Case 2:12-cv-00788-DKD Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 1 of 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Larry J. Cohen, Esq. Arizona State Bar No.: 010192 The Cohen Law Firm P. O. Box 10056 Phoenix, AZ 85064 (602) 266-3080 602-265-6866 FAX ljc@ljcohen.com Attorney for Plaintiffs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

MARIA BRANDON and JERRY BRANDON, wife and husband Plaintiff(s),

Case No.: ____________________

COMPLAINT vs. (Jury Trial Requested) TOM LIDDY and STACY LIDDY, husband and wife; ROCKY ARMFIELD and CHRIS ARMFIELD, husband and wife; MARICOPA COUNTY, a municipal entity; and JOHN DOES I-V Defendant(s).

Plaintiffs Maria Brandon and Jerry Brandon, for their Complaint against Defendants, hereby allege as follows:

-1-

Case 2:12-cv-00788-DKD Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 2 of 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 5. 2. 1.

JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS Plaintiffs have satisfied all the provisions of A.R.S. 12-821.01 by timely serving

Notice of Claim more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the filing of this Complaint. Defendants denied the Notice of Claim by failing to respond thereto. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, the United States Constitution

(certain Amendments), and other pendent statutory and state common laws. 3. This Court has jurisdiction of Plaintiffs federal law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331

and 42 U.S.C. 1988. Additionally, this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state and federal claims pursuant to Article 6, Section 14 of the Arizona Constitution. 4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), as the parties are

residents of Maricopa County, Arizona, and the events underlying this lawsuit occurred in Maricopa County. GENERAL LITIGATION ALLEGATIONS At all times material herein, Plaintiffs Maria Brandon (Brandon or Plaintiff or

Plaintiff Brandon) and Jerry Brandon were a married couple residing in Maricopa County, Arizona. Between September 1979 and June 2011, Plaintiff Maria Brandon was employed to practice law by Defendant Maricopa County in various capacities and in various offices. 6. At all times material herein, Defendant Rocky Armfield (Armfield or Risk Manager

Armfield) was the Risk Manager and/or the Risk Management Claims Manager or Assistant Risk Manager of Maricopa County with authority and responsibility for the Maricopa County Risk Management Department, its employees and agents, and with the authority and responsibility to establish policy, practices, customs, procedures, protocols and training for the -2-

Case 2:12-cv-00788-DKD Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 3 of 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Risk Management Department and an official and final policymaker for Maricopa County Risk Management Department. His actions and inactions constitute actions of Maricopa County, and the County is vicariously and directly liable for his wrongful conduct, as alleged herein. As the appointed Risk Manager and/or Claims Manager/Assistant Risk Manager appointed by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Armfield has official, vicarious, direct, individual, and/or supervisory liability for the County and its officers, agents, and employees. 7. Chris Armfield is the spouse of Defendant Rocky Armfield and is so designated

because the wrongful conduct of Defendant Armfield was engaged in for the benefit of their marital community, thereby rendering his spouse and marital community liable for such conduct. 8. Between April 18, 2011 and June 27, 2011, Defendant Tom Liddy was the Practice

Group Leader and supervisor of the newly-created Litigation Group of the Maricopa County Attorneys Office (MCAO), Civil Services Division. As such, Defendant Liddy had authority and responsibility for managing and assigning Maricopa County Risk Management lawsuits within his group, and had the authority and responsibility to establish policy, practices, customs, procedures, protocols and training for the Litigation Group, and was an official and final policymaker for MCAO and for Maricopa County. His actions and inactions constitute actions of MCAO and Maricopa County, and the County is vicariously and directly liable for his wrongful conduct, as alleged herein. 9. Stacy Liddy is the spouse of Defendant Tom Liddy and is so designated because the

wrongful conduct of Defendant Liddy was engaged in for the benefit of their marital community, thereby rendering his spouse and marital community liable for such conduct. -3-

Case 2:12-cv-00788-DKD Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 4 of 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

10.

Defendant Maricopa County (the County) is a public entity, formed and designated as

such pursuant to Title 11 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, and it and its officers and divisions are subject to civil suit and may be held independently or vicariously liable for the wrongful conduct of its divisions, agents, officers, and employees, including the members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, the officers and employees of its division, County Attorney William Montgomery, the Maricopa County Attorneys Office and its officers, agents and employees. 11. Defendant John Does I-V were employees, managers and/or policymakers of Maricopa

County with authority and responsibility for Maricopa County, its employees and agents, and with the authority and responsibility to establish policy, practices, customs, procedures, protocols and training for Maricopa County. Their actions and inactions constitute actions of Maricopa County, and the County is vicariously and directly liable for their wrongful conduct, as alleged herein. John Does I-V have official, vicarious, direct, individual, and/or supervisory liability for the County and its officers, agents, and employees. 12. At all material times herein, Defendants Armfield, Maricopa County and Liddy and their

officers, agents and employees were acting within the scope of their employment and under color of law. These Defendants and their officers, agents and employees engaged in wrongful conduct that allowed, caused, and/or contributed to cause the violations of Ms. Brandons rights. Their actions and /or inactions constitute actions of Maricopa County and Maricopa County is vicariously and directly liable for their wrongful conduct.

-4-

Case 2:12-cv-00788-DKD Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 5 of 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 16. 14. 13.

FACTUAL BASIS Plaintiff Brandon worked continually for Maricopa County from September 1979 to In January 1986, she transferred to the County Attorneys Office, Civil

June 10, 2011.

Division, Litigation Group, and stayed there until August 21, 2009, when she moved to the newly-created Maricopa County Office of Special Litigation Services (Special Litigation), under Director Richard Stewart. On April 18, 2011, Special Litigation was closed, and all the employees including Brandon were brought back into the Maricopa County Attorneys Office newly-created Civil Services Division. Brandon was a 1975 graduate of the Sandra D. OConnor College of Law at Arizona

State University where she served as an Articles Editor for the Law Journal. In 1998, Brandon was given a Special Litigation Recognition Award by then-County Attorney Richard Romley for her advice and work in effecting a large settlement on the so-called Pre-AHCCCS cases. In 1999, Plaintiff Brandon was named, Civil Attorney of the Year. Throughout her years at the Civil Division, Brandon received Commendations, Special Litigation Recognition Awards and Peak Performance Awards. 15. Brandon won most of the cases she tried to a jury on behalf of Maricopa County,

Maricopa Medical Center, Correctional Health Services, and the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office. In 2010, she tried two excessive-force civil rights cases to a federal jury on behalf of Maricopa County Sheriffs Office (MCSO) detention officers; she won the first and in the second case, kept the jury award to one dollar ($1.) In 2004, a new County Attorney was elected, Andrew Thomas. Andrew Thomas and the

County Board of Supervisors reached an impasse over who was going to appoint the attorneys -5-

Case 2:12-cv-00788-DKD Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 6 of 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

to represent the Board both in-house, i.e., within the Civil Division, and among outside counsel. Andrew Thomas removed in-house attorneys the Board preferred. The Board suspected

Andrew Thomas was choosing to send cases to friends of his that were not the best choice in a particular case, and the Board was suspicious of the amounts being paid these attorneys.

17.

On March 27, 2007, Andrew Thomas exercised his power and transferred five of the

seven attorneys in the Civil Division Litigation Group to Initial Appearance (IA) Court in the Maricopa County Jail on the night shift and shipped the cases assigned to them (about 160 cases) to outside counsel. 18. The Board had to pay the bills incurred by outside counsel on these cases and the outside

counsel costs went up markedly.

19.

This was the beginning of a high-profile feud with the Maricopa County Board of

Supervisors, who were responsible for allocating funds to his office. This feud, in which Andrew Thomas was joined by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, resulted in a number of lawsuits. On December 2, 2008, Andrew Thomas indicted two members of the County Board of Supervisors on various felony and misdemeanor charges. The indictments were eventually dismissed. 20. In 2009, the Board pulled their lawsuits and work from the County Attorney Andrew

Thomas Civil Division. They created two new legal offices directly under county management: The Office of General Litigation (hereinafter, General Litigation) and Special Litigation. They sent almost all the county in-house legal work to these legal offices. 21. Due to a conflict between former Sheriff Arpaio and the Director of General Litigation,

lawsuits where Arpaio, MCSO or his employees were defendants were sent to Special -6-

Case 2:12-cv-00788-DKD Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 7 of 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Litigation; the remaining lawsuits that did not involve Thomas, Arpaio or a conflict were sent to General Litigation. 22. Andrew Thomas filed a lawsuit against the county arguing that it was he and not the

county that had the power under Arizona law to provide legal representation on advice and litigation matters to the county, and therefore these two newly-created offices were not legally created. 23. Superior Court Judge Daughton ruled in Thomas favor but indicated that in the

circumstances where there was a conflict, the county could seek other counsel. 24. The county appealed Judge Daughtons ruling by filing a Special Action in the Arizona

Court of Appeals. On October 28, 2010, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the County Attorneys office in Romley v. Daughton, 241 P.3d 518 (2010). The county decided not to appeal further and to shut down the offices of General Litigation and Special Litigation which they did on April 15, 2011. On April 18, 2011, all employees in General Litigation and Special Litigation returned to the County Attorneys Office, Civil Division. 25. In 2010, as the high-profile feud escalated, some in county management began to use the

countys self-insured trust to reward political friends such as anti-Arpaio and anti-Thomas protestors. They also sought to punish Arpaio and Thomas politically by paying more than necessary to settle his claims and lawsuits and then publicly blaming the costs on Arpaio and on Thomas and their mismanagement. 26. Attorneys in Special Litigation who were under the chain of command of county

management but providing representation to Arpaio and Thomas as their attorneys, refused on ethical grounds to go along with this behavior. -7-

Case 2:12-cv-00788-DKD Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 8 of 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

27.

An attempt was made to keep these attorneys from returning to the County Attorneys

office. When this was opposed by newly-elected County Attorney Bill Montgomery, a scheme was devised to circumvent the merit system so the salaries of these employees could be slashed and/or they could be fired without the right to appeal. 28. Rocky Armfield was hired as Claims Manager in January 2010 and promoted to Risk

Manager, reporting directly to Deputy County Manager/Budget Director Sandi Wilson, later in 2010. 29. In 2010, Plaintiff Brandon, S. Lee White, and Klaus Peter Muthig were line attorneys in

Special Litigation. 30. Rocky Armfield made efforts to negate, intimidate, and to retaliate against Special

Litigation attorneys exercising their independent judgment, violating his ethical duties to the Maricopa County self-insured trust. 31. In February 2010, Risk Management adjuster Jacquie Garrett, who was assigned to

adjust three lawsuits filed by a group of seven (7) anti-Arpaio protestors arising from incidents on December 15th and 17th, and Brandon decided requested settlement authority of $7500 for each protestor, a total of $52,500. 32. At the end of April 2010, Rocky Armfield sent Brandon an email explaining that he had

obtained additional authority of up to $100,000 per protestor, and that he was adding the claim of Randy Parraz, a political activist who was not arrested or a participant on December 15th and December 17th and had not yet filed a lawsuit. 33. Armfield did this without the prior knowledge of anyone at MCSO or of Brandon, who

was the attorney assigned to the MCSO and MCAO defendants on these cases. -8-

Case 2:12-cv-00788-DKD Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 9 of 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

34.

Rocky Armfield was told repeatedly by Brandon and by his adjuster, Jacquie Garrett,

that there were defenses and motions that could be applied to these cases to reduce or eliminate the liability for the defendants and the self-insured trust. For example, Mr. Parrazs notice of claim had been untimely filed, but Armfield was intent on pushing these political cases to an early mediation and an early monetary settlement. 35. In preparation for the mediation, MCSO requested an update from Brandon. In response,

on Friday, July 2, 2010, Brandon sent MCSO a confidential attorney/client privileged email that summarized the background. The mediation was held on Tuesday, July 6, 2010. 36. During the mediation, Rocky Armfield entered the room designated for the

MCSO/MCAO representatives and asked Plaintiff, I want your opinion. Did Hendershott violate the cooperation clause under the trust agreement by putting a litigation hold on Skelly? Jacquie Garrett said, I think its inappropriate that you are asking the lawyer representing the Sheriff her opinion on withholding coverage. Thats a really tough spot to be in. Rocky Armfield said: Im just bouncing it off you. Can I withhold coverage against your client? Plaintiff Brandon said nothing at all during this entire exchange. She picked up a yellow pad and took notes on the conversation as it was occurring. 37. Referring to the depositions of members of the Board of Supervisors the protestors were

seeking, Armfield had told Plaintiff Brandon, youll pull your punches. 38. The lawsuits were settled at the mediation over MCSOs objections, as follows: Theilen

received $99,999; Monica Sandschafer received $99,999; Odhner received $75,000; Nelson $75,000; Bethancourt $50,000; Millan $50,000 and Teran $24,700. Randy Parraz did not settle his claim at that time. -9-

Case 2:12-cv-00788-DKD Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 10 of 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

39.

The Arizona Republic obtained a copy of Plaintiff Brandons July 2, 2010 confidential,

attorney/client email that was addressed to MCSO Chief Hendershott. It is unknown how they obtained this email. Neither Plaintiff Brandon nor anyone at Special Litigation gave them the email. The Republic published a front page article regarding the settlement amount of $424,700 for seven protestors who were booked and released, and where there were no claims of excessive force or physical injuries. One protestor, who had not been booked or taken to jail but had only received a citation in the mail, received $24,700 in settlement funds at the mediation. 40. Reporters Craig Harris and Yvonne Wingett wrote in the July 9, 2010 article in The

Arizona Republic, in pertinent part: . . . Records obtained by The Republic show the county intended to pay much less. Maria Brandon is an attorney who works in the countys office of special -litigation services. She was appointed to represent the Sheriffs Office. In memos sent to the Sheriffs Office days before the July 6 mediation hearing, Brandon stated that the county intended to start discussions with an offer of $2000 per person and had no intention of giving away a lot of money. She indicated she received approval from the county trust in February to pay only up to $7500 per plaintiff. The county increased the payouts because, according to one of Brandons memos . . . Assistant Risk Manager Rocky Armfield later went to the trust without her knowledge and received authority to pay up to $100,000 per plaintiff. I dont know why they did what they did, and Im sure they have their reasons, Brandon said in an interview. . . .

41.

Rocky Armfield telephoned Brandon demanding a copy for county management of the Brandon and the Director of Special

memorandum obtained by The Arizona Republic.

Litigation determined that they could not give Armfield a copy of the memorandum under the ethical rules, because it had been written to client MCSO as confidential and protected by the

-10-

Case 2:12-cv-00788-DKD Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 11 of 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

attorney/client privilege; Armfield was directed that he needed to obtain it from the Sheriffs Office. 42. Armfield immediately retaliated against Plaintiff Brandon and against Special Litigation

for the newspaper article by pulling cases from her representation. The first email Brandon received pulling a case was dated July 15, 2010. 43. In the succeeding weeks, Armfield ordered that Special Litigation copy all their case

files (at a cost of more than $12,800) and provide the copies to General Litigation for representation of MCSO and MCAO employees. This was done even though General

Litigation attorneys could not represent Sheriff Arpaio himself or Andrew Thomas himself due to the conflict. 44. This split representation was ordered by Rocky Armfield and county management

despite the doubling of costs to the taxpayer to have two offices providing representation and the opportunity for that representation to be inconsistent. 45. Rocky Armfield and John Does I-V split the defense on each case, requiring the

representation of defendants other than Sheriff Arpaio himself and County Attorney Thomas himself, be sent to General Litigation, even where the cases were nearly finished. The deputies, detention officers, MCSO, MCAO and all other employees would be represented by General Litigation. 46. On August 30, 2010, Rocky Armfield advised Special Litigation that Risk Management

would be issuing reservation of rights letters on cases where claims for punitive damages were asserted. Since punitive damages were normally claimed in civil rights cases, MCSO deputies

-11-

Case 2:12-cv-00788-DKD Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 12 of 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

and detention officers sued by inmates would receive these letters. The letters warned those sued that they may have to pay damages out of their own pockets. 47. Special Litigation, concerned about possible ethical issues presented by the reservation

of rights letters, researched the issue and eventually asked outside counsel at Lewis Brisbois for an opinion as to their ethical obligations vis a vis their clients. Upon receiving the Lewis Brisbois opinion, the Director of Special Litigation wrote a letter to Rocky Armfield outlining the issues and the opinion from Lewis Brisbois. The Special Litigation letter further angered Rocky Armfield, and he sent Special Litigation a letter demanding that they disregard the Lewis Brisbois opinion, or else immediately return all Risk cases to Risk Management. 48. From that date on, Armfield refused to send any Risk cases at all to Special Litigation;

all Risk cases where representation of the Sheriff or County Attorney was required were sent to outside counsel at additional taxpayer expense. From November 2010 until April 2011, Special Litigation received no new Risk cases. 49. On November 22, 2010, the newly-elected County Attorney Bill Montgomery was

sworn into office replacing Interim County Attorney Richard Romley who, earlier in 2010, in turn replaced former-County Attorney Andrew Thomas who had resigned in April 2010. 50. Soon after he took office on November 22, 2011, County Attorney William Montgomery

stated that he intended to fold General Litigation and Special Litigation back into the Civil Division of the County Attorneys Office. Doug Irish was named to head the new Civil Services Division. 51. It took from November 22, 2010 until late March 2011, for County Attorney

Montgomery to negotiate the details with county management. -12-

Case 2:12-cv-00788-DKD Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 13 of 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

52.

During these five months, John Does I-V, unknown policymakers for Maricopa County,

set up a salary structure that protected the salaries of attorneys at General Litigation who had represented county management, but slashed the salaries of attorneys from Special Litigation who had represented Arpaio/MCSO and Thomas/MCAO. 53. The new salary structure had the effect of punishing attorneys perceived by some as

political enemies in the county feud because they represented Sheriff Arpaio, even though that was what they were hired to do. 54. All three line-attorneys in Special Litigation had their salaries significantly reduced

under the new salary structure. As of April 18, 2011, the Special Litigation attorneys received the following reductions in salary: Attorney S. Lee Whites salary was reduced by $29,640 (about a 30% reduction); K. Peter Muthigs salary was reduced by $17,971 and Plaintiff Brandons salary was reduced by $7737. 55. Rocky Armfield and John Does I-V reportedly insisted that the Special Litigation

attorneys (Brandon, White and Muthig) not be given Risk cases or trials when they were brought back to the MCAO Civil Services Division. 56. To this end, Armfield and John Does I-V held meetings with Tom Liddy and others

demanding Brandon be fired. Tom Liddy eventually took Brandon and S. Lee White off Risk cases as demanded. Liddy took Plaintiff Brandon off all her remaining Risk cases on Tuesday, June 7, 2011. 57. Under the plan developed during the five months of negotiation between Bill

Montgomery and county management, all attorneys brought back from General Litigation and Special Litigation were to be placed on probation despite the fact that many had worked for the -13-

Case 2:12-cv-00788-DKD Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 14 of 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

county for 20 or even 30 years. Plaintiff Brandon was placed on probation despite the fact that she had worked for Maricopa County continually for 33 years. 58. Placing the attorneys on probation was significant because it would allow management

to circumvent the countys own merit system, despite the fact that it was the countys own actions over the feud for the preceding several years that took these long-standing employees, moved their work and the attorneys themselves around in a series of unprecedented structural reorganizations. 59. The week of April 18, 2011, Liddy, now Practice Group Leader of the litigation group

told Plaintiff Brandon that Sandi Wilson and Rocky Armfield were demanding Risk cases not be assigned to her and that she be fired due to the newspaper article about the protest cases that had appeared in The Arizona Republic in July 2010. 60. Liddy said he attended one meeting alone with Assistant County Manager/Budget

Director/Interim HR Director Sandi Wilson with no written agenda, and she began the meeting by asking, What are you going to do about Maria Brandon? Liddy likened the atmosphere to the post-Civil War, Reconstruction period when there were lynchings. 61. Once Liddy became aware of county managements position regarding Brandon, his

attitude and treatment of her shifted. On May 19, 2011, Liddy told her that Sandi Wilson and Rocky Armfield were relentless in their demands that she be taken off Risk cases and fired. When Brandon protested this treatment, Liddy lost his temper and started yelling at her in a booming voice. As yelling at subordinates has always been against policy at MCAO, Brandon returned to her office and documented this incident.

-14-

Case 2:12-cv-00788-DKD Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 15 of 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

62.

Rocky Armfield and John Does I-V gave two reasons to Liddy for wanting Brandon

fired: First, the July 9, 2010 Arizona Republic article involving the protestors settlement; and Second, Sandi Wilson said Brandons advice 13 years earlier on the so-called pre-AHCCCS cases. Brandon had been one of several attorneys in the County Attorneys Office who settled a large backlog of pre-AHCCCS cases that occurred prior to 1998. Brandon had been given a Special Recognition Award in 1998 by County Attorney Richard Romley for her advice and work on those cases. Moreover, County Attorney Richard Romley himself had advised the Board of Supervisors directly and participated in the extended settlement negotiations. 63. At the time in 1998, Sandi Wilson objected to paying the settlement at the time and she

has been instrumental in the countys refusal to settle the pre-AHCCCS cases that arose in the year between 1998 and the changing of the law in 2000. In the thirteen years since, every court that had looked at these cases, had ruled consistently with Brandon and MCAOs advice. Every county in the state of Arizona except for Maricopa County has settled their pre-AHCCCS cases. By spring 2011, the potential judgment amount against Maricopa County had grown from several million dollars to reportedly more than $85 million dollars, including $11 million in attorneys fees 64. In response, Brandon sent Liddy two emails on May 20, 2011 and May 23, 2011,

answering the concerns that Sandi Wilson raised. Brandon asked Liddy to forward them up the chain of command to Doug Irish and Bill Montgomery. But Liddys comments at the moment Brandon was fired suggest that he had not forwarded these emails up the chain as requested. Brandon brought her Special Litigation Recognition Award into the office and gave a copy to Liddy asking him to send it also up the chain. -15-

Case 2:12-cv-00788-DKD Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 16 of 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

65.

On Monday, June 6, 2011 at 5:30 pm, Liddy told Brandon that County Attorney

Montgomery had decided not to file a lawsuit over her. Liddy asked her for a list of risk cases that she was still assigned to, so that they could be reassigned. 66. Two weeks after the first dismissal letter, Brandon received a second letter that indicated

she was being reinstated for two weeks and then released again, due to an error made by MCAO in the first letter, which had been based on the wrong Merit Rule. 67. The county feud created an us-versus-them climate, and that climate was intensified

by Rocky Armfield and John Does I-V, and their retaliation and slander against the attorneys in Special Litigation, and Maria Brandon in particular. This was damaging to her professional and personal reputation and constituted workplace bullying, mobbing, and harassment and led to repeated infringements on Plaintiff Brandons personal dignity. 68. The Defendants, both before and after Brandons dismissal, intentionally harmed

Plaintiffs professional reputation by publically defaming, slandering, spreading lies and untruths about her, and violating her privacy rights. They stigmatized and defamed her

professional reputation in connection with her dismissal while encouraging others, their agents and employees to do so as well. 69. The feuding-retaliatory atmosphere created by John Does I-V, Armfield and Liddy

enabled a support staff employee to feel sufficiently empowered to physically grab Plaintiffs upper arm and yell abusively at her while pointing her finger in Plaintiffs face. This occurred about 8:30 am on Wednesday, June 8, 2011 in the 10th floor hallway of the MCAO Civil Services Division, within hearing distance of three other employees.

-16-

Case 2:12-cv-00788-DKD Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 17 of 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

70.

Liddy was not in the office at the time of this assault. In his absence, Brandon went to Later that morning, Brandon and the The support staff

Doug Irishs office and told him what happened.

witnesses went to MCAO administration and gave official statements.

employee who assaulted Brandon was disciplined and given five days suspension without pay. Another employee, an attorney, was disciplined by verbal counseling for fomenting the hostility by telling the support staff employee that Brandon was being taken off all Risk cases and that it was Risk Management and not County Attorney Bill Montgomery who would decide who handled cases. 71. Later in the afternoon on June 8, 2011, Liddy took Brandon to the Wyndham lobby and

admonished her for going to Doug Irish. He said when he returned to the office he got a call from Bill Montgomery, and Montgomery said, What the hell is going on down there? Liddy was upset about the way it looked to Montgomery because he was out of the office at the time the incident occurred. Liddy tried to minimize the incident. He seemed unfamiliar with the law, and unfamiliar with the details of the incident, as he did not know it took place in the hallway. 72. On Friday, June 10, 2011 at about 1:30 pm, Liddy fired Brandon. He did this to curry

personal political favor with county management and to provide cover for himself for his absence in the office on Wednesday morning, June 8th, during the support staff employees outburst. 73. Liddy admitted it was he and only he who made the decision to fire Brandon to everyone

in a litigation group meeting that was held just after Brandon was handed her dismissal letter.

-17-

Case 2:12-cv-00788-DKD Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 18 of 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

In this meeting, Liddy warned all his employees that this is what happens if you go around him to Doug Irish or anyone in MCAO management about anything. He then told his staff lies about Brandon, mischaracterizing details from Brandons HR file. He threatened his staff that what he was telling them, should not leave the room. 74. Liddy repeated these lies and mischaracterizations to other employees on an individual

basis in the days that followed. He continued to tell employees what was in the HR files of Brandon and another employee fired simultaneously with Brandon. 75. Moments after Liddy and Irish gave Brandon a dismissal letter, and while she was

packing up, Liddy came back into her office and in front of the security guards said, You can take your emails with you. Make sure you take your emails with you. He repeated this several times, concerned that someone would find the emails written on May 20 and 23rd in response to the demands from Sandi Wilson, Rocky Armfield, and John Does I-V that Brandon be fired. Brandon sent these emails to Liddy so that he could pass them up to Irish and Montgomery, but he apparently had not done sent Brandons emails up the chain of command. 76. Despite her many years of public service, Plaintiff Brandon lost her work, her annual

salary of about $134,000 and later of about $126,000, her familys medical insurance, and her reputation. Prior to June 10th, Plaintiff had never been dismissed or asked to leave a job in her life.

-18-

Case 2:12-cv-00788-DKD Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 19 of 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 80. 77.

COUNT I Violation of Fourteenth Amendment Rights of Due Process under 42 U.S.C.1983: Deprivation of Property Interest and Liberty Interest in Employment (All Defendants) Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in each of the

preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if set forth fully herein. 78. At all times material herein, Defendants were acting under color of law and in the scope

of their employment as officials of Maricopa County. 79. Pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.1983, the wrongful conduct of Defendants

alleged in this Complaint violated Plaintiff Brandons Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process of law guaranteed to all citizens of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment. The wrongful conduct of these Defendants was pursued with an unconstitutional motive and malice and without equal protection or due process in an attempt to circumvent the countys own Merit Commission Rules and/or fundamental guarantees of fairness and deprive Plaintiff Brandon of her liberty interest and property interest in her 33-year job and career with Maricopa County, which included continually working for MCAO (or SPECIAL LITIGATION as reconstituted) for every day of the past 25 years. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants wrongful conduct as alleged herein,

Plaintiff Brandons constitutional rights were violated and she was injured and suffered harm. 81. The wrongful conduct of Defendants as alleged in this Complaint was undertaken with

malice and/or improper and unconstitutional motives in an attempt to interfere with conduct protected by the U.S. Constitution and to treat her differently than others similarly situated. The acts of Defendants were under color of state law and were malicious and in reckless disregard -19-

Case 2:12-cv-00788-DKD Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 20 of 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

of violating Plaintiff Brandons constitutional rights, and were intended to violate her due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. 82. As a result punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury should be awarded

against Defendants to punish them for wrongdoing and to prevent them and others from acting in a similar manner in the future.

COUNT II Violation of Fourteenth Amendment Rights of Due Process under 42 U.S.C.1983: Deprivation of Liberty Interest in Professional Reputation (All Defendants) 83. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in each of the

preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if set forth fully herein. 84. At all times material herein, Defendants were acting under color of law and in the scope

of their employment as officials of Maricopa County. 85. Pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.1983, the wrongful conduct of Defendants

alleged in this Complaint violated Plaintiff Brandons Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process of law guaranteed to all citizens of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment. The wrongful conduct of these Defendants was pursued with an unconstitutional motive and malice and without equal protection or due process. The Defendants both before and after

23 24 25 26 27 -20Plaintiffs dismissal deprived Plaintiff Brandon of her liberty interest in her professional reputation by defaming, slandering, libeling, spreading lies and untruths about her that were false and made public, and stigmatized and defamed her professional reputation in connection

Case 2:12-cv-00788-DKD Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 21 of 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

with her dismissal. Despite Plaintiffs request for a hearing through counsel, said request for a hearing was denied. 86. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants wrongful conduct as alleged herein,

Plaintiff Brandons constitutional rights were violated and she was injured and suffered harm. 87. The wrongful conduct of Defendants as alleged in this Complaint was undertaken with

malice and/or improper and unconstitutional motives in an attempt to interfere with conduct protected by the U.S. Constitution and to treat her differently than others similarly situated. The acts of Defendants were under color of state law and were malicious and in reckless disregard of violating Plaintiff Brandons constitutional rights, and were intended to violate her due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. 88. As a result punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury should be awarded

against Defendants to punish them for wrongdoing and to prevent them and others from acting in a similar manner in the future. COUNT III Violations of 42 U.S.C.1983: Unconstitutional Policies, Customs and Failure to Train (Defendants Rocky Armfield, John Does I-V, and Maricopa County) 89. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in each of the

preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if set forth fully herein. 90. Defendants Risk Manager Rocky Armfield, John Does I-V, and Defendant Maricopa

23 24 25 26 27 -21County itself are official policy makers for Maricopa County. Defendants Armfield, John Does I-V, and Maricopa County have the authority and responsibility to establish policy for

Case 2:12-cv-00788-DKD Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 22 of 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Maricopa County and to properly supervise and train the officers, agents and employees of Maricopa County. Their actions are the actions of the County. 91. At all material times, Defendants Armfield, John Does I-V, and Maricopa County were

acting under color of law in their capacity as officials of Maricopa County. 92. At all material times, Defendants Armfield, John Does I-V, Maricopa County and have

oversight and supervisory responsibility over their departments and employees; responsibility for hiring, proper screening, retention and training of their employees and departments; and responsibility over promulgating policies for their departments, for their employees and for Maricopa County. 93. As alleged herein, these Defendants independently and in concert with one another

violated Plaintiff Brandons constitutional rights and failed to adopt formal and informal constitutional policies, procedures and protocols to ensure due process, equal protection and freedom of expression and the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. 94. Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff in failing to train their officers,

agents, and employees in appropriate, lawful, and constitutional policies, procedures, and protocols and by failing to adequately supervise their officers, agents, and employees in the appropriate, lawful and constitutional policies, procedures and protocols. 95. As alleged herein, these Defendants permitted the implementation of inappropriate,

unconstitutional, de facto policies which authorized, approved, condoned, and/or ratified unconstitutional practices and failed to adequately train and supervise their personnel in these and other relevant areas.

-22-

Case 2:12-cv-00788-DKD Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 23 of 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

96.

The wrongful conduct of these Defendants as alleged in this Complaint constitutes

violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983, in that they deprived Plaintiff Brandon of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to her by the U.S. Constitution and laws of the United States and their wrongful conduct was the moving force behind the violations of Plaintiffs rights by their agents, employees, officers, and personnel. 97. The wrongful conduct of Defendants alleged herein constitutes violations of the U.S.

Constitution including violations to Amendments I and XIV, in that Plaintiff was subjected to retaliatory conduct with an unconstitutional motive and without equal protection or due process in an attempt to chill Plaintiffs free speech, and to intimidate, harass, and exact revenge for her involvement in the publishing of the newspaper article on July 9, 2010 as alleged previously and for her legal representation of the Sheriff and MCAO on civil rights cases. 98. As the direct and proximate result of Defendants wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs

constitutional rights were violated and she has suffered harm and has been injured. 99. The acts and omissions of these Defendants under color of law as alleged herein were

malicious, punitive, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiffs rights. 100. As a result, punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury should be

awarded against these Defendants and each of them to punish them for wrongdoing and to prevent them and others from acting in a similar manner in the future.

-23-

Case 2:12-cv-00788-DKD Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 24 of 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

COUNT IV Violation of First Amendment Rights of Freedom Of Speech under 42 U.S.C.1983 (Defendants Maricopa County, Rocky Armfield, John Does I-V) 101. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in each of the

preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if set forth fully herein. 102. At all times material herein, their Defendants were acting under color of law and in the

scope of their employment as officials of Maricopa County. 103. Pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.1983, the wrongful conduct of Defendants

alleged in this Complaint violated Plaintiff Brandons First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of the press and the privileges and immunities guaranteed to all citizens of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment. The wrongful conduct of these Defendants was pursued with an unconstitutional motive and malice and without equal protection or due process in an attempt to chill Plaintiff Brandons freedom of speech, and to intimidate, retaliate, harass and exact revenge for her involvement in the newspaper article published in The Arizona Republic on July 9, 2010 by Craig Harris and Yvonne Wingett-Sanchez, and to have a chilling effect on all other county employees to keep them away from the press, reporters, and the media and indirectly, the public. 104. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants wrongful conduct as alleged herein,

Plaintiff Brandons constitutional rights were violated and she was injured and suffered harm. 23 24 25 26 27 -24105. The wrongful conduct of these Defendants as alleged in this Complaint was undertaken

with malice and/or improper and unconstitutional motives in an attempt to interfere with conduct protected by the U.S. Constitution and to treat her differently than others similarly

Case 2:12-cv-00788-DKD Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 25 of 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

situated. The acts of Defendants Wilson and Armfield were under color of state law and were malicious and in reckless disregard of violating Plaintiff Brandons constitutional rights, and were intended to have a chilling effect on her speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment as well as on the freedom of speech rights of other county and MCAO employees. 106. As a result, punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury should be

awarded against these defendants to punish them for wrongdoing and to prevent them and others from acting in a similar manner in the future. COUNT V Violation of Arizona Law: Slander and Defamation (All Defendants) 107. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in each of the

preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if set forth fully herein. 108. As alleged herein, Defendants Armfield and John Does I-V, made and/or released

statements to Maricopa County Attorney Montgomery and his officers, agents, and employees and others regarding Plaintiff Brandon after the July 9, 2010 newspaper article, and between December 2010 and June 2011 that were false, defamatory and disparaging. 109. Defendants Armfields and John Does I-V statements as alleged herein were false,

defamatory and disparaging. Defendants Armfield and John Does I-V caused the false and defamatory statements to be published with knowledge of their falsity and/or with reckless

23 24 25 26 27 -25disregard as to their truth or falsity. 110. Defendant Liddy, as alleged herein, in June 2011, both before and after Plaintiff

Brandons release from probation, made statements, and/or caused statements to be made by,

Case 2:12-cv-00788-DKD Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 26 of 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

his employees, officers and agents that were false, defamatory and disparaging and that he knew to be false and/or with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity. 111. Defendants false and defamatory statements were directed to the integrity and reputation

of Plaintiff and constituting slander, libel and defamation per se. 112. As a direct and approximate result of Defendants false and defamatory statements,

Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct described in this Complaint, Plaintiff suffered damages, including irreparable damage to her reputation and good name and the loss of her employment and damage to her future ability to support herself. COUNT VI Violation of Arizona Law: Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations (All Defendants) 113. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in each of the

preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if set forth fully herein. 114. As alleged herein, Defendants Armfield and John Does I-V made and/or released

statements to County Attorney Montgomery and his officers, agents, and employees and others regarding Plaintiff Brandon after the July 9, 2010 newspaper article, and between December 2010 and June 2011 that were false, defamatory and disparaging and that they knew to be false, defamatory and disparaging. Armfield and John Does I-V did this with the intentional, illegal,

23 24 25 26 27 -26malicious, punitive and retaliatory purpose of causing Plaintiff Brandon to be fired from her position by the newly-elected County Attorney.

Case 2:12-cv-00788-DKD Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 27 of 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

115.

Defendant County Attorney Montgomery and Plaintiff entered into a valid employment

contract on April 18, 2011 after Plaintiff Brandon applied for a position at the MCAO, Civil Services Division, and was offered a position at the pay of more than $126,000 annually, and began working on April 18, 2011 and was paid accordingly up to and through June 27, 2011. 116. Defendants Armfield and John Does I-V had knowledge of this contract. As alleged

herein, Defendant Armfield, Maricopa County and John Does I-V participated in establishing the salary schedule and the specific salary by which Plaintiff was to be paid, and was instrumental in improperly reducing Plaintiff Brandons salary by $7737.60 from more than $134,000 in a continued effort to retaliate against her, punish her and interfere with her contractual relations. 117. As alleged herein, Defendants Armfield and John Does I-V pursued a relentless

campaign intentionally designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship between Defendant Montgomery and Plaintiff. In the end, there was an actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship between Defendant Montgomery and Plaintiff resulting in the damage to Plaintiff of being terminated from her position with Maricopa County that she had enjoyed for 33 years. Defendants Armfield and John Does I-V interfered with the contractual relations between Plaintiff Brandon and Defendant Montgomery and the Maricopa County Attorneys Office, by using their power over the budget and the county to coerce the newly-elected County Attorney and Defendant Liddy to dismiss one of his newlyhired Deputy County Attorneys, Plaintiff Brandon. 118. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Armfields and John Does I-Vs

statements and actions which interfered with Plaintiffs contractual relations with Defendant -27-

Case 2:12-cv-00788-DKD Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 28 of 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Montgomery and the MCAO, Plaintiff irreparable damage to her contract of employment in an amount to be proven at trial. COUNT VIII Violation of Arizona Law: Negligent Training, Supervision, Retention and Hiring (All Defendants)

119.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in each of the

preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if set forth fully herein. 120. Defendants and each of them were negligent in training, supervising, hiring, and

retaining employees, so that Defendants and their agents, officers, and employees committed acts and/or omissions, such as vindictive and retaliatory workplace bullying, mobbing and intimidating causing Plaintiff injury and harm. 121. Defendants acts and omissions constitute negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and

training. 122. As a direct and proximate result of these acts and omissions, Plaintiffs have suffered

emotional harm and/or physical injury in an amount to be determined at trial. JURY TRIAL 123. Plaintiffs hereby request a trial by jury. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 124. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for damages for judgment against Defendants as follows: (a) (b) General Litigation damages in an amount to be proven at trial; Punitive damages in an amount deemed just and reasonable against the individual defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983; -28-

Case 2:12-cv-00788-DKD Document 1 Filed 04/13/12 Page 29 of 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

(c)

Costs and attorneys fees against all Defendants as to the causes of action alleged under the Constitution and laws of the United States, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.1988;

(d) (e) (f)

The costs of litigation; All remedies provided by 42 U.S.C. 1983; Such other relief which may seem just and reasonable under the circumstances.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 13th day of April 2012. THE COHEN LAW FIRM /s/ Larry J. Cohen By:________________________________ Larry J. Cohen, Esq. P.O. Box 10056 Phoenix, Arizona 85064 Attorney for Plaintiffs

-29-