NO. JEFFERSON CIRCUIT couR’ DIVISION RAYMOND JAMES HARPER, PLAINTIFF v, VERIFIED COMPLAINT LOUISVILLE-JEFFERSON COUNTY METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT d/b/a LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT DEFENDANT 810 Barrett Avenue Louisville, Kentucky 40205 SERVE: Greg Fischer, Mayor Louisville Metro Hall 527 West Jefferson Street Louisville, KY 40202-2814 ‘The Plaintiff, Raymond James Harper, by counsel, for his Verified Complaint against Defendant, states the following: PARTIES 1. Raymond James Harper is and was at all times relevant to this action a resident of Jefferson County, Kentucky. 2. Defendant Louisville-Jefferson County Metropolitan Government is the successor government to the merged governments of the former city of Louisville and former Jefferson County pursuant to KRS 67C.101, This entity is authorized to conduct governmental business on behalf of the citizenry of the merged city and county, is sui generis, an the real party in interest to each of its included agencies, including the named Louisville Metropolitan Police 2 8 i(hereinafter, “LMPD"). JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. Subject matter jurisdiction over this action exists under Section 112 of the Kentucky Constitution because the amount in controversy, excluding interest, costs and attorney's fees, exceeds the jurisdictional prerequisites of this Court 5. Venue is proper in the Jefferson Circuit Court because the Plaintiff resides in Jefferson County; the Defendant is located and operates within Jefferson County; and all facts related to this Complaint occurred within Jefferson County. Kentucky. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 6. Plaintiff’ Harper became an Employee of the Louisville Police Department in September of 1990 and was sworn in as officer on December 7, 1991. 7. Plaintiff Harper functioned as a Patrol Officer until 1999, 8. In December of 1999, Plaintiff Harper was promoted to the rank of Sergeant and ‘was entrusted with command of the street crimes and gang squad from this time until 2003. 9. Plaintiff Harper was subsequently promoted to Lieutenant in August of 2005. 10, Plaintiff Harper was promoted to Major in April of 2008, and was assigned to the ixth Division, then the Seventh Division of the Louisville Police Department. 11. Plaintiff Harper was transferred as a Major in September 2010 to Command the Nareoties Division 12. In September 2012, Plaintiff Harper was transferred to the Third Division and served as Commander. 13, On or about March 2016, Plaintiff Harper was transferred to the Second Division and served as Commander. (000002 of 0000714. On September 15, 2016, LMPD announced that it would be dissolving the PLE} platoons. 15. On September 16, 2016, Mayor Greg Fischer asked Plaintiff Harper his opinion about Chief Conrad's decision to dissolve the Flex Platoon. 16. Plaintiff Harper told Mayor Fischer that he believed that dissolving the FLEX Platoon was the wrong choice and thet it would have serious negative effects in the community, especially in the West-End of Louisville, thereby raising his concerns of Chicf Conrad's mismanagement of LMPD. 17. On Monday, September 19, 2016, Plaintiff Harper was summoned to Police Chief Conrad’s office, where Chief Conrad told Plaintiff Harper that he should not be discussing LMPD. policy or strategy with Mayor Fischer, thereby violating KRS 61.102. 18. Plaintiff Harper provided information to Councilman David James about the Victory Park gang members in the form of an email dated October 17, 2016. 19. October 24, 2016, after Major Harper was served with a performance and observation and supplemental form, he was immediately summoned to Chief Conrad's office in reference to providing Councilman James with information related in a crime update about gang members signing a petition. 20. Chief Conrad told PlaintifT Harper that he was providing Councilman James, and other Councilmembers, with too much information about crimes, thereby violation KRS 61.102. 21. On or about December 2016, the Lousville-efferson County Metropolitan Government experienced a $6 million surplus, of which, the Louisville Metro Couneil allocated $1.2 million for immediate use for Violent Crime Reduction (VCR). 22. During the months of December 2016, through the last week of January 2017, SCORMICK. BISIG (630326) ‘com a90009 of 000007LMPD used the VCR monies at an accelerated pace, and without strategy from Chief Conrad’s office, by flooding high crime areas with offivers without coordination and proper planni 23. Plaintiff Harper questioned the use of the VCR funds, and attempted to implement a strategy for the Second Division's use of overtime, but was overruled for doing so. 24, — Violent crimes continued to escalate, 25. Plaintiff Harper informed members of the Louisville Metro Council that the VCR money was b 1g wasted and mismanaged, because of a lack of strategy and because money ‘appeared to have been spent on items other than overtime for officers, thereby raising concerns protected by KRS 61.102. 26. Plaintiff Harper consistently, (as it is law enforcement’s duty to warn) since April 2016, provided actual crime reporting and data via the true erime statistics in the form of raw UCR, crime updates, specific crime mapping, and other important crime information to Metro Council members to provide an accurate perspective of the actual crimes that have been taking place in Louisville, thereby raising concerns protected by KRS 61.102. 27. On May 24, 2017, at approximately 4:00 p.m., Chief Conrad informed Plaintiff Harper that he (Conrad) was giving Plaintiif Harper a choice, either retire immediately or be demoted to Lieutenant, thereby violating KRS 61.102. 28. On May 24, 2017, Plaintiff Harper sent a Memorandum to LMPD Police Chief Steve Conrad informing him that instead of accepting a forced retirement, Plaintiff Harper would take the only alternative, a demotion. (Exhibit 2) 29. On May 25, 2017, Chief Conrad announced to the Louisville Metro Council, that he would be promoting, effective May 26, 2017, three Lieutenants as a result of the anticipate retirements within his Command Staff. ‘com 090008 ot 00000730. On May 26, 2017, Plaintiff Harper was demoted from Second Division Commander, Police Major, with the Louisville Metro Police Department to Lieutenant in command of the River Patrol. (Exhibit 3) 31. The River Patrol is comprised ofa Sergeant and three Officers. 32, No Lieutenant had ever been assigned as the Commander of the River Patrol previously. I. CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF WHISTLEBLOWER ACT (KRS § 61.101, et seq.) 33. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as set forth fully herein, each and every averment, allegation, or statement contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint. 34. Defendant's actions against Plaintiff resulted in injuries pursuant to KRS 61.101, et seq, which provides, generally, protections ftom reprisal and/or retalia jon against public employees who, in good faith, report any facts or information relative to actual or suspected mismanagement, waste, fraud, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, 35. Plaintiff Harper was at all times relevant hereto an “employee” within the scope of the definition set forth in KRS 61.101(1). 36. Defendant was at all times relevant hereto the “employer” of the Plaintiff within the scope of the definition set forth in KRS 61.101(2), 37. During his employment by Defendant, Plaintiff made good faith reports of facts and information relative to actual or suspected mismanagement, waste, fraud, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety by his reports to Louisville Metro Council Members, Mayor Fischer, and his superior officers in LMPD. 8 3 ‘com : 600005 of 00000738. Because of Plaintiff's reports and di losures, Plaintiff Harper was subjected to retaliation and reprisal in the form of a written counselling statement and by being forced by Chief Conrad either to retire or to accept a demotion from the rank of Major to Licutenant that also included a retaliatory transfer to the River Patrol. 39. ‘The aforementioned conduct of the Defendant was committed in violation of KRS 61.101, ef seg. 40, As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct, Plaintiff has suffered great emotional distress or embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish, and wage loss, all of which exceed the minimal jurisdictional limits of this Court WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Raymond James Harper, by counsel, respectfully demands as follows: 1. An award of general and compensatory damag against the named Defendant for the loss of income, embarrassment, humiliation, and mental anguish, suffered by the Plaintiff; 2. For injunctive relief; Punitive damages for the Defendant's conduct; 4. Trial by jury on any and all issues so triable; 5. Attorney's fees and expenses incurred herein and the costs of this action; and 6. Any and all other relief 10 which the Plaintiff may appear entitled. Respecifully submitted, THOMAS &. CLAY, PS.C 462 S. Fourth Street Meidinger Tower, Suite 1730 Louisville, KY 40202 Counsel for Plaintiff ELA MCCORMICK. BISI6 63092 5 : gVERIFICATION 1, Raymond James Harper, state that I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint, and the statement contained therein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief, Raymdnd James ay i, Subscribed and swom to before me by Raymond James Harper on this \&* Slay of June, 2017, My commission expires: "I- R190 \& 7 Bx NOTARY PUBLIC, KY STATE AT LARGE, 3 : 8 :