Case: 4:12-cv-00021-CDP Doc.

#: 1

Filed: 01/05/12 Page: 1 of 18 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION DAVID BONENBERGER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE ST. LOUIS METROPOLITAN, ) POLICE DEPARTMENT, and ) ) THE BOARD OF POLICE ) COMMISSIONERS OF THE ST. ) LOUIS METROPOLITAN POLICE ) DEPARTMENT, and ) ) BETTYE BATTLE-TURNER, RICHARD ) GRAY, and MAYOR FRANCIS G. SLAY, ) in their official and individual capacities ) as members of the Board of Police ) Commissioners, and ) ) MICHAEL L. GERDINE and JERRY ) LEE, in their individual capacities as ) former members of the Board of Police ) Commissioners, and ) ) THOMAS IRWIN, in his official capacity ) as a current member of the Board of ) Police Commissioners, and ) ) CHIEF DANIEL W. ISOM, in his official ) and individual capacities, and ) ) LT. COL. REGGIE L. HARRIS, in his ) official and individual capacities, and )

Case No. 4:12-cv-00021 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case: 4:12-cv-00021-CDP Doc. #: 1

Filed: 01/05/12 Page: 2 of 18 PageID #: 2

LT. MICHAEL MUXO, in his official and individual capacities, Defendants.

) ) ) ) COMPLAINT

PARTIES & JURISDICTION 1. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff, David Bonenberger (hereinafter

Bonenberger), was and is a resident of the City of Waterloo, in the State of Illinois and a citizen of the United States of America. At all times relevant herein, Bonenberger was employed by the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, located in the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri, in the Eastern Division of the Eastern District of Missouri. 2. At all times relevant herein, Defendant St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department

(hereinafter Department) was and is a municipal police department organized and existing under the laws of the State of Missouri. 3. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Board of Police Commissioners

(hereinafter Board) of the Department was and is a public governmental body having its principal place of business in the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri. Defendant Board is vested by statute with exclusive jurisdiction over the conduct of the affairs of the Department. Defendants Bettye Battle-Turner (hereinafter Battle-Turner), Richard Gray (hereinafter Gray), and Mayor Francis G. Slay (hereinafter Slay) were members of the Board at the time of the acts complained of herein and are currently members of the Board. They are sued in both their individual and official capacities. Defendants Michael L. Gerdine (hereinafter Gerdine) and Jerry Lee (hereinafter Lee) were members of the Board at the time of the acts complained of herein but no longer serve on the Board. They are sued in their individual capacities only.

Case: 4:12-cv-00021-CDP Doc. #: 1

Filed: 01/05/12 Page: 3 of 18 PageID #: 3

Defendant Thomas Irwin is currently on the Board. He is sued in his official capacity only. 4. Defendant Daniel W. Isom (hereinafter Isom) is the Chief of Police of the

Department. He has ultimate supervisory authority over all facets of the Department. He is sued in his individual and official capacities. Isom is African-American. 5. Lt. Col. Reggie L. Harris (hereinafter Harris) is the Commander of the

Departments Bureau of Professional Standards. He is sued in both his individual and official capacities. Harris is African-American. 6. Lt. Michael Muxo (hereinafter Muxo) is a lieutenant in the Department, who at

all times relevant herein was and is the Director of the St. Louis Police Academy (hereinafter Academy). He is sued in both his individual and official capacities. 7. The adverse employment action Bonenberger suffered when he was not promoted

to the position of Assistant Director of the Academy by the Defendants occurred in the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri, within the Eastern Division of the Eastern District of Missouri. 8. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000(e) et seq., 42 U.S.C. 1981,

and 213.010 et seq. R.S.Mo. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331. Plaintiff further invokes the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court to hear and decide claims arising under state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). 9. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b). FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 10. Bonenberger has been an employee of the Department since October 1993 and

was promoted to the rank of sergeant on March 18, 2009. 11. On or about September 24, 2010, the Department posted an open position in the

Case: 4:12-cv-00021-CDP Doc. #: 1

Filed: 01/05/12 Page: 4 of 18 PageID #: 4

St. Louis Police Academy for Sergeant-Assistant Academy Director. 12. After the Assistant Academy Director position was posted, Bonenberger informed

Muxo, then the Director of the Academy, that he intended to apply for the open position. 13. Muxo told Bonenberger not to bother applying for the open position because it

had already been decided that it would be filled by a black female. Muxo also told Bonenberger that Harris, who as set forth above is an African-American male, wanted a black female in the Assistant Academy Director position. 14. Even though Bonenberger was told that he would not be considered for the

Assistant Academy Director position because it was going to be given to an African-American female, Bonenberger applied for the open position. 15. Bonenberger is POST certified as a Generalist Instructor in the State of Missouri.

He is certified by the Department of Homeland Security as a Driver Training Instructor. He is also certified as a TASER instructor, Stinger Spike Strip instructor, and ETS instructor. Bonenberger became a Field Training Officer for the Department in 1997. 16. Bonenberger was assigned to the Academy as an instructor as the Academy Class

Supervisor in 2008/2009. While assigned to the Academy, Bonenberger taught the blocks of instruction in patrol, driver training, and practical application. Bonenberger has been a driver training instructor since 1996 and authored the current block of driver training instruction used by the Department for both recruits in the Academy and to retrain officers on the street and as part of an ongoing in-service as a defensive driver refresher. 17. Additionally, Bonenberger is certified to instruct on the Departments Sim IV

driver simulator and has served the Department as a firearms instructor with responsibility for training on the Lasershot (Raptor) firearms simulator. He authored and conducted the CET

Case: 4:12-cv-00021-CDP Doc. #: 1

Filed: 01/05/12 Page: 5 of 18 PageID #: 5

Tactical Vehicle Stop block of instruction and conducted the CET Active Shooter block of instruction for the Department in 2008/2009. 18. Despite his experience and qualifications, Bonenberger was not even given an

interview when he applied for the Assistant Academy Director position. 19. On or about October 29, 2010, Angela Taylor, an African-American female, was

promoted to the Assistant Academy Director position even though less qualified. Taylor was not interviewed before being promoted to the Assistant Academy Director position. 20. After Taylor was promoted to the Assistant Academy Director position, Muxo

told Bonenberger that he had to give Taylor the open position because Harris wanted her there and because he was told by Harris that he had to bring color down to the Academy. 21. Prior to Taylor being promoted to the Assistant Academy Director position, Sgt.

Deborah Boelling was the Assistant Academy Director. Boelling is a white female. She was warned that she would be removed as the Assistant Academy Director shortly after Muxo was assigned as the Academy Director. Muxo told Boelling repeatedly while she was assigned to the Academy that there was no way a white male would get the Assistant Academy Director position because the upper command did not want a white male in the position. 22. On or about October 29, 2010, Bonenberger filed a grievance with the

Department based upon its failure and refusal to comply with its own policies and procedures in filling the Assistant Academy Director position. Bonenbergers grievance was denied without explanation and in violation of Department policy. 23. Additionally, after Bonenberger was not promoted to the Assistant Academy

Director position, he was contacted by Kim Hicks, a Human Resources Specialist with the Department. Hicks informed Bonenberger that he had been discriminated against when he was

Case: 4:12-cv-00021-CDP Doc. #: 1

Filed: 01/05/12 Page: 6 of 18 PageID #: 6

not promoted to the open position and that he should file an EEOC complaint. Hicks further informed Bonenberger that he was not given an interview for the open position because the black female was less qualified. 24. The sergeant serving as Assistant Academy Director has supervisory authority

over other sergeants assigned to the Academy and visibility in the Department, enhancing the opportunities for promotion to the rank of lieutenant. 25. Bonenberger timely filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (hereinafter EEOC) and the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter MCHR). 26. Both the EEOC and MCHR issued Bonenberger right to sue letters. The EEOC

issued its letter on October 12, 2011, and the MCHR issued its letter on November 21, 2011. 27. As a direct and proximate result the acts of the Defendants as alleged herein,

Bonenberger was not promoted to the position of Assistant Academy Director, even though more qualified, and will likely lose other promotional opportunities as a result in the future. Additionally, and without waiver of the foregoing, as a direct and proximate result of the acts of the Defendants as alleged herein, Bonenberger has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of enjoyment of life, stress, and loss of professional reputation. 28. Upon information and belief, the Department maintains a policy or policies of

insurance with respect to tort claims filed against it and its Board and employees, and therefore, to the extent that the Department, its Board, or employees may assert the defense of sovereign immunity with respect to any tort claims set forth below, the Department has waived such defense under the provisions of 537.610 R.S.Mo. by maintaining such policy or policies of

Case: 4:12-cv-00021-CDP Doc. #: 1

Filed: 01/05/12 Page: 7 of 18 PageID #: 7

insurance. COUNT I PLAINTIFFS TITLE VII AND MHRA CLAIMS BASED UPON RACE DISCRIMINATION For Count I of Plaintiffs cause of action against all Defendants, Plaintiff states: 29. Bonenberger alleges and incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein,

paragraphs 1 through 28 above. 30. Director. 31. Bonenberger was rejected for the position of Assistant Academy Director because Bonenberger applied for the promotion to the open position of Assistant Academy

of his race, white, by the Defendants. 32. Bonenberger was more qualified for the position of Assistant Academy Director

than the person ultimately selected for the position, Taylor. 33. A less qualified African-American female was promoted to the position of

Assistant Academy Director by Defendants because of her race. 34. Bonenberger suffered an adverse employment action when he was not promoted

to the position of Assistant Academy Director despite being better qualified for the open position. 35. Any purported reasons that the Defendants might offer for the promotion of

Taylor over Bonenberger to the position of Assistant Academy Director is nothing but pretext to conceal the Defendants illegal discrimination against Bonenberger. 36. The actions, policies and practices complained of herein were in violation of

Bonenbergers rights secured by 42 U.S.C. 2000(e) et seq. and R.S.Mo. 213.010 et seq. 37. As a direct and proximate result the acts of the Defendants as alleged herein,

Case: 4:12-cv-00021-CDP Doc. #: 1

Filed: 01/05/12 Page: 8 of 18 PageID #: 8

Bonenberger was not promoted to the position of Assistant Academy Director, even though more qualified, and will likely lose other promotional opportunities as a result in the future. Additionally, and without waiver of the foregoing, as a direct and proximate result of the acts of the Defendants as alleged herein, Bonenberger has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of enjoyment of life, stress, and loss of professional reputation. 38. The conduct of the Defendants as set forth herein was wanton, willful, and

showed a reckless indifference to Bonenbergers statutory rights as set forth above, making an award of punitive damages appropriate to punish the Defendants and to deter them and others from the same or similar transgressions in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff David Bonenberger prays this Court enter judgment in his favor and against the Defendants and thereafter order Defendants to make him whole by granting him equitable relief to include but not necessarily be limited to promoting him to the position of Assistant Academy Director with all privileges and emoluments of such position; awarding him damages for any and all loses or damages he has suffered including lost promotional opportunities; awarding damages to Bonenberger for his emotional injuries, including but not limited to emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of enjoyment of life, stress, and loss of professional reputation; awarding Bonenberger punitive damages against the individual Defendants in their individual capacities in such sum as this Court believes will serve to punish them and to deter them and others from like conduct; awarding Bonenberger the costs of this action, together with his reasonable attorneys fees; and granting such other and further relief as may appear to the Court to be equitable and just under the circumstances.

Case: 4:12-cv-00021-CDP Doc. #: 1

Filed: 01/05/12 Page: 9 of 18 PageID #: 9

COUNT II VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFFS RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION COGNIZABLE UNDER 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983 For Count II of Plaintiffs cause of action against all Defendants, Plaintiff states as follows: 39. Plaintiff incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein paragraphs 1

through 38 of this Complaint. 40. Defendants, acting under color of state law, deliberately acted against

Bonenberger as set forth above because of his race, white, causing him to be deprived of his rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. 41. The actions, policies and practices complained of were in violation of 42

U.S.C. 1983 in that they have denied Bonenberger of his rights secured by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as equal protection of the law as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 42. The actions complained of herein were made by those with final policy-

making authority and/or approved by those with final policy-making authority within the the Department as part of a deliberate policy of discrimination against a white employee of the Department more qualified for the open position of Assistant Academy Director. 43. As a direct and proximate result the acts of the Defendants as alleged herein,

Bonenberger was not promoted to the position of Assistant Academy Director, even though more qualified, and will likely lose other promotional opportunities as a result in the future. Additionally, and without waiver of the foregoing, as a direct and proximate result of the acts of the Defendants as alleged herein, Bonenberger has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of

Case: 4:12-cv-00021-CDP Doc. #: 1

Filed: 01/05/12 Page: 10 of 18 PageID #: 10

enjoyment of life, stress, and loss of professional reputation. 44. The conduct of the Defendants as set forth herein was wanton, willful, and

showed a reckless indifference to Bonenbergers constitutional and statutory rights as set forth above, justifying an award of punitive damages against the Defendants in their individual capacities to punish them and to deter them and others from the same or similar transgressions in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff David Bonenberger prays this Court enter judgment in his favor and against the Defendants and thereafter order Defendants to make him whole by granting him equitable relief to include but not necessarily be limited to promoting him to the position of Assistant Academy Director with all of the privileges and emoluments of such position; awarding him damages for any and all loses or damages he has suffered including lost promotional opportunities; awarding damages to Bonenberger for his emotional injuries, including but not limited to emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of enjoyment of life, stress, and loss of professional reputation; awarding Bonenberger punitive damages against the individual Defendants in their individual capacities in such sum as this Court believes will serve to punish them and to deter them and others from like conduct; awarding Bonenberger the costs of this action, together with his reasonable attorneys fees; and granting such other and further relief as may appear to the Court to be equitable and just under the circumstances. COUNT III VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFFS RIGHTS SECURED BY 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1981 For Count III of Plaintiffs cause of action against all Defendants, Plaintiff states as follows:

10

Case: 4:12-cv-00021-CDP Doc. #: 1

Filed: 01/05/12 Page: 11 of 18 PageID #: 11

45.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein paragraphs 1

through 44 of this Complaint. 46. Defendants refused to promote Bonenberger to the position of Assistant Academy

Director, even though he was more qualified for the open position. 47. Bonenbergers race was the determining factor, motivating factor, or played a part

in the Defendants decision not to promote Bonenberger even though he was more qualified for the open position. 48. Any stated reason for promoting Taylor over Bonenberger was not the real reason

for promoting her over Bonenberger but a pretext to hide race discrimination. 49. As a direct and proximate result the acts of the Defendants as alleged herein,

Bonenberger was not promoted to the position of Assistant Academy Director, even though more qualified, and will likely lose other promotional opportunities as a result in the future. Additionally, and without waiver of the foregoing, as a direct and proximate result of the acts of the Defendants as alleged herein, Bonenberger has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of enjoyment of life, stress, and loss of professional reputation. 50. The conduct of the Defendants as set forth herein was wanton, willful, and

showed a reckless indifference to Bonenbergers statutory rights as set forth above, justifying an award of punitive damages against the Defendants in their individual capacities to punish them and to deter them and others from the same or similar transgressions in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff David Bonenberger prays this Court enter judgment in his favor and against the Defendants and thereafter order Defendants to make him whole by granting him equitable relief to include but not necessarily be limited to promoting him to the

11

Case: 4:12-cv-00021-CDP Doc. #: 1

Filed: 01/05/12 Page: 12 of 18 PageID #: 12

position of Assistant Academy Director with all privileges and emoluments of such position; awarding him damages for any and all loses or damages he has suffered including lost promotional opportunities; awarding damages to Bonenberger for his emotional injuries, including but not limited to emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of enjoyment of life, stress, and loss of professional reputation; awarding Bonenberger punitive damages against the individual Defendants in their individual capacities in such sum as this Court believes will serve to punish them and to deter them and others from like conduct; awarding Bonenberger the costs of this action, together with his reasonable attorneys fees; and granting such other and further relief as may appear to the Court to be equitable and just under the circumstances. COUNT IV CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE CIVIL RIGHTS For Count IV of Plaintiffs cause of action against Defendants Isom, Harris, and Muxo, Plaintiff states as follows: 51. Plaintiff incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein paragraphs 1

through 50 of this Complaint. 52. Defendants, acting under color of state law, conspired together and

amongst themselves and as a result reached a mutual understanding to promote Taylor, an African-American female, over Bonenberger, a white male, even though Bonenberger was more qualified to fill the open position of Assistant Academy Director, because of Taylors race. Additionally and without waiver of the foregoing, Defendants conspired to undertake a course of conduct to protect each other from the consequences of their constitutional and statutory violations, which in furtherance of the conspiracy violated Bonenbergers constitutional right to equal protection under the laws and federal statutory rights to be free from race discrimination. 12

Case: 4:12-cv-00021-CDP Doc. #: 1

Filed: 01/05/12 Page: 13 of 18 PageID #: 13

In furtherance of this conspiracy, the Defendants committed the following overt acts: a. Defendants, through Muxo, attempted to discourage Bonenberger from

applying for the position of Assistant Academy Director because he was more qualified for the open position than Taylor. b. Defendants refused to interview Bonenberger for the position of Assistant

Academy Director because he was more qualified for the open position than Taylor. c. Defendants promoted Taylor to the position of Assistant Academy

Director because of her race, even though Bonenberger was more qualified for the position. d. When Bonenberger filed an internal grievance regarding the promotion of

Taylor over him and the manner in which it occurred, the Defendants denied the grievance and would not even provide Bonenberger with a copy of Isoms response to it in an effort to conceal their illegal discrimination against Bonenberger. e. Defendants engaged in the conduct as set forth herein to protect

themselves from the consequences of their misconduct. 53. Defendants shared the general conspiratorial objective which was to promote

Taylor over Bonenberger because of her race, African-American. Such conduct is so pervasive in the Department and/or is engaged in by Department command rank officers with final policymaking authority that the Departments command rank officers and officers assisting them are effectively insulated from civil and/or internal sanction, and therefore, Defendants felt free to engage in the misconduct as aforedescribed, without any fear of sanction or retribution. 54. Defendants furthered the conspiracy by participating in it from its inception or by

participating in the cover-up thereof and/or ignoring the course of conduct set forth herein so as

13

Case: 4:12-cv-00021-CDP Doc. #: 1

Filed: 01/05/12 Page: 14 of 18 PageID #: 14

to insulate themselves and others from liability for the outrageous and unlawful acts of the Defendants as described herein, showing a tacit understanding to carry out the prohibited conduct. 55. As a direct and proximate result of the conspiracy amongst the Defendants

and in furtherance thereof, Bonenberger was not promoted to the position of Assistant Academy Director because of his race, and thereby deprived of his constitutional right to equal protection under the laws secured by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and his federal statutory right to be free from illegal discrimination as secured by Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1981, protected by 42 U.S.C. 1983. 56. As a direct and proximate result of the conspiracy amongst Defendants

and in furtherance thereof, Bonenberger was not promoted to the position of Assistant Academy Director, even though more qualified, and will likely lose other promotional opportunities as a result in the future. Additionally, and without waiver of the foregoing, as a direct and proximate result of the acts of the Defendants as alleged herein, Bonenberger has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of enjoyment of life, stress, and loss of professional reputation. 57. The conduct of the Defendants as set forth herein was wanton, willful, and

showed a reckless indifference to Bonenbergers constitutional and federal statutory rights as set forth above, justifying an award of punitive damages against the Defendants in their individual capacities. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff David Bonenberger prays this Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendants Isom, Harris, and Muxo and thereafter order them to make Bonenberger whole by granting him equitable relief to include but not necessarily be limited to

14

Case: 4:12-cv-00021-CDP Doc. #: 1

Filed: 01/05/12 Page: 15 of 18 PageID #: 15

promoting him to the position of Assistant Academy Director with all privileges and emoluments of such position; awarding him damages for any and all loses or damages he has suffered including lost promotional opportunities; awarding damages to Bonenberger for his emotional injuries, including but not limited to emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of enjoyment of life, stress, and loss of professional reputation; awarding Bonenberger punitive damages against the individual Defendants in their individual capacities in such sum as this Court believes will serve to punish them and to deter them and others from like conduct; awarding Bonenberger the costs of this action, together with his reasonable attorneys fees; and granting such other and further relief as may appear to the Court to be equitable and just under the circumstances. COUNT V FAILURE TO TRAIN, INSTRUCT, SUPERVISE, CONTROL AND/OR DISCIPLINE COGNIZABLE UNDER 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983 For Count V of Plaintiffs cause of action against Defendants Battle-Turner, Gray, Gerdine, Lee, Slay, Irwin, and Isom, Plaintiff states as follows: 58. Plaintiff incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein paragraphs 1

through 57 of this Complaint. 59. While the Department purportedly has policies and procedures prohibiting

discrimination and requiring employees to report discrimination, there exists within the Department policies or customs, practices and usages that are so pervasive that they constitute the policies of these Defendants, that caused the violation of Bonenbergers constitutional and federally statutory rights as set forth herein. 60. Isom is the ultimate supervisory officer within the Department and his failure to

affirmatively act in the face of transgressions about which he knew or should have known,

15

Case: 4:12-cv-00021-CDP Doc. #: 1

Filed: 01/05/12 Page: 16 of 18 PageID #: 16

established the policies of this Defendant to condone or otherwise tolerate conduct that violates the constitutional and federal statutory rights of employees of the Department in general and specifically the conduct described in this Complaint. Alternatively, this Defendant has delegated and abrogated all supervisory power. Had this Defendant acted affirmatively to properly train and supervise law enforcement personnel under his command or control and/or to properly discipline the law enforcement personnel under his control when they conduct themselves in ways that violate the constitutional and federal statutory rights of others, the discrimination against Bonenberger on the basis of his race would not have occurred. 61. In an effort to protect subordinates engaged in acts of illegal discrimination, Isom

denied the grievance filed by Bonenberger so that his own negligent training and supervision would not be discovered. Alternatively, and without waiver of the foregoing, Isom denied Bonenbergers grievance to protect himself from the consequences of his own misconduct. 62. Similarly, the Board, through its members, is the policy making body governing

the law enforcement personnel described herein. The Boards failure to affirmatively act in the face of the transgressions described herein of which they knew or should have known, established the policies of these Defendants to condone and otherwise tolerate conduct that violates the constitutional and federal statutory rights of employees of the Department in general and the rights of Bonenberger as set forth in this Complaint. Alternatively, these Defendants have delegated and abrogated all or part of their policymaking power. Had these Defendants affirmatively acted to properly train and/or supervise the law enforcement personnel under their control and/or to properly discipline the law enforcement personnel under their control when they conduct themselves in ways that violate the constitutional and federal statutory rights of others, the race discrimination against Bonenberger would not have occurred.

16

Case: 4:12-cv-00021-CDP Doc. #: 1

Filed: 01/05/12 Page: 17 of 18 PageID #: 17

63. 64.

These failures and refusals were in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. In their failures as above-described, these Defendants intentionally disregarded

known facts or alternatively were deliberately indifferent to a risk of violating the federal rights of others, of which they knew or should have known, and their culpability caused the violation of Bonenbergers federally protected constitutional and statutory rights. 65. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of these Defendants,

Bonenberger was not promoted to the position of Assistant Academy Director, even though more qualified, and will likely lose other promotional opportunities as a result in the future. Additionally, and without waiver of the foregoing, as a direct and proximate result of the acts of the Defendants as alleged herein, Bonenberger has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of enjoyment of life, stress, and loss of professional reputation. 66. The conduct of Defendants Battle-Turner, Gray, Gerdine, Lee, Slay, and Isom

was recklessly and callously indifferent to the federally established rights of Bonenberger, malicious and wanton with respect to those rights, and an award of punitive damages is warranted and necessary to punish these Defendants and to deter them and others from the same or similar transgressions in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff David Bonenberger prays this Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendants Battle-Turner, Gray, Gerdine, Lee, Slay, Irwin, and Isom and thereafter order Defendants to make him whole by granting him equitable relief to include but not necessarily be limited to promoting him to the position of Assistant Academy Director with all privileges and emoluments of such position; awarding him damages for any and all loses or damages he has suffered including lost promotional opportunities; awarding damages to

17

Case: 4:12-cv-00021-CDP Doc. #: 1

Filed: 01/05/12 Page: 18 of 18 PageID #: 18

Bonenberger for his emotional injuries, including but not limited to emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of enjoyment of life, stress, and loss of professional reputation; awarding Bonenberger punitive damages against the individual Defendants in their individual capacities in such sum as this Court believes will serve to punish them and to deter them and others from like conduct; awarding Bonenberger the costs of this action, together with his reasonable attorneys fees; and granting such other and further relief as may appear to the Court to be equitable and just under the circumstances. Respectfully submitted, PLEBAN & PETRUSKA LAW, LLC

By:

/s/ Lynette M. Petruska C. John Pleban, Mo. Bar No. 24190 Lynette M. Petruska, Mo. Bar No. 41212 2010 South Big Bend Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63117 (314) 645-6666 - Telephone (314) 645-7376 - Facsimile Attorneys for Plaintiff

18