requested that Deputy Attorney General Boss conduct an independent
investigation into the allegations against Plaintiff, the conflict of interest in the investigation,
Defendant Peters’ statement to Jeske about appointing him Inspector General, and other conduct
by Peters that raised ethics concerns.
29. Upon information and belief, Boss did not attempt any investigation, and instead
shared Plaintiff’s complaint with Defendant Peters.
30. Less than three weeks later, DOC Spokesperson Liz Craig, acting at the direction
of Defendant Peters, revealed to the press that Plaintiff was under investigation by the DOC’s
human resources department. At no point did Defendant Peters or Defendant DOC offer
Plaintiff a name-clearing hearing regarding the human resources investigation.
Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 6 of 16
8/16/2019 Leonard Williamson v. Oregon Department of Corrections, Colette Peters
7/21
Page 7 - COMPLAINT
31. On or about October 19, 2015, Imhoff completed his investigation report, which
contained no findings of wrongdoing by Plaintiff or recommendations for discipline against him.
32. That same day, Defendant Peters sent Plaintiff a termination letter in which she
offered to let Plaintiff work for three more months on a “project assignment” if, among other
things, he agreed to withdraw the tort claim notice and “release…all claims.”
33. Defendant Peters offered no explanation as to the reason for Plaintiff’s
termination, other than she was making a “change in leadership.”
34. Plaintiff refused to release his claims.
35.
On October 23, 2015, Defendants terminated Plaintiff’s employment.
36.
On or about October 27, 2015, Defendant DOC released to The Oregonian all
documents and email exchanges related to the human resources investigation without any notice
to Plaintiff or opportunity to clear his name before his reputation was publicly damaged. In a
statement to The Oregonian, DOC Spokesperson Craig said that “[t]he human resources
investigation recently completed factored in” to the decision to terminate Plaintiff, “but was not
the only factor.”
37. Plaintiff was never told the reason for his termination.
38. On account of the unlawful actions of defendants, Plaintiff has suffered economic
damages as well as embarrassment, anxiety, humiliation, anger, emotional distress,
inconvenience, and damage to his personal reputation.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — Deprivation of First Amendment Rights
Against Defendant Peters in her Personal Capacity
39.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
through 38.
Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 7 of 16
8/16/2019 Leonard Williamson v. Oregon Department of Corrections, Colette Peters
8/21
Page 8 - COMPLAINT
40. At all materials times, Defendant Peters was acting within the course and scope of
her role as Director of DOC and under color of state law.
41. Plaintiff exercised his First Amendment right to free speech when he issued a tort
claim notice, filed an ethics complaint regarding Defendant Peters’ conduct, and reported
Defendant Peters’ conduct to the Deputy Attorney General.
42. In exercising his right to free speech, Plaintiff spoke as a citizen and not as part of
his official duties.
43. Plaintiff’s speech was on a matter of public concern.
44.
Defendant Peters took an adverse action against Plaintiff when she terminated or
caused Defendant DOC to terminate his employment.
45. Plaintiff’s speech was a substantial or motivating factor for his termination.
46. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that Defendant Peters violated Plaintiff’s First
Amendment right by terminating or causing Defendant DOC to terminate his employment in
retaliation for his protected speech.
47.
As a direct and proximate result of defendant Peters’ unconstitutional conduct,
Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in the form of lost income and benefits, in an amount to
be determined at trial.
48. As a direct and proximate result of defendant Peters’ unconstitutional conduct,
Plaintiff has suffered embarrassment, anxiety, humiliation, anger, emotional distress,
inconvenience, and damage to his professional reputation and is entitled to an award of
compensatory damages in the amount of not less than $750,000.
49. Plaintiff is entitled to receive punitive damages because Defendant Peters acted
with evil motive or intent or with reckless or callous indifference to Plaintiff’s federally
protected rights.
Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 8 of 16
8/16/2019 Leonard Williamson v. Oregon Department of Corrections, Colette Peters
9/21
Page 9 - COMPLAINT
50. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable
attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and costs incurred herein.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — Deprivation of Fourteenth Amendment Right to DueProcess Against Defendant Peters in her Personal Capacity
51. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
through 50.
52. At all materials times, Defendant Peters was acting within the course and scope of
her role as Director of DOC and under color of state law.
53. Plaintiff has a liberty interest protected by the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States to be free from false charges made under color of
state law which involve or imply malfeasance in office, or which adversely reflect upon or
damage Plaintiff’s standing and ability to obtain gainful employment in his field, or damage his
career and his future in his profession.
54. In or about September 2015, Defendant Peters, acting on her own and through her
subordinates, caused information to be disseminated to members of the press and public at large
indicating that Plaintiff was under investigation and would soon be terminated, falsely implying
that Plaintiff had committed malfeasance in office. Defendant Peters refused to offer Plaintiff
adequate due process to clear his name.
55. In or about October 2015, Defendant Peters, acting on her own and through her
subordinates, caused information to be disseminated to members of the press and public at large
falsely suggesting that Plaintiff had been terminated as a result of the investigation and falsely
implying that Plaintiff had committed malfeasance in office. Defendant Peters refused to offer
Plaintiff adequate due process to clear his name.
Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 9 of 16
8/16/2019 Leonard Williamson v. Oregon Department of Corrections, Colette Peters
10/21
Page 10 - COMPLAINT
56. Defendant Peters’ conduct adversely reflected on and damaged Plaintiff’s
reputation and standing.
57. Defendant Peters’ conduct rendered Plaintiff unable to continue to work in his
chosen occupation.
58. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that Defendant Peters violated Plaintiff’s
constitutional liberty right to due process.
59. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Peters’ unconstitutional conduct,
Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in the form of lost income and benefits, in an amount to
be determined at trial.
60.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Peters’ unconstitutional conduct,
Plaintiff has suffered embarrassment, anxiety, humiliation, anger, emotional distress,
inconvenience, and damage to his professional reputation and is entitled to an award of
compensatory damages in the amount of $750,000.
61. Plaintiff is entitled to receive punitive damages because Defendant Peters acted
with evil motive or intent or with reckless or callous indifference to Plaintiff’s federally
protected rights.
62. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable
attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and costs incurred herein.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of ORS 659A.203—Retaliation Against a Public Employee for Whistleblowing
Against Defendant DOC
63. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 62 above.
64.
Defendant DOC is a public employer.
65. By issuing a tort claim notice, filing an ethics complaint, and reporting Defendant
Peters’ conduct to the Deputy Attorney General, Plaintiff reported and disclosed information that
Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 10 of 16
8/16/2019 Leonard Williamson v. Oregon Department of Corrections, Colette Peters
11/21
Page 11 - COMPLAINT
he reasonably believed was evidence that defendants violated state and/or federal laws, rules, or
regulations, including but not limited to the Oregon Government Ethics Law, ORS Chapter 244,
and/or that defendants engaged in mismanagement or abuse of authority.
66. Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action when Defendant DOC terminated
his employment.
67. Defendant DOC’s termination of Plaintiff’s employment was because of
Plaintiff’s protected activity. Defendant DOC’s termination of Plaintiff’s employment is the
type of conduct that reasonably would be expected to discourage or dissuade a public employee
from challenging violations of law.
68.
Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that Defendant DOC violated his statutory
right to report conduct he reasonably believed violated state and/or federal laws, rules, or
regulations and/or constituted mismanagement or abuse of authority.
69. Plaintiff is entitled to any injunctive and equitable relief that may be appropriate,
including but not limited to reinstatement.
70.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant DOC’s actions as alleged herein,
Plaintiff has suffered economic losses in the form of back pay, front pay, lost benefits, and out-
of-pocket expenses, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest thereon at the statutory
rate of 9% per annum.
71. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant DOC’s actions as alleged herein,
Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic harm in the form of emotional and mental distress,
degradation, embarrassment and humiliation, for which Plaintiff seeks compensation in an
amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $750,000.
72. Plaintiff has hired legal counsel to prosecute his claims and is entitled to his
reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and costs incurred herein pursuant to ORS 659A.885 and
Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 11 of 16
8/16/2019 Leonard Williamson v. Oregon Department of Corrections, Colette Peters
12/21
Page 12 - COMPLAINT
ORS 20.107.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violation of ORS 659A.230—Discrimination for Initiating Civil Proceedings
Against Defendant DOC
73.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 72
above.
74. Plaintiff, in good faith, initiated a civil proceeding against defendants on
September 3, 2015 when he filed an official tort claims notice and a complaint with the Oregon
Government Ethics Commission outlining his complaints.
75. Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action when Defendant DOC terminated
his employment.
76. Defendant DOC’s termination of Plaintiff’s employment was because of
Plaintiff’s protected activity.
77. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that Defendant DOC violated his statutory
right to initiate civil proceedings.
78.
Plaintiff is entitled to all appropriate injunctive and equitable relief.
79. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant DOC’s actions as alleged herein,
Plaintiff has suffered economic losses, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest
thereon at the statutory rate of 9% per annum.
80. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant DOC’s actions as alleged herein,
Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic harm in the form of emotional and mental distress,
degradation, embarrassment and humiliation, for which Plaintiff seeks compensation in an
amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $750,000.
81. Plaintiff has hired legal counsel to prosecute his claims and is entitled to his
reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees and costs incurred herein pursuant to ORS 659A.885 and
Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 12 of 16
8/16/2019 Leonard Williamson v. Oregon Department of Corrections, Colette Peters
13/21
Page 13 - COMPLAINT
ORS 20.107.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violation of ORS 659A.199—Retaliation for Whistleblowing
Against Defendant DOC
82.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 81 above.
83. By issuing a tort claim notice, filing an ethics complaint, and reporting defendant
Peters’ conduct to the Deputy Attorney General, Plaintiff reported and disclosed information that
he believed was evidence that defendants violated one or more state and/or federal laws, rules, or
regulations, including but not limited to the Oregon Government Ethics Law, ORS Chapter 244.
84. Plaintiff acted in good faith in reporting the violations.
85. Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action when Defendant DOC terminated
his employment.
86. Defendant DOC’s termination of Plaintiff’s employment was because of
Plaintiff’s reports or disclosures.
87. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that Defendant DOC violated his statutory
right to report conduct he reasonably believed violated state and/or federal laws, rules, or
regulations.
88. Plaintiff is entitled to any injunctive and equitable relief that may be appropriate,
including but not limited to reinstatement.
89. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant DOC’s actions as alleged herein,
Plaintiff has suffered economic losses in the form of back pay, front pay, lost benefits, and out-
of-pocket expenses, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest thereon at the statutory
rate of 9% per annum.
90. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant DOC’s actions as alleged herein,
Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic harm in the form of emotional and mental distress,
Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 13 of 16
8/16/2019 Leonard Williamson v. Oregon Department of Corrections, Colette Peters
14/21
Page 14 - COMPLAINT
degradation, embarrassment and humiliation, for which Plaintiff seeks compensation in an
amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $750,000.
91. Plaintiff has hired legal counsel to prosecute his claims and is entitled to his
reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and costs incurred herein pursuant to ORS 659A.885 and
ORS 20.107.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Wrongful Discharge
Against Defendant DOC
92. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 91
above.
93.
Defendant DOC engaged in actions, including terminating Plaintiff’s
employment, designed to discourage Plaintiff’s protected activity and motivated in substantial
part by Plaintiff’s decision to engage in protected activity as described above and by Defendant
Peters’ desire to replace Plaintiff with one of her personal friends. Terminating Plaintiff for any
or all of these reasons was wrongful and in violation of public policy.
94.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant DOC’s actions alleged herein,
Plaintiff has suffered economic losses in the form of back pay, front pay, lost benefits, and out-
of-pocket expenses, in an amount to be proven at trial, plus interest.
95. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant DOC’s actions alleged herein,
Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic harm in the form of emotional and mental distress,
degradation, embarrassment and humiliation, for which Plaintiff seeks compensation in an
amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $750,000.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
1. On Plaintiff’s First Claim for Relief, against Defendant Peters:
a. A declaration that Defendant Peters violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment
Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 14 of 16
8/16/2019 Leonard Williamson v. Oregon Department of Corrections, Colette Peters
15/21
Page 15 - COMPLAINT
right to free speech;
b. An award of economic damages for past and future lost wages and benefits
and out-of-pocket expenses, in an amount to be determined at trial;
c. An award of noneconomic damages in the amount of $750,000;
d. Punitive damages; and
e. Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, expert fees, and costs incurred herein.
2. On Plaintiff’s Second Claim for Relief:
a. A declaration that Defendant Peters violated Plaintiff’s constitutional liberty
interest in due process;
b.
An award of economic damages for past and future lost wages and benefits
and out-of-pocket expenses, in an amount to be determined at trial;
c. An award of noneconomic damages in the amount of $750,000;
d. Punitive damages; and
e. Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, expert fees, and costs incurred herein.
3.
On Plaintiff’s Third, Fourth, and Fifth Claims for Relief:
a. A declaration that Defendant DOC violated Plaintiff’s statutory rights;
b. All appropriate injunctive and equitable relief, including but not limited to
reinstatement;
c. An award of economic damages for backpay, front pay, lost benefits, and
out-of-pocket expenses, in an amount to be determined at trial;
d. An award of noneconomic damages in an amount to be determined at trial,
but not less than $750,000;
e. An award of prejudgment interest at the statutory rate of 9% per annum; and
f. Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees, expert fees and costs incurred herein.
Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 15 of 16
8/16/2019 Leonard Williamson v. Oregon Department of Corrections, Colette Peters
16/21
Page 16 - COMPLAINT
4. On Plaintiff’s Sixth Claim for Relief:
a. A declaration that Defendant DOC violated Oregon law by terminating
Plaintiff’s employment in violation of public policy;
b. All appropriate injunctive and equitable relief, including but not limited to
reinstatement;
c. An award of economic damages for backpay, front pay, lost benefits, and
out-of-pocket expenses, in an amount to be determined at trial; and
d. An award of noneconomic damages in an amount to be determined at trial,
but not less than $750,000.
5.
Plaintiff demands a jury trial.
DATED this 5th day of May, 2016.
BUCHANAN ANGELI ALTSCHUL& SULLIVAN LLP
s/ Andrew Altschul
Andrew Altschul, OSB No. 980302
E-mail: [email protected] M. Ferrer, OSB No. 140814E-mail: [email protected] Telephone: (503) 974-5028Attorneys for Plaintiff
Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 16 of 16
8/16/2019 Leonard Williamson v. Oregon Department of Corrections, Colette Peters
17/21
~ S
44 (Rev. 12107)
CIVIL
COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civtl cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing
and
service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provi
by local rules ofcourt.
This
form, approved by the Judicial
Conference
of he United States in September 1974, is requtred for the use of he Clerk of Court for the purpose ofmitia
the civil docket sheet (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE
OF
THE FORM.)
I. (a)
P L A I N T I F F S
LEONARD WILLIAMSON
D E F E N D A N T S
ORE GON
DEP ARTM ENT O F
CORRE CT IONS
an d COLLETTE
P E T E R S
(b) County of Residence ofFtrst Listed Plaintiff ..:.M:.:.::a:.:.rio;;.:.:.n
County of Residence of Ftrst Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT
IN
U S PLAINTIFF CASES)
(C)
Attorney ' s (Finn Name, Address,
and
TeleJlhone Number)
Andrew
Altschul,
Bu ch an an
Angeli Altschul Sullivan LLP,
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE:
IN
LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, U
SE
THE
LO
CATION OF THE
LAND INVOLVED
Attorneys (If Known)
32 SW Fourth Street , Ste.
600,
Portland O R
97204, 503/974-5023
II.
B A S I S
O F
J U R I S D I C T I O N (Place
an
X in One Box Only) I I I . C I T I Z E N S H I P
O F
P R I N C I P A L
P A R T I E S
CPia ce
an
X in
one
Box for Piain
0
I U.S. Go,·emment
Plaintiff
0 2 U.S Government
Defendant
I V N
T U R E O F S U I T
I
CONTRACT
0
I
10
Insurance
0 120
Marine
0
0 130
Miller
Act
0
0
140
Negotiable Instrument
0 I
50
Recovery of Overpayment
0
&
Enforcement
of
udgment
0
I I Medicare Act
0
0
I52 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
0
(Excl. Veterans)
0
0
153
Recovery of Overpayment
of
Veteran's Benefits
0
0
160
Stockholders' Suits
0
0
190
Other Contract
0 195 Contract Product Liabolity
0
0 196 Franchise
l
RE
AL PROPERTY
0
210
Land
Condemnation
0
0 220 Foreclosure
. :
0
230 Rent Lease
&
Ejectment
0
0
240 Torts to Land
0 245 Tort Product Liability
0
0
290 All Other
Real
Property
0
0
0
1 1
3 Federal Questoon
(U.S Government Not a Party)
0 4 Divmity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III
(Place
an
X
in
One Box Onl
vl
TORTS
PERSONAL INJURY PERSO
NA
L INJ URY
310 Airplane
0
362 Personal Injury -
315 Airplane Product Med. Malpractice
Liability 0 365 Personal Injury -
320 Assault, Libel
&
Product Liability
Slander
0
368 Asbestos Personal
330 Federal Employers ' Injury Product
Liability Liability
340 Marine PERSONAL
PROP
ERTY
34 Marine Product
0
370 Other Fraud
Liability 0
371
Truth in Lending
350 Motor Vehicle
0
380 Other Personal
355 Motor Vehicle Property Damage
Product Liability
0
385 Property Damage
360 Other Personal
Product Liability
ln'urv
CIVIL
RIGH
TS
PRISO
NER
PETI
TI
O
NS
441 Voting
0
510 Motions to Vacate
442 Employment Sentence
443 Housing/ Habeas Co
rp
us:
Accommodations
0
530 General
444 Welfare 0
535 Death Penalty
445 Amer. w/Disabilities-
0
54 Mandamus & Other
Employment 0
55
Civil Rights
446 Amer. w/Disabilities- 0
555
Prison Condition
Other
440 Other Civil
Rights
(For Di\ ersity Cases Only)
PTF
and One Box for Defendant)
DEF PTF DEF
Cotizen ofThis State 0 I
0 I Incorporated or Principal Pla ce 0 4 0 4
of
Business
In
This State
Citizen
of
Another State
0
2
0
2 Incorporated om/ Principal Place
of
Business
In
Another State
0
3
0
3 Foreign Nation
0 1 1
0 6 0 6
[, Jf 0 RFEITUREIPENA
I:.
TY
l."
BANKRUPTCY
OTHER STA'I'UTES
0
610 Agriculture
0
422 Appeal28
USC 158
0
400 State Reapponoonment
0
620 Other Food
&
Drug
0
423 Withdrawal
0
410
An o
trust
0 625 Drug Related Seizure 28 usc
157
0
430 Banks and Banking
of Property 21 USC
881
0
450 Commerce
0
630 Liquor Laws
' 'RIGHTS 0 460 Deportation
0 640 R.R. & Truck 0 820 Copyrights
0
4
70
Racketeer Influenced an
0 650 Airline Regs.
0 830 Patent
Corrupt Organizations
0
660 Occupational
0 840 Trademark
0
480 Consumer Credit
Safety/Health
0
490 Cable/Sat TV
0 690 Other
0 810 Selective Service
SOCIAL
0 850 Securities/Commodities
0 710 Fair Labor Standards
0 861
HIA (1395fl)
Exchange
Act
0 862 Black Lung (923)
0
875 Customer Challenge
0
720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations
0
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
12 usc 3410
0
730 Labori lllgmt.Reporting
0
864 SSID Title
XVI
0
890 Other Statutory Actions
& Disclosure Act 0 865 RSI (405(g))
0
891 Agricultural Acts
0 740 Railway Labor Act
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
0
892 Economic Stabilization
0
790
Other Labor Litigation
0
870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
0
893 Environmental Matters
0 791 Empl. Ret. Inc . or Defendant)
0
894 Energy Allocation Act
Security Act 0 871 IRS - Third Party
0
895 Freedom oflnfonnntoon
26
usc 7609
Act
IMM IGRATION
8/16/2019 Leonard Williamson v. Oregon Department of Corrections, Colette Peters
18/21
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
U NITED STATES DISTRICT COURTfor the
__________ District of __________
)
)))))))))))
Plaintiff(s)
v. Civil Action No.
Defendant(s)
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address)
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 plaintiff’s attorney,whose name and address are:
If 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.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
District of Oregon
LEONARD WILLIAMSON,
6:16-cv-00783
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, anOregon State Agency, and COLETTE PETERS, an
individual, in her personal capacity,
Oregon Department of Corrections
Andrew AltschulBUCHANAN ANGELI ALTSCHUL & SULLIVAN LLP321 SW Fourth Avenue, Suite 600Portland, OR 97204
Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC Document 1-2 Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 2
8/16/2019 Leonard Williamson v. Oregon Department of Corrections, Colette Peters
19/21
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date) .
I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)
on (date) ; or
I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ; or
I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
6:16-cv-00783
0.00
Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC Document 1-2 Filed 05/05/16 Page 2 of 2
8/16/2019 Leonard Williamson v. Oregon Department of Corrections, Colette Peters
20/21
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
U NITED STATES DISTRICT COURTfor the
__________ District of __________
)
)))))))))))
Plaintiff(s)
v. Civil Action No.
Defendant(s)
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address)
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 plaintiff’s attorney,whose name and address are:
If 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.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
District of Oregon
LEONARD WILLIAMSON,
6:16-cv-00783
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, anOregon State Agency, and COLETTE PETERS, an
individual, in her personal capacity,
Colette Peters
Andrew AltschulBUCHANAN ANGELI ALTSCHUL & SULLIVAN LLP321 SW Fourth Avenue, Suite 600Portland, OR 97204
Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC Document 1-3 Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 2
8/16/2019 Leonard Williamson v. Oregon Department of Corrections, Colette Peters
21/21
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date) .
I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)
on (date) ; or
I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ; or
I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
6:16-cv-00783
0.00
Case 6:16-cv-00783-MC Document 1-3 Filed 05/05/16 Page 2 of 2