STATE OF NORTH CAROLINAGUILFORD COUNTY

IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Civil Action No. )Q/'.[/ Stf~) //

SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION

JAMES HINSON,Plaintiff,

COMPLAINT

CITY OF GREENSBORO, DAVID WRAY, FORMER POLICE

(Jury Trial Demanded)

CHIEF OFTHE CITY OF GREENSBORO, in his official and individual capacity andRANDALL BRADY, FORMER DEPUTYPOLICE CHIEF OF THE CITY OF

GREENSBORO, in his official and

individual capacity,Defendants.

The plaintiff, complaining of the defendants, alleges and says:INTRODUCTION AND JURISDICTION

1.

This is an action seeking legal and equitable relief under the common law

of North Carolina and 42 USC 1981, 1983, and 1985 from the wrongful acts and

omissions ofthe defendants that proximately and directly caused the injuries suffered bythe plaintiff, James Edward Hinson, Jr.

2.

Jurisdiction of the court is invoked pursuant to N.C. Const. Art. IV, 12

and N.C. Gen. Stat. 7A-3, 7A-240, and 7A-243. Plaintiff seeks damages in excess often thousand ($10,000) dollars.

3.

The plaintiff took a voluntary dismissal without prejudice on September 4,

2009, of actions filed previously against these defendants.

PARTIES

4.

Plaintiff James Edward Hinson Jr. is a citizen and resident of Guilford

County, North Carolina.

5.

Defendant City of Greensboro is a municipal corporation or city as

defined by N.C.G.S. 160-A-1(2). At the time of the events alleged herein, the City ofGreensboro maintained and was legally responsible for the administration of the

Greensboro Police Department.

Defendant City of Greensboro has waived its

governmental immunity by the purchase of liability insurance, as provided by N.C.G.S. 160A-485, and is liable as respondeat superior as to each of the state common law claimsagainst defendants David Wray and Randall Brady.

6.

Defendant David Wray is acitizen and resident of Guilford County, North

Carolina. At all times herein mentioned, defendant Wray was acting in his capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Greensboro, North Carolina and was the commandingofficer ofthe Greensboro Police Department responsible for the training, supervision, andconduct of the Greensboro Police Department. Defendant Wray, as Chief of Police, had

final authority to establish municipal policy and custom with respect to police practice,policy and procedure. At the times alleged herein, defendant Wray was aduly sworn lawenforcement officer and public official employed by the City of Greensboro PoliceDepartment and was acting within the scope ofhis employment.

7.

Defendant David Wray is sued in his individual and official capacity

under state law. The City has waived immunity as to the official capacity claim, as explained in Paragraph 5. On the individual capacity claim, defendant Wray's actions

described herein were deliberate, grossly negligent, intentional, malicious, wanton,

willful, done with conscious or reckless disregard for the rights of others, and/or were

taken beyond the scope ofhis lawful authority, piercing any public officer immunity thatmight otherwise shield him from liability from the claims alleged herein.

8.

Defendant Randall Brady is a citizen and resident of Guilford County,

North Carolina. At all times herein mentioned, defendant Brady was acting in hiscapacity as Deputy Police Chief of the City of Greensboro, North Carolina and wasacting within the scope of his employment.

9.

Defendant Brady is sued in his individual and official capacity under state

law. The City has waived immunity as to the official capacity claim, as explained inParagraph 5. On the individual capacity claim, defendant Brady's actions described

herein were deliberate, grossly negligent, intentional, malicious, wanton, willful, done

with conscious or reckless disregard for the rights of others, and/or were taken beyond

the scope of his lawful authority, piercing any public officer immunity that mightotherwise shield him from liability from the claims alleged herein.FACTS

10.training.

Plaintiff James Edward Hinson Jr., an African American, started working

for the Police Department of the City of Greensboro in 1991 as a police officer in

11.

Plaintiff was professional, highly motivated, worked well with co

workers, and perfonned his duties skillfully and professionally. Plaintiff received numerous awards and moved up quickly through the ranks to achieve the position oflieutenant.

12.

While employed with the Police Department, plaintiff regularly received

evaluations at the level of"exceeds expectations" and "superior performance," the two

highest possible ratings under the applicable system. Plaintiff received only these tworatings every year from 2000-2010.

13.

Plaintiff was recognized throughout the department as having great

potential with the chance of becoming Chief one day. Plaintiff was promoted to

Lieutenant on December 1, 2001. Plaintiff prepared himself in hopes of becoming Chief by attending and graduating from the Administrative Officers Management Program onApril 18, 2003. Plaintiff also obtained his Masters of Arts Degree from the University ofNorth Carolina at Greensboro on December 16, 2004.

14.

Plaintiff received the following awards:

2Those Who Care Award which was sponsored by WFMY

Outstanding Young Police Officer which was sponsored by theGreensboro Jaycees First Annual Triad Black Achievers District I Officer of the Year

North State Law Enforcement Officer of the Yearand in gratitude for honorable service

Commendation Bar - In recognition of exemplary commitment to duty Certificate of Merit - In recognition of exemplary commitment to dutyand in gratitude for honorable service

Officer ofthe Year for the Greensboro Police Department City Employee ofthe Year as it pertains to Public Safety

15.16.

Plaintiff received his first award in 1996 and has not received anyPlaintiff conducted many community events that were executed to bridge

additional awards since he received the Officer ofthe Year Award in 2001.

the gap between police officers and citizens with a focus on the youth. These events

ranged from basketball tournaments to play station tournaments and various give-aways

at Christmas for children in need. Plaintiff worked diligently on various other projects

that focused on the overall bettennent of the City of Greensboro, including a projectnamed "The Gathering," which recognized victims of homicide.

17.

Though plaintiff continued to perfonn his professional duties in a manner

considered to exceed the standards of the agency, around the beginning of 2003 and

2004, defendants David Wray and Randall Brady began targeting plaintiff and creatingproblems for him in his workplace because ofplaintiffs race.

18.

Plaintiff was granted two off-duty assignments as a supervisor, which

were to occur on May 22, 2004 and October 30, 2004. Plaintiff was asked to relinquishhis positions and allow the Special Operations Division to direct and control the events.

Plaintiff was told by an officer in the Special Operations Division that the Executive

Officer would be the supervisor for the May 22, 2004 event. Plaintiff expresseddispleasure and an officer of the Special Operations Division responded via-email with

the following statement 'The Downtown Dash is yours. Ifyou screw it up, you will never

work for me again ... Sir". The October 30, 2004 event resulted in the CommandingOfficer ofSpecial Operations Division informing the plaintiff that the Executive Officer

of the Special Operations Division would be the supervisor. Similarly situated whiteofficers were not treated in this manner.

19.

Defendant Brady told plaintiff to "take one for the team". Defendant

Brady told plaintiff that he would receive supervisor's pay but would not be required tofulfill the obligation of asupervisor because he would be assigned atraffic post or would be utilized as atrail car for the race at the event. Plaintiff expressed displeasure with therequest and refused to relinquish his supervisor position. Defendant Brady thereafter

released a policy via email giving the Special Operations Division control over whosupervises the event.

20.

Senator John Kerry, former presidential candidate, visited the Greensboro

area and the Operational Support Division utilized over 85% of its resources to assist

with the operation. The plaintiff was the Executive Officer of the Division, but was

omitted from the operational plan. The Division provided Police Officer Ifs, Corporals,Sergeants, and a Captain for Senator Keiry's visit. Plaintiffs position and authority were

negatively affected by the Special Operations Division omitting plaintiff from the plan.The plan was prepared by an officer assigned to the Special Operations Division and

approved by the Commanding Officer of the Special Operations Division. Similarlysituated white officers were not treated in this manner.

21.

On or about 2003, at the direction ofdefendants Wray and Brady, Officers

Scott Saunders and Brian Bisset, subordinates ofdefendants Wray and Brady, gathered pictures ofvarious black officers employed by the Greensboro Police Department to be

used in line-up books, and/or were to be used in line-up photos stored on various police

laptop computers. Detective Scott Sanders and Brian Bisset gathered these photographsfor the purpose of framing, embarrassing, and wrongfully charging black officers withcrimes, offenses and violations of law and police policies. Similarly situated whiteofficers were not treated in this manner.

22.

Plaintiff was informed and believes that his photo was included in the line

up book and line-up photos that were stored on various laptop computers. Plaintiff isinformed and believes that his photograph was also housed in various folders and other

documents. Plaintiff is informed and believes that many of these photographs were

confiscated by the Greensboro Police Department and currently are in the Department'spossession. Plaintiff believes that various versions ofthe "Black Book" were used for the

purpose of framing, embarrassing, and wrongfully attempting to charge black officers

with crimes, offenses and violations of the law and police policies. These photographswere shown to persons alleged to have committed crimes and were shown in such a

manner that suggested that plaintiff was involved with criminal activity. The photos placed plaintiff in danger and adversely affected his position and standing within thecommunity. Similarly situated white officers were not treated in this manner.

23.

On January 6, 2005, plaintiff received his second quarter evaluation by his

Commanding Officer. To plaintiffs dismay and without any prior notification, plaintiffwas advised that his overall rating dropped from a Level 5 to a Level 4. Plaintiff

expressed his displeasure with the evaluation and his Commanding Officer advised theplaintiff that he would make the necessary changes to the evaluation.

24.

On January 20, 2005, plaintiff received arevised quarterly evaluation from

his Commanding Officer which indicated his quarterly rating would be a Level 5. It isbelieved that the plaintiffs Commanding Officer received a lower evaluation as a resultofgranting the plaintiff a Level 5 evaluation.

25.

From 2003 through 2004, defendants Wray and Brady caused some black

officers of the City of Greensboro Police Department, including the plaintiff, to be investigated by the Special Investigation Division (SID) for alleged wrongdoing.26. The Special Intelligence Division of the Greensboro Police Department

was originally created for the purpose ofinvestigating criminal and/or subversive groups

such as the Ku Klux Klan, street gangs, and terrorists, and was never intended to be used

to investigate alleged misconduct by Greensboro Police Department Officers.27. The Criminal Investigation Division (CID) and Internal Affairs units were

intended and designed to investigate matters that involved Greensboro Police Officers.

These investigations were closely monitored by adesignated supervisor.

28.

Defendants caused or required white officers suspected of wrongdoing to

be investigated by the CID or the Internal Affairs Division. Defendants caused somewhite officers not to be investigated at all.

29.

The Special Investigation or Intelligence Division was a division that

reported directly to defendant Brady, with virtually no checks and balances. The unit was

named by various officers throughout the agency as the "Secret Police." The CID and theInternal Affairs Division followed the chain of command and allowed for checks andbalances.

30.

Some African American officers and plaintiff complained about this

disparate procedure and treatment. Defendants chastised these officers for complaining.31. On January 28, 2005, plaintiff forwarded a memorandum through hisattorney and addressed to the Greensboro City Manager. The memorandum stated: "I

am asking you on behalf of my client, to address rumors of my client being secretlyinvestigated by the Special Intelligence Division, which is also commonly referred to as"The Secret Police." The memorandum further stated that the plaintiffhad been followed

by Departmental Personnel and that there were rumors generated regarding plaintiffsintegrity and character.

32.

Plaintiffs attorney requested information from the Greensboro City

Manager regarding the nature of the Special Intelligence Division's investigation, thetime frame of the investigation, the identity of all officers and other personnel involved inthe investigation, the names and dates of persons interviewed and the substance of the

interviews, the findings of and reasons for the investigations and why plaintiff was notnotified of the investigations.

33.Manager.

Neither plaintiff nor his attorney received a response from the CityPlaintiff was transferred from the Operational Support Division to the

34.

Central Division under the direction of a Commanding Officer. The CommandingOfficer required the plaintiff to complete a detailed monthly schedule to be turned intohim each month. Similarly situated white officers were not treated in this manner.

35.

The information plaintiff submitted in the monthly schedules was

forwarded to Detective Scott Sanders. Defendant David Wray advised Captain MikeOates to forward plaintiffs schedule to Detective Scott Sanders. Similarly situated whiteofficers were not treated in this manner.

36.

When plaintiff was transferred to the Central Division, his department

issued computer was installed with a device that would monitor his activity on thecomputer. No other Lieutenants in the Greensboro Police Department were monitored in

this manner. Upon information and belief, Detective Scott Sanders installed a key catcher and took the plaintiffs password which allowed Detective Sanders to monitor plaintiffscomputer activity. Similarly situated white officers were not treated in this manner.

37.

On or about February 2. 2005. plaintiff was summoned by his

Commanding Officer. When he arrived at Defendant Wray soffice, Defendant Brady, anAssistant Chief, aCommanding Officer and the Police Attorney were present. 38. Shortly after that meeting, plaintiff dropped a previously filed grievance

alleging retaliation and hostile work environment because plaintiff was made to feel that

his position with the agency was in grave jeopardy due to his grievance. The plaintiff feltthat he would be fired or demoted.

39.

Plaintiff was asked on or about March 2005 to develop a program that

would address the prostitution problem in Greensboro. Assistant Chief Tim Bellamytasked plaintiffwith the project and advised plaintiff that the project would jump start hiscareer. Assistant Chief Tim Bellamy advised plaintiff that Chief Wray was aware ofthisassignment and approved plaintiff to head the operation.

40.

Plaintiff developed a program called Operation HELP (Healing,

Educating, Leadership training, and Partnering) at the direction of defendants Wray andBrady. Once the program was developed, defendants Wray and Brady ordered 24 hour

surveillance of the house that housed various clients. This surveillance was paid for bythe Greensboro Police Department. This surveillance was conducted once they asked theplaintiff to complete the project. Similarly situated white officers were not treated in thismanner.

41.

The supervisor at the city garage told plaintiff that there was a recall on his

patrol vehicle and that the vehicle needed to be put out for service to address the recallissues. Similarly situated white officers were not treated in this manner.

42.

There was no recall for the plaintiffs vehicle. Once the vehicle was placed

out of service, various electronic devices were installed to monitor plaintiffs activity. Asensor was placed under the passenger seat which would alert Detective Scott Sanders if someone sat in the passenger seat of the vehicle. There was also a device installed in the

computer of the vehicle that was able to generate the exact locations that the plaintiffvisited while he operated the vehicle. Similarly situated white officers were not treated inthis manner.

43.

In March of2005, defendant Wray, without cause, surreptitiously hired an

Investigator, Randy Gerringer, aretired employee of the Greensboro Police Department, to return to the Greensboro Police Department. Defendant Wray instructed Mr. Gerringer

to place atracking device on plaintiffs patrol car in the hopes of discovering wrongdoingon the part of the plaintiff. Similarly situated white officers were not treated in thismanner.

44.

Defendant Wray instructed Mr. Gerringer to coordinate his findings with

Intelligence Investigator, Scott Sanders, and SID Sergeant, Tom Fox. Defendant Wraytook no such action against similarly situated white officers.

45.

On or about April 2004, plaintiff received acall from alocal stripper in an

effort by Scott Sander's to entrap plaintiff. Plaintiffs conversation with the local stripperwas recorded by Detective Scott Sanders. The conversation did not result in any criminalcharges or administrative violations. Similarly situated white officers were not treated inthis manner.

46.

Plaintiff discovered on June 4, 2005, that he was being followed and

monitored by a tracking device. Plaintiff questioned defendant Brady as to why a

tracking device was placed on his patrol car and why he was being followed. Defendant

Brady advised plaintiff that he was under surveillance because he was possibly working off duty while on duty in violation of the Greensboro Police Department DepartmentalDirectives and Procedures.

47.

Plaintiff was forced to undergo investigations that similarly situated white

officers were not subjected to.

48.investigations.

Defendants were motivated by plaintiffs race in initiating these

49.

All of the investigations proved that plaintiff was innocent of the offenses

alleged by the defendants.

50.

Notwithstanding plaintiffs exoneration, within days of plaintiff

discovering the tracking device, Defendant Wray broadcast to the media false

information about the tracking device and other alleged activity which defendant Wrayknew to befalse. Similarly situated white officers were not treated in this manner.

51.

Defendant Wray falsely reported to the City Manager, Deputy City

Manager, and City Attorney that plaintiff was suspected of being associated with illegaldrug activity and other criminal activity. Defendant Wray further reported that plaintiffs

suspected criminal activity was ongoing and connected to a violent international drugcartel.

52.

Defendant Wray also met with a member of the NAACP and advised her

that plaintiffwas linked to criminal activity.

53.

On June 16, 2005, defendant Wray held a lengthy meeting at his residence

with selected police department members and they were thoroughly briefed on the

12

circumstances surrounding plaintiff. This meeting was conducted in a clandestinemanner and no African American officers were in attendance.

54.

On June 16, 2005, defendant Wray and Detective Brian Bisset met with

various police union members and advised them that they had video, audio, and various

photographs of plaintiff Hinson involved in criminal activity. Defendant Wray and Detective Bisset could not produce the alleged video, audio and photographs of plaintiffbecause they did not exist.

55.

On June 17, 2005, defendant Wray went to the U.S. Attorney's Office and

met with various representatives. Defendant Wray was informed by the U.S. Attorney'sOffice that plaintiff was not and had never been the target/focus or person of interest in a

multi-agency law enforcement task force effort. Plaintiff was never the focus of anyinvestigative efforts under the direction of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the MiddleDistrict of North Carolina.

56. On June 17, 2005, plaintiff was suspended by defendant Wray for alleged on-going relationships with prostitutes and others who have a reputation in the community for involvement in criminal activity. Wray advised aCommanding Officerthat he had no reason to suspend the plaintiff and that he suspended the plaintiff in orderto get the plaintiffto be quiet about the issue.

57.

Defendant Wray suspended plaintiff without cause and for the purpose of

disparaging, discrediting, and ridiculing plaintiff. Similarly situated white officers werenot treated in this manner.

58.

On June 17, 2005, defendant Wray delivered a public media statement

falsely alleging that the plaintiff was part of an "ongoing.multi-jurisdictional criminal

13

investigation." that plaintiffs actions were under "internal review" and taking any

administrative action up until now "would have compromised some aspects of the largerprobe." Defendant Wray stated after he made these damaging allegations "connect thedots."

59.

Defendant Wray intentionally made false public statements to discredit

plaintiff in his profession and personal standing in the community. Plaintiffs standing inthe community and his professional reputation were in fact damaged by the statementsmade by defendant Wray.

60.

Shortly after the plaintiff was suspended, Defendant Wray instructed an

Assistant Chief of the Greensboro Police Department to contact one of the Local

Universities and advise them not to hire the plaintiff as an instructor for the university.61. Shortly after this incident, upon infonnation and belief, defendant Brady

advised homicide investigators that he would "sacrifice a homicide" in order to getplaintiff. Similarly situated white officers were not treated in this manner.

62.

Even though plaintiff had already been cleared of any wrongdoing by the

SID investigation, defendant Wray persisted in initiating an additional investigation ofplaintiff by hiring retired and former officers of the Internal Affairs Division. These

retired officers were assisted by Detectives Scott Sanders, Brian Bisset, and a PrivateInvestigator.

63.

Defendants Wray and Brady approved an additional investigation which

did not adhere to the Greensboro Police Department's policies and Standard OperatingProcedures. This additional investigation was completed on August 31, 2005 andaddressed seven concerns. The investigators stated that the infonnation discovered

14

concerning these areas ofconcern had no direct link to plaintiff nor did the information

reach a level where further investigations were warranted. It was recommended that nofurther action be taken concerning these issues.

64.

Defendant Wray was not satisfied with these findings. On August 31,

2005 defendant Wray advised the investigators to continue with an investigation. Theinvestigators conducted an additional investigation that addressed these same seven

allegations. These allegations were classified in such a manner that did not sustain anyDepartmental violations. The investigation was completed in early October 2005 by theinvestigators.

65.

Defendant Wray would not accept the findings and directed the

Commanding Officer ofthe Internal Affairs Division to edit the report. Before the reportwas edited Defendant Wray met with Defendant Brady and three other Assistant Chiefs

who were instructed by Defendant Wray to critique the investigation with reference to thecontent and the findings. Once these changes were made without any new evidence to

support the changes, the Commanding Officer of Internal Affairs Division merged the documents into a final draft, thus changing the original findings by the originalInvestigators. Similarly situated white officers were not treated in this manner.

66.

On June 5, 2005, defendant Wray placed plaintiff on leave without cause

and for the purpose ofdisparaging, discrediting, and ridiculing the plaintiff.67. While plaintiff was on leave, defendant Wray made additional false and

misleading public disparaging statements about plaintiff and his status with theGreensboro Police Department.

68.

Plaintiff was advised by an Executive Officer within llie ugcncv that

Detective Scott Sanders and another officer came to him on several occasions and

questioned him in reference to the plaintiffpossibly cheating on atest while attending theAdministrative Officers Management Program. They also questioned the Executive

Officer in reference to an accident which they stated plaintiff never reported whichinvolved a mirror on a vehicle being damaged. They also questioned the Executive

Officer in reference to a small non-profit which plaintiff operated to provide variousactivities for under privileged youth of Greensboro.

69.

Numerous investigations of plaintiff were allowed because the Special

Intelligence Division was able to operate in a cavalier and frivolous manner. Detectives

Scott Sanders and Brian Bisset were able to report directly to defendant Brady which

allowed them to bypass their Sergeant. Defendant Brady then kept defendant Wray infonned at all times as he carried out defendants' mission to discredit and destroyplaintiffs reputation and standing in the community.70. Plaintiff was ultimately reinstated in January 2006 and resumed his duties

with the hope and expectation that he would be treated fairly, but defendant Wraycontinued to treat plaintiff unfairly because of plaintiffs race.

71.

Defendant Wray, aided, abetted and joined by defendant Brady, falsely

and maliciously maligned the plaintiff in his trade and profession by initiating anunwarranted investigation ofthe plaintiff and by making false, misleading, and damagingstatements that plaintiff was suspected of illegal drug activity. Similarly situated whiteofficers were not treated in this manner.

16

72.

Defendant Wray's intentionally false public statements were calculated to

discredit plaintiff in his profession and personal standing in the community. Plaintiffs standing in the community and his professional reputation were in fact damaged by thestatements made by defendants.

73.74.

Since 2001, the plaintiU has not been promoted and has not received anyThe multiple frivolous investigations and surveillances against the plaintiff

awards orcommendations within the department.

represent a pattern ofmalicious and willful acts on the part ofdefendants to manufacture

and broadcast improper allegations against the plaintiff in an effort to ruin his career andreputation, and lead to the ultimate goal of incarcerating the plaintiff. These efforts werecarried out because of plaintiff s race.

75.

The actions taken by defendants were taken pursuant to an official

municipal policy or custom.

76.

Defendant Wray, as Chief of Police, had authority to establish municipal

policy with respect to the actions he ordered including the frivolous investigations and surveillances against plaintiff, the placement of plaintiffs photo in line-up books and line-up photographs that were stored on police laptop computers and in police folders and

documents which resulted in various versions of the "Black Book", the false reports toCity officials that plaintiff was engaged in wrongdoing and criminal activity, and

defendant Wray's false reports to the media that plaintiff was engaged in wrongdoing andcriminal activity.

77.

All of the acts of defendants described in this complaint were performed

by defendants under the color ofstate law, acting on behalfof the City of Greensboro.

17

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Discrimination On The Basis Of Rnce

78.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs.

79.

By the actions described above, defendants subjected plaintiff to

discrimination on the basis of his race in violation of federal law, 42 USC 1981 and 42USC 1983, and state law and policy. Acting under color of law and pursuant to an

official policy, practice or custom, defendants and the City of Greensboro intentionally,knowingly, and recklessly discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of his race with respect to the terms, conditions, privileges and suspension ofhis employment. 80. As a result ofthis discrimination by defendants, plaintiff has been denied

promotion and consideration for promotion due to his race.

81.

Similarly situated white employees were not treated in this manner.

Plaintiff was subjected to harassment by co-workers and various persons that were

supervisors within the agency. Plaintiff suffered adverse employment actions, includingsuspension and limited promotional opportunity, as part of this discrimination.

82.

Defendants Wray and Brady directly or indirectly approved and ratified

the unlawful, deliberate, malicious, reckless, and wanton conduct of defendants.

83.

Defendant's actions and omissions, in violation of federal and state law,

including 42 USC 1981 and 1983, were undertaken willfully, wantonly and with

reckless disregard for plaintiffs rights, entitling plaintiff to compensatory and punitivedamages in excess of $10,000.SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Conspiracy to Discriminate On The Basis Of Race

84.

Plaintiff rc-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs.

85.

Defendant Wray encouraged and promoted the discriminatory actions

against plaintiff by encouraging the use ofvarious versions ofthe "Black Book", the use

of police laptop computers with photos of plaintiff, and the placement of photos ofplaintiff in police folders and documents, to single out black officers, including plaintiff,in unnecessary and unauthorized investigations.

86.

Defendant Wray had final authority to establish municipal policy and

custom and police procedure and practice, and directed police subordinates to place

plaintiffs photo in various versions that represented the "Black Book" and/or on policelaptop computers and in police folders and various documents.

87.

By the racially disparate actions described above, defendants planned and

agreed among themselves and with others and non members of the Greensboro Police

Department to discriminate against plaintiff on the basis ofhis race with respect to theterms, conditions, privileges and suspension of his employment including promotion.Similarly situated white officers were not treated in this manner.

88.

Defendants created a scheme to discredit the hard work, dedication and

professional potential of plaintiff and other black officers by initiating unfoundedinvestigations on the basis of race.

89.

Defendants" actions in conspiring to violate plaintiffs employment rights

were in violation offederal and state law, including 42 USC 1981, 1983 and 1985.

19

W.

Defendants' actions and omissions were undertaken willfully, wantonly

and with reckless disregard for plaintiffs rights, entitling plaintiff to compensatory andpunitive damages in excess of $10,000.THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Conspiracy to Injure Plaintiff in His Reputation and Profession

91.92.

Plainti ff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs.Defendant Wray solicited, conspired with, and obtained the aid and

agreement of defendant Brady and other members of the Greensboro Police Department and other non members of the Greensboro Police Department in his actions to defame,discredit and libel the plaintiff in an attempt to harm, ruin, and destroy his careeropportunities in law enforcement, including opportunities with the Greensboro Police

Department, and to further destroy his reputation in the community.93. The acts of the defendants, as alleged herein, were unlawful and were

conducted in an unlawful manner in order to injure, discredit, destroy and jeopardize theplaintiffs position within the Greensboro Police Department and further to discredit hisreputation in the community at large.

94.

These actions of defendants were pursuant to a municipal policy and

custom and police policy and procedure and were calculated to and did deprive plaintiff

of rights and privileges protected by state and federal law, including 42 USC 1981,1983 and 1985.

95.

Defendants' actions were undertaken willfully, wantonly and with reckless

disregard for plaintiffs rights, entitling plaintiff to compensatory and punitive damagesin excess of SI 0,000.00.

20

DAMAGES

96.

As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the racial discrimination

claimed herein, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer pain and suffering, loss ofpast earnings and has been deprived of advancement of his career with Defendant City ofGreensboro.

97.

By reason of defendants' extreme and outrageous conduct, and as a

proximate result thereof, plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer mental strain and

distress, including extreme wony, humiliation and loss of his reputation both within theDepartment and within the community at large.CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, plaintiff prays the Court for reliefas follows:

1.

That he have and recover compensatory damages against the defendants in

an amount in excess of $10,000;

2.

That he have and recover punitive damages against the defendants in an

amount in excess of $ 10,000;

3.

That this matter betried before ajury; and

4.

That he have and recover such other and further relief as may be deemed

just and proper.

This is the %^ day of ^^^2010.Respectfully submitted,

ft

/James E. Ferguson, I ^I.C. Bar#1434) II

21

Laivena Jones-Phillips (N.C. Bair06N59)FERGUSON. STEIN. CHAMBERS. GRESHAM & SUMTER. P.A. 741 Kenilworth Avenue. Suite 300 Charlotte, NC 28204Phone: 704-375-8461 Fax: 704-334-5654

ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF

22