Case 1:16-cv-01065-GTS-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/30/16 Page 1 of 22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
NORMAN L. JAMES, TYRONE BRODHEAD,
ALPHONSO A. LACEY, PAMELA LANCASTER,
and TIMOTHY ROSS

Civil Action No. 1:16-CV-1065 (GTS/DEP)

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs,
v.

Electronically Filed

SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF ULSTER COUNTY,

PAUL VAN BLARCUM, in his official capacity
as Ulster County Sheriff and in his individual
capacity, JON BECKER, in his official capacity
as Warden of the Ulster County Jail and in his
individual capacity, and LOUIS T. RUSSO, SR.,
in his official capacity as Warden of the Ulster
County Jail and in his individual capacity,
Defendants.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1.

This is an employment discrimination action brought by Plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C.

1981, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991; 42 U.S.C. 1983; the Constitution of the
United States; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.; and the New
York State Human Rights Law, New York Executive Law 290 et seq., for unlawful violation
of Plaintiffs' civil rights. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants individually, collectively, and
institutionally have engaged in, and continue to engage in, an ongoing pattern and practice of
employment discrimination and the promulgation of a hostile work environment, intentionally
and systemically, on the basis of race against themselves and other minority employees, as
alleged in this Complaint. Plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive, and equitable monetary relief.

Case 1:16-cv-01065-GTS-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/30/16 Page 2 of 22

JURISDICTION
2.

Plaintiffs' claims are grounded in federal law; they seek redress of equal rights,

secured by Acts of Congress and the Constitution of the United States, that have been deprived
under color of state action, and seek to recover damages and secure equitable relief under an Act
of Congress providing for equal rights. Accordingly, original jurisdiction is conferred upon this
Court by 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343(a)(3), 1343(a)(4) and 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f). This Court has
supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims raised by virtue of 28 U.S.C. 1367.
VENUE
3.

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(1) because

Defendants are located and/or reside in this District, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2)
because the events and omissions giving rise to the claims herein occurred within this District.
PARTIES
PLAINTIFFS
4.

Norman L. James (herein "Plaintiff James" or "Officer James") is a black male

resident of this District, domiciled in Kingston, New York. Plaintiff James began employment
as a Corrections Officer at the Sheriff's Office in or about April, 1988 and has remained
employed by Defendants in that position for more than 28 years.
5.

Tyrone Brodhead ("Plaintiff Brodhead" or "Officer Brodhead") is a black male

resident of this District, domiciled in Kingston, New York. Plaintiff Brodhead began
employment as a Corrections Officer at the Sheriff's Office in or about June, 1999 and has
remained employed by Defendants in that position for more than 17 years.
6.

Alphonso A. Lacey ("Plaintiff Lacey" or "Officer Lacey") is a black male resident

of this District, domiciled in Kingston, New York. Plaintiff Lacey began employment as a

Case 1:16-cv-01065-GTS-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/30/16 Page 3 of 22

Corrections Officer at the Sheriff's Office in or about November, 1998 and has remained
employed by Defendants in that position for nearly 18 years.
7.

Plaintiff Pamela Lancaster ("Plaintiff Lancaster" or "Officer Lancaster") is a black

female resident of this District, domiciled in Kingston, New York. Plaintiff Lancaster began
employment as a Corrections Officer at the Sheriff's Office in or about April, 2007 and has
remained employed by Defendants in that position for more than 9 years.
8.

Plaintiff Timothy Ross ("Plaintiff Ross") is a black male who resides in Port

Jervis, New York. Plaintiff Ross began employment as a Corrections Officer at the Sheriff's
Office in or about February, 1998 and remained in that position for almost 15 years until his
termination on or about October 25, 2012.
DEFENDANTS
9.

Defendant Sheriff's Office of Ulster County (herein "the Sheriff's Office") is a

municipal entity charged with law enforcement in Ulster County, New York, and is an employer
within the meaning of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e(b). Its chief law enforcement officer and the
county's conservator of the peace in accordance with county law is the Sheriff of Ulster County,
an elected official. The Sheriff's Office headquarters and the Ulster County Jail are located at the
Ulster County Law Enforcement Center, 380 Boulevard, Kingston, New York.
10.

Paul J. Van Blarcum ("Defendant Van Blarcum" or "the Sheriff"), a white man, is

the elected Sheriff of Ulster County and has power and authority to create and enforce customs
and policies and to make personnel decisions affecting Sheriff's Office employees. Defendant
Van Blarcum began employment with the Sheriff's Office in June, 1976 and was promoted up to
Sergeant by the time he was first elected Sheriff in 2006. He is now serving his third
consecutive four-year term as Sheriff.

Case 1:16-cv-01065-GTS-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/30/16 Page 4 of 22

11.

Defendant Jon Becker ("Defendant Becker" or "Major Becker"), a white man, is

Warden of the Ulster County Jail and has power and authority to reinforce customs and policies
and to make personnel decisions affecting Sheriff's Office employees. Defendant Becker began
employment at the Sheriff's Office as a Corrections Officer in 1989, was promoted to the ranks
of Sergeant, Lieutenant and Captain prior to attaining his current rank of Major, and was
appointed Warden by Defendant Van Blarcum in 2014.
12.

Defendant Louis Russo ("Defendant Russo" or "Major Russo"), a white man, is

Warden of the Ulster County Jail and has power and authority to reinforce customs and policies
and to make personnel decisions affecting Sheriff's Office employees. Defendant Russo began
employment at the Sheriff's Office as a Corrections Officer in 1988, was promoted to the ranks
of Sergeant, Lieutenant and Captain prior to attaining his current rank of Major, and was
appointed Warden by Defendant Van Blarcum in 2014.
TIMELINESS OF THIS ACTION
13.

Officers James, Brodhead and Lacey filed discrimination charges with the Equal

Opportunity Commission ("the EEOC") relative to claims under Title VII in or about August,
2015 and received notice of a right to sue within 90 days from the U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division on or about June 6, 2016.
14.

Officer Pamela Lancaster filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC relative to

claims under Title VII on February 1, 2016 and, after 180 days, requested immediate issuance of
a Notice of Right to Sue. The EEOC forwarded the request to the U.S. Department of Justice for
action on August 26, 2016.
15.

As to state claims, Officers James, Brodhead and Lacey each served a Notice of

Claim upon Defendants on October 21, 2015 and Officer Lancaster served a Notice of Claim

Case 1:16-cv-01065-GTS-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/30/16 Page 5 of 22

upon Defendants on November 30, 2015. All four state claimants were subsequently deposed by
Defendants pursuant to 50-H of the General Municipal Law.
16.

As to claims under 42 U.S.C. 1981, all Plaintiffs were employed by and suffered

unequal treatment by Defendants within the last four years, pursuant to the applicable statute of
limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1658 (a).
17.

As to claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, Defendants are culpable for collective and

individual actions and failures to act within the last three years, pursuant to the applicable statute
of limitations under 214 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules.

FACTS
THE CONTEXT OF THE CLAIMS REGARDING DEFENDANTS'
POLICIES AND CUSTOMS FOSTERING A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
18.

Since taking office as Sheriff, Defendant Van Blarcum has promoted dozens of

officers. With no exception, all those promotions have gone to white officers.
19.

As of the date of this Complaint, not a single black employee of the Sheriff's

Office holds a rank beyond the entry-level Corrections Officer position.

20.

Upon information and belief, only two African Americans have ever achieved any

advanced rank at the Corrections Division of the Sheriff's Office. Both were promoted prior to
Defendant Van Blarcum's election as Sheriff.
21.

The Corrections Division's first-ever black officer First Sergeant Michael Knox

was honored with numerous awards and commendations throughout his 23-year career.1

The former First Sergeant Michael Knox died on February 25, 2014. Upon information and belief, the cause of
death was suicide.

Case 1:16-cv-01065-GTS-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/30/16 Page 6 of 22

22.

Soon after Defendant Van Blarcum was first elected Sheriff, Sergeant Knox was

forced to resign. Upon information and belief, Defendant Becker sought the ouster of Sergeant
Knox after learning of allegations about a domestic incident involving the First Sergeant.
23.

The only other black officer ever promoted at the Corrections Division of the

Sheriff's Office was made Corporal in October, 2005.

24.

It took almost three years for Officer "X" to make Corporal, even though he

placed at the top of the position's eligibility list in early 2003 and had a long career during which
he earned numerous commendations and awards for excellent duty and meritorious service. 2
25.

Two white co-workers were selected ahead of the black officer in 2003, even

though one of them had less seniority and scored lower on the qualifying exam.
26.

Like Sergeant Knox, Corporal X lost his rank under Defendant Van Blarcum's

administration, also per Defendant Becker's recommendation, upon information and belief. To
wit, the black corporal was demoted by Defendants after committing a traffic infraction, in or
around March, 2012.
27.

Upon information and belief, both black officers acquiesced to Defendants'

demands without consulting legal counsel and surrendered their positions under duress.
28.

As described below, white officers in similar circumstances were and are not

treated similarly, but rather were and are afforded greater leniency as well as better opportunities.
29.

The manner in which black officers were and are disciplined under Defendant

Van Blarcum's administration created and perpetuates a policy and custom of disparate
treatment, by which the Sheriff's Office and all Defendants display low-to-no tolerance of any
perceived or alleged misconduct by black employees, in sharp contrast to leeway and leniency
afforded to similarly situated white employees.
2

Officer "X" requested anonymity for fear of retaliation.

Case 1:16-cv-01065-GTS-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/30/16 Page 7 of 22

30.

The manner in which black officers were and are disciplined under Defendant

Van Blarcum's administration led by Defendants Becker and Russo created and perpetuates a
work environment hostile to blacks.
PLAINTIFF ROSS
31.

In or about September, 2012, in similar fashion to the aforementioned black

officers, Plaintiff Ross was coerced into pleading guilty to charges brought against him and
forced to resign.
32.

Charges were brought against Plaintiff Ross after an investigation of his workers'

compensation claims related to an on-the-job knee injury originally sustained in 2008. That
injury is well-documented by Plaintiff Ross' medical records and caused such severe damage to
his knee that he remains under treatment and still requires surgery.
33.

Nonetheless, Defendants were suspicious of Plaintiff Ross and targeted him,

pursuing an investigation with zeal and malice, eventually placing Ross under arrest.
34.

After his arrest, Plaintiff Ross' wife attempted to immediately post bail, but

Defendants prevented her from doing so by ignoring and stalling her until Plaintiff Ross could be
paraded past inmates for whom he had been responsible and placed in a cell among them.
35.

Defendants also publicized the arrest to local media and on the Internet.

36.

Thereafter, Plaintiff Ross was pressured into accepting a plea bargain. When he

resisted signing a settlement agreement, which was not reviewed by legal counsel on his behalf
and which he did not fully understand, Plaintiff Ross was admonished by Defendants to "stop
acting like a damn inmate."
37.

Plaintiffs allege that these actions were calculated by Defendants to humiliate and

degrade Plaintiff Ross and to send another message to black officers regarding the Sheriff's

Case 1:16-cv-01065-GTS-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/30/16 Page 8 of 22

Office custom, policy and code of zero tolerance for any suspected, alleged, or perceived
misbehavior by black employees.
38.

Defendants' actions did cause Plaintiff Ross humiliation, pain, and suffering as

well as actual economic losses caused by Defendants' termination of his employment.

PLAINTIFF LACEY
39.

Plaintiff Lacey has unsuccessfully sought promotion to Corporal since 2001. He

has been passed over for promotion a total of 22 times, with each opportunity awarded instead by
Defendant Russo to a white officer. The majority of those promoted had less seniority than
Officer Lacey, and no fewer than thirteen of them were at one time Officer Lacey's trainees.
40.

Plaintiff Lacey has been blocked from opportunities, despite constant requests for

training and frequent efforts to take initiative. Although he has submitted at least eight written
letters of interest to Defendant Russo and others, requesting training for the intake function, his
inquiries are not to be found in his personnel file. His requests for additional training and
suggestions for new initiatives have never been granted, despite numerous inquiries, standing
interest and ongoing requests.
41.

Plaintiff Lacey has been subjected to displays of racial animus and hostility. On

several occasions, Defendant Becker paired Officer Lacey, who was of a slight build, with a
much larger officer, also a black man, for physical training "fight" sessions. As Defendant
Becker looked on with apparent pleasure or amusement, the larger officer punched Officer Lacey
so aggressively and relentlessly that, on two occasions, a Lieutenant intervened to stop the
activity, concerned for Officer Lacey's safety. The pairing was contrary to the usual protocol of
matching colleagues with similar physiques, as was done for the white officers. The abusive
nature of those sessions caused Officer Lacey to believe that he would end up hurt.

Case 1:16-cv-01065-GTS-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/30/16 Page 9 of 22

42.

Plaintiff Lacey qualified for promotion to Corporal per the Civil Service exam at

least four times; Defendants promoted at least five white officers who scored lower than Officer
Lacey on the Corporal's test, but Officer Lacey remains at his entry-level rank.
43.

Constant failure to advance began to distress Plaintiff Lacey, causing him

problems including marital discord, stress, anxiety and depression.

44.

Plaintiff Lacey availed himself of the county's Employee Assistance Program

(EAP) to cope with personal issues and mental health problems that grew out of his frustration
with the racist environment promulgated by Defendants. Shortly after using the EAP services, in
or about November, 2005, Plaintiff Lacey was removed from the Sheriff's Emergency Response
Team (herein "the SERT Team") and a memo to Defendant Russo regarding his mental stability
was placed in his personnel file. Plaintiff has never been permitted to return the SERT Team.
45.

Like the aforementioned black officers, Plaintiff Lacey had disciplinary charges

preferred against him. Even though underlying criminal charges lacked merit and were
dismissed, Defendants persuaded Officer Lacey to "admit" guilt and execute settlement
agreements, representing that the agreements would cause charges to be "dropped." Those
agreements were never reviewed by legal counsel and did not in fact withdraw any charges.
46.

Officer Lacey has been subjected to disparate treatment and excluded from

training and promotional opportunities as part of an institutional pattern and practice of raciallybiased discrimination promulgated by Defendants individually and collectively.
47.

Defendants' actions and failures to act caused and continue to cause Plaintiff

Lacey humiliation, pain, and suffering as well as actual economic losses caused by his ongoing
inability to advance during the 18 years of his employment with the Sheriff's Office.

Case 1:16-cv-01065-GTS-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/30/16 Page 10 of 22

PLAINTIFF BRODHEAD
48.

Plaintiff Brodhead has also been denied leadership positions, with the exception

of a period when Defendant Becker was removed from leading the SERT Team during litigation
against him. Although he has sought special training and leadership roles, Defendants,
particularly Defendant Becker, have consistently denied Officer Broadhead opportunities and
given them instead to white officers.
49.

Plaintiff Brodhead has also long been targeted by Defendants as a suspected drug-

runner and has been subjected dozens of times to harassing investigations and false accusations
about contraband that was reaching the jail's inmates. Plaintiff Brodhead's locker was singled
out and targeted for searches by the "K-9" unit (using drug-sniffing dogs) so many times that in
August, 2014, Officer Broadhead simply emptied the locker and stopped using it.
50.

False allegations that Plaintiff Broadhead trafficked in contraband have been

introduced by inmates of the Ulster County Jail several times. Upon information and belief,
Defendants directed certain officers to induce those inmates to make false accusations against
Officer Brodhead. The first such setup involved prisoner Robert Ryan, who, in or around 2000,
withdrew his accusations and admitted to fabricating them at Defendants' behest after
prosecutors refused to offer a plea bargain in exchange for the "information."
51.

In the most recent of many cases, in or around January, 2016, at least two inmates

were repeatedly questioned and asked to identify Officer Brodhead or "a black SERT Team
member" as the source of suboxone and other contraband that was infiltrating the jail. Such
questioning persisted for weeks, until Corrections Officer Jason Hetrick, a white officer who was
running contraband into the jail, was caught on camera purchasing marijuana and suboxone in
the Ulster County Law Enforcement Center parking lot.

10

Case 1:16-cv-01065-GTS-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/30/16 Page 11 of 22

52.

Upon Hetrick's arrest, an internal investigation determined that, despite his

exoneration, Plaintiff Brodhead's complaint about unfair targeting contained "insufficient proof"
of discrimination, even though it was "founded in fact." Defendant Becker is in charge of
internal affairs.
53.

The targeting and inability to advance that Plaintiff Brodhead has experienced and

continues to experience is due to racial bias and a work environment that is hostile to blacks.
54.

Plaintiff Brodhead is a victim of disparate treatment because of his race.

55.

Plaintiff Brodhead's health has suffered as a consequence of the stress caused by

the hostile work environment he endures. Defendants' actions and failures to act caused and
continue to cause Officer Brodhead humiliation, pain, and suffering as well as actual economic
losses caused by his ongoing inability to advance during the 17 years of his employment with the
Sheriff's Office.
PLAINTIFF JAMES
56.

In 1990, Plaintiff James was named to the Sheriff's Emergency Response Team

("the SERT Team"), an assignment which carries prestige and tangible remuneration in the form
of overtime compensation. Officer James also became certified as a Trainer and is, in fact, the
only black officer qualified in this capacity. For a time, he was named second-in-command of
the SERT Team, which was and is led by Defendant Becker.
57.

Despite the nominal status, Defendant Becker gave Plaintiff James little actual

authority and few opportunities to participate in preferred assignments, such as high-security

prisoner transports and other special missions. Instead, Defendant Becker habitually offered
preferred assignments to an inner circle of white junior officers, all of whom are less experienced

11

Case 1:16-cv-01065-GTS-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/30/16 Page 12 of 22

than Officer James. The exclusion of Plaintiff James intensified after Defendant Becker was
named Warden in or around early 2014.
58.

Defendant Becker relied on Plaintiff James for managing the SERT Team only

when a black SERT Team member required counseling, discipline, or other supervisory
attention. In contrast, Officer James was never included in supervisory or managerial initiatives
concerning white officers or the team as a whole. This fact comports with Plaintiffs' other
allegations that disciplinary issues concerning Defendants' employees are handled differently
depending the employee's race.
59.

Plaintiff James attempted to broach the issue of racial discrimination by

communicating directly with Defendant Becker and speaking with others, but his efforts were
not met with any concern or action by Defendant Van Blarcum's administration. Instead, Officer
James found himself and witnessed others being subjected to increasing race-based
discrimination in the past two years.
60.

Plaintiff James has witnessed more overt racial hostility, such as an occasion in

2014, when Corrections Officer C.B., describing an inmate transfer, stated "what I see here are
two officers, three inmates and two niggers" in the presence of Plaintiff James and two other
officers. Plaintiff James immediately took issue with C.B. but the other officers white men
did nothing.
61.

The same Officer C.B. referred to a black officer as "the jigaboo" as witnessed by

Plaintiff Lacey.3 Plaintiff Lacey had reported this to Defendant Russo, in or around 2011, in the
context of raising concerns about the termination of another black corrections officer. 4
Defendants took no corrective action.

3
4

C.O. Talib Richardson

Former C.O. Kathy Shumway

12

Case 1:16-cv-01065-GTS-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/30/16 Page 13 of 22

62.

Plaintiff Ross, whose skin has a medium complexion, had routinely endured being

referred to as "black Mexican" and "Blaxican," an apparent reference to his skin tone appearing
more like that of a Latino than that of a black man. His complaints about this to senior officers
in Defendants' administration were met with the advice that he should have a "sense of humor"
and a "thicker skin."
63.

Plaintiff Lancaster had a superior officer call out "hey, Buckwheat!" to get her

attention. Her complaints about that offensive remark were likewise dismissed by members of
Defendants' administration.
64.

Knowing of these and similar prior incidents and the futility of complaining,

Officer James grew increasingly withdrawn, depressed, and disinterested in attending trainings
or drills.
65.

Mounting problems, especially those between Plaintiff James and Defendant

Becker, led to James' removal in or about March, 2015 from the SERT Team, a change which
Defendants have used as pretext for blocking Officer James from other opportunities within the
Sheriff's Office.
66.

For example, despite his many years of service, experience, and leadership, to

qualify for a position on a Transport Team, Plaintiff James was required to take a physical agility
test from which SERT Team members and senior officers are exempt. He disqualified by a
matter of seconds in his running pace, despite demonstrating superior strength and other relevant
qualifications that are supposed to be considered as selection factors. Officer James alleges that
he was not selected for the Transport Team on the basis of discriminatory motives and that strict
adherence to the agility test requirements is pretextual.

13

Case 1:16-cv-01065-GTS-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/30/16 Page 14 of 22

67.

Disparate treatment relates not only to discipline and promotions, but also to the

distribution of and access to materials and equipment. White officers have been given special
jackets, access to firearms, keys to facilities, and other perks and conveniences that have been
denied Plaintiff James and other black officers.
68.

Defendants' disparate treatment of black officers contributes to a hostile work

environment that is pervasive and severe.

69.

Defendants' actions and failures to act caused and continue to cause Plaintiff

James humiliation, pain, and suffering as well as actual economic losses caused by his ongoing
inability to advance during the 28 years of his employment with the Sheriff's Office.
PLAINTIFF LANCASTER
70.

On or about October 1, 2015, Plaintiff Lancaster initiated a complaint regarding

racially-biased speech by a white officer5 with a history of using derogatory language directed at
blacks. Defendant Russo and others attempted to persuade Officer Lancaster to be more
"forgiving" and less easily offended by racial slurs.
71.

While the offending party was forced to verbally apologize, no further action was

taken by Defendants, even though Ulster County officials acknowledged that Plaintiff
Lancaster's complaint was determined to be founded.
72.

Since she began working at the Sheriff's Office, Plaintiff Lancaster has endured

derogatory comments about her appearance and her hair, racist jokes and offensive comments,
such as reference to a police dog as a "Mandingo6 Hunter." Since about November 2014, certain
white officers took up a practice of making rude, indecent, inappropriate sounds, directed
tauntingly at Plaintiff Lancaster, even over the intercom.

5
6

Sergeant Charles Polacco is part of Defendants' inner circle and has benefited from favorable treatment. See infra.
Mandingo is urban slang referring to black males.

14

Case 1:16-cv-01065-GTS-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/30/16 Page 15 of 22

73.

Plaintiff Lancaster has been denied opportunity to advance. As early as 2012, she

was verbally offered training for intakes and bookings, but the offer has never materialized and
Officer Lancaster continues to await the training. Meanwhile, other officers white officers
have been trained instead. Numerous white colleagues hired concurrently to or after Officer
Lancaster have been able to advance, but she has been denied advancement.
74.

Meanwhile, like other black officers, Plaintiff Lancaster finds herself usually

working the most difficult assignments at Ulster County Jail. On average, black female
corrections officers spend 54% of working hours in the least desirable posts ("pods") whereas
their white counterparts spend an average of only 30.5% of their time in those assignments.
75.

The preponderance of undesirable assignments and denial of training experienced

by Officer Lancaster are indicative of Defendants' racially biased disparate treatment of

employees.
76.

Overtly racist comments, jokes and language witnessed by Officer Lancaster are

further evidence of the severe and pervasive hostile work environment fostered by Defendants.
77.

Defendants' actions and failures to act caused and continue to cause Plaintiff

Lancaster humiliation, pain, and suffering as well as actual economic losses caused by her
ongoing inability to advance during the 9 years of her employment with the Sheriff's Office.
FURTHER ALLEGATIONS REGARDING HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
78.

In October, 2015, Plaintiff Lancaster complained when a Sergeant referred to an

inmate as "that colored girl." Defendant Russo responded to her complaint with the assertion
that "colored" is "ok" to say and not against any policy.

15

Case 1:16-cv-01065-GTS-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/30/16 Page 16 of 22

79.

On another occasion, during a discussion regarding possible testimony by one

black man against another, Defendant Russo stated "you think a brother is gonna go against a
brother?"
80.

Defendant Becker has been witnessed using "the N word" in derogatory reference

to black people.
81.

Overall, it is commonplace and acceptable at the Sheriff's Office to refer to black

people pejoratively as "brothers" or "sisters," as "colored" and even as "jigaboos" and "niggers."
82.

Plaintiffs' efforts to address their concerns about this environment have been to no

avail: they have instead been exhorted by Defendants and their subordinates to have a sense of
humor and a thicker skin, and to be less sensitive.
83.

Defendants' apologetics foster a custom of institutionalized racism and exhibit

deliberate indifference to the violation of equal protection principles.

84.

The structural and institutionalized racism at the Ulster County Sheriff's

Department has caused Plaintiffs actual economic harm in the form of lower remuneration than
they could have earned in positions denied them because of discrimination.
85.

Plaintiffs have likewise suffered mental anguish and emotional distress, affecting

their personal lives as well as their individual abilities to continue striving on the job in the face
of relentless and insurmountable obstacles presented by ongoing structural racism at the Ulster
County Sheriff's Office.
LENCIENCY AFFORDED WHITE OFFICERS SHOWS DISPARATE TREATMENT
86.

There are numerous examples of white officers who committed misconduct and

were even convicted of crimes, yet benefitted from Defendants' leniency and faced minimal
discipline, in contrast to the severity faced by black employees.

16

Case 1:16-cv-01065-GTS-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/30/16 Page 17 of 22

87.

For example, Sergeant Charles Polacco, a white officer who is a close ally of the

Defendants, was discovered to have falsified a workman's compensation claim, misrepresenting

an injury sustained while off-duty as an on-the-job injury. In sharp contrast to the abovedescribed criminal investigation, prosecution and termination of Plaintiff Ross, Polacco was
suspended with no loss of pay for a mere fifteen days.
88.

Polacco had been suspended with pay before, once for an incident in which he

yelled out the racial epithet "nigger" while on duty. He was promoted to the rank of Sergeant
shortly thereafter.
89.

As a further example, Corporal Wranovics, a white officer, was convicted for

assaulting a woman while off duty; the victim, whom Corporal Wranovics assaulted in the face
with a beer bottle, suffered severe wounds and required urgent medical care. Despite the violent
nature of the incident and the eventual criminal conviction, Corporal Wranovics was not
demoted. Indeed, he was not even suspended until two weeks after his arrest.
90.

As yet another example, white officer Lieutenant Ferro was the subject of

numerous domestic violence calls, yet never faced repercussions on the job for those calls. In
contrast, black officers, including Knox and Plaintiff Lacey, found themselves scrutinized and
penalized because of family issues.
91.

A comparison of Defendants' "management" of incidents involving white officers

to the swift and stringent repercussions imposed on black employees reveals a clear and obvious
pattern of disparate treatment favoring white officers and disparaging black officers.
92.

Defendants' record of uneven discipline marked by stricter treatment of black

employees and unfair leniency toward whites is consistent with the persistent hostile work
environment promulgated and perpetuated by Defendants.

17

Case 1:16-cv-01065-GTS-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/30/16 Page 18 of 22

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

UNEQUAL/DISPARATE TREATMENT OF ALL PLAINTIFFS BY
DEFENDANTS IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES
VIOLATES 42 U.S.C. 1981
93.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations in all preceding

paragraphs.
94.

Plaintiffs are members of a protected class, to wit, a racial minority.

95.

Plaintiffs are qualified for their employment positions, as evidenced by their

service records, examination scores, and employment history.

96.

Plaintiffs have suffered adverse employment actions, including, but not limited to,

fewer privileges than those enjoyed by white officers, fewer opportunities for training,
demotions, discipline that is more severe than that imposed on white officers for similar or worse
offenses, and lower remuneration than that earned by white officers by virtue of Plaintiffs'
inability to obtain promotions due to their race.
97.

The examples of individual and collective conduct, acts, and omissions given in

this Complaint indicate that Defendants Van Blarcum, Becker, and Russo each displayed malice
and/or reckless indifference to individual rights by personally and intentionally depriving black
officers, including Plaintiffs, of their rights to enjoy the full benefit of all laws and proceedings
and be subject to like punishment, pains, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
98.

Defendants' discrimination against Plaintiffs James, Brodhead, Lacey, Lancaster,

Ross, and other black Corrections Officers violates the rights protected by the Civil Rights Act
1866 as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. 1981.

18

Case 1:16-cv-01065-GTS-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/30/16 Page 19 of 22

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

DEFENDANTS' INDIVIDUAL ACTS PROMULGATING A
HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT THAT INTEFERED AND INTERFERES WITH
ALL PLAINTIFFS' ABILITY TO PERFORM VIOLATE 42 U.S.C. 1981
99.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations in all preceding

paragraphs, including the First Cause of Action.

100.

Defendants Van Blarcum, Becker and Russo, by conduct including use and

condonation of the use of taboo racial slurs, and failures to act, including failure to provide a
reasonable avenue for recourse, knew or should have known that the Ulster County Sheriff's
Office work environment was and is permeated with discriminatory conduct that is intimidating
to blacks.
101.

The continuous hostile environment unreasonably interfered and continues to

interfere with each Plaintiff's ability to perform on the job and is a direct or proximate cause of
each Plaintiff's inability to advance at the Sheriff's office or participate in prestigious and
valuable assignments, including but not limited to the SERT Team or transport teams.
102.

Race-based hostility is severe and pervasive and is condoned or willfully ignored

by Defendants, each of whom is in a position to remedy discriminatory practices but instead

continues to encourage racism, both by only nominally disciplining those who commit overtly
racist acts and by engaging in race-based discrimination himself.
103.

Defendants' individual and collective conduct constitutes willful violation of the

rights expressly protected by the Civil Rights Act 1866 as amended by the Civil Rights Act of
1991, 42 U.S.C. 1981.

19

Case 1:16-cv-01065-GTS-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/30/16 Page 20 of 22

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

DEFENDANTS' VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. 1981 UNDER COLOR OF LAW
IS ACTIONABLE UNDER 42 U.S.C. 19837
104.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations in all preceding

paragraphs, including those set forth in the First and Second Causes of Action herein.
105.

Defendant Ulster County Sheriff's Office and its agents, the individual Defendants

Van Blarcum, Becker, and Russo are actors under color of state law whose conduct deprived
plaintiffs of their federally protected rights, specifically those provided by the Civil Rights Act of
1866 as amended in 1991, 42. U.S.C. 1981.
106.

Defendant Ulster County Sheriff's Office's discriminatory practices, including but

not limited to leniency toward white officers and stringency toward blacks, failure to promote
qualified blacks, and unequal distribution of equipment and privileges, are permanent and well
settled practices that constitute a custom or usage so widespread as to represent de facto policy.
107.

Defendants' promulgation of that policy, motivated by discriminatory rationale

and made with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs' rights to equal treatment, created and creates
an affirmative link to Plaintiff's deprivation of those rights.
FOURTH AND FIFTH CAUSES OF ACTION
UNEQUAL/DISPARATE TREATMENT OF PLAINTIFFS AND
A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT VIOLATE PLAINTIFFS' RIGHTS TO
EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
AND IS ACTIONABLE UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1983
108.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations in all preceding

paragraphs, including those set forth in the First, Second, and Third Causes of Action herein.

This claim is predicated on the position that the remedy for state actors' violations of 42 U.S.C. 1981 is provided
by the remedial scheme of 42 U.S.C. 1983. Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 733, 109 S.Ct. 2702
(1989). Whether Congressional amendments expanding 1981, made two years after Jett was decided, created a
private right of action against state actors remains an unsettled question of law which has not yet been addressed by
the Second Circuit. However, seven of the eight Circuits that have analyzed the issue have held that Jett remains
good law and 1983 remains the necessary vehicle for enforcement of rights protected by 1981. The District
Courts of the Second Circuit have relied on that majority position as well.

20

Case 1:16-cv-01065-GTS-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/30/16 Page 21 of 22

109.

By engaging in the above-described conduct, Defendants, acting under color of

law, individually and collectively subjected Plaintiffs to disparate treatment and promulgated a
permanent and widespread custom of racial discrimination against Plaintiffs so ingrained as to
represent a de facto policy, promoted with willful malice and/or reckless indifference to
Plaintiffs' rights to equal protection, to which Plaintiffs are entitled under the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
110.

By and through their individual and collective actions as described above,

Defendant Ulster County Sheriff's Office and individual Defendants Van Blarcum, Becker, and
Russo have deprived Plaintiffs of their Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
DISPARATE TREATMENT OF PLAINTIFFS JAMES, BRODHEAD AND LACEY
BY DEFENDANTS VIOLATES TITLE VII (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.)
111.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations in all preceding

paragraphs, including the preceding Causes of Action.

112.

Plaintiffs, each self-identifying as black, are members of a protected class under

Title VII.
113.

Each Plaintiff, with years of experience and a strong record of distinguished

service, is highly qualified.

114.

Notwithstanding experience, seniority, and ability, none of the Plaintiffs have

advanced, either through the civil service system or in terms of training or internal leadership.
115.

Rather, 100 % of opportunities have been granted by Defendant Ulster County

Sheriff's Office to white officers, almost all of them junior to Plaintiffs.

116.

Defendant's racial bias and race-based preferential treatment of employees is a

violation of Plaintiffs' civil rights under Title VII.

21

Case 1:16-cv-01065-GTS-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/30/16 Page 22 of 22