IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION CAROLE RIELEY § Plaintiff, § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14cv00631 V. § § JURY TRIAL DEMAND GONZALES COUNTY AND § SANDRA BAKER, INDIVIDUALLY § AND IN HER CAPACITY AS § GONZALES COUNTY DISTRICT § CLERK, § Defendants. § PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
NOW COMES Plaintiff CAROLE RIELEY (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “Rieley”), and files this Original Complaint complaining of Defendant GONZALES COUNTY and Defendant SANDRA BAKER (individually and in her official capacity as District Clerk of Gonzales County) (collectively, “Defendants”). As described more fully below, Defendants violated Plaintiff CAROLE RIELEY’s constitutional right to free speech.
PARTIES
employee and worked for Defendant GONZALES COUNTY and Defendant SANDRA BAKER (in her official capacity as District Clerk).
2. Defendant GONZALES COUNTY is a governmental entity doing business in both the State of Texas and the United States of America. Defendant GONZALES COUNTY maintains its principal place of business at 414 St. Joseph Street, Gonzales, Texas 78629, and is a County Government domiciled in Gonzales County, Texas. The County may be served by serving County Judge David Bird, 414 St. Joseph Street, Suite 200, Gonzales, Texas 78629.
3. Defendant SANDRA BAKER is an individual and a citizen of both the State of Texas and the United States of America. She is currently District Clerk for Gonzales County, and may be served at 414 St. Joseph Street, Suite 300, Gonzales, Texas 78629. She is domiciled in Gonzales County, Texas.
JURISDICTION
4. In this civil action, Plaintiff Rieley is suing Defendant Gonzales County and Defendant Sandra Baker (in her individual capacity and her official capacity as District Clerk) under federal lawSection 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code, and for violating the Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed her by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. To the extent this civil action arises under federal law, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1331 of Title 28 of the United States Code (federal question jurisdiction).
VENUE
5. The Court has federal question jurisdiction over this action for violation of Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Venue is proper in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division because the unlawful practices alleged below were committed therein.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
6. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Gonzales County for more than 10 years, from approximately December 2, 2002 through March 6, 2014. At all relevant times, Plaintiff Rieley was qualified for her job position. Plaintiff Rieley had an excellent work record with Defendant Gonzales County.
7. While Plaintiff Rieley was employed as Deputy District Clerk in the Gonzales County Clerk’s Office, Sandra Baker served as Gonzales County District Clerk.
8. Political party affiliation was not and is not a requirement for the effective performance of Plaintiff’s job.
9. Defendants impliedly represented that during the course of Plaintiff’s employment, Defendants would act in good faith and would fairly deal with Plaintiff.
10. In or around September 2012, Defendant Baker announced to Plaintiff Rieley and the other Gonzales County Deputy District ClerksYvonne San Miguel, Janell Craven, and Georgia Molinoskythat she was planning to retire.
Plaintiff Rieley ran as a Republican Candidate, and Yvonne San Miguel ran as the Democratic Candidate for the position.
12. Defendant Sandra Baker is affiliated with the Democratic Party, and had run for office as a Democrat.
13. On or about December 13, 2013, The Gonzales Inquirer ran a newspaper article regarding Plaintiff Rieley filing for the Republican nomination for Gonzales County District Clerk. In the article, Plaintiff Rieley stated “There are some changes I’d like to make,” and “It is time to see us headed in a new direction.”
14. On February 27, 2014, Plaintiff Rieley ran a political advertisement in a local newspaper, The Canon, seeking the Republican nomination for Gonzales County District Clerk. 15. Then, on February 28, 2014, The Gonzales Inquirer ran a Q&A article with all of the
candidates for Gonzales County District Clerk, in which Plaintiff Rieley participated. 16. On or around February 18, 2014, Plaintiff Rieley heard Yvonne San Miguel tell listeners to
call her at the District Clerk’s office to talk about her campaign for District Clerk during a Q&A on a local radio station. Plaintiff Rieley spoke with Defendant Baker about San Miguel’s comments, and the fact that San Miguel was campaigning at the District Clerk’s office, against policy. Defendant Baker did not reprimand San Miguel for campaigning from the District Clerk’s office.
Baker said “Well, you are terminated.” When Plaintiff Rieley asked why she was being terminated, Defendant Baker said, “I was going to terminate you before, but I let you run your little campaign and now you are terminated.” Defendant Baker then stated that she did not like an interview that Plaintiff Rieley had done with the local newspaper about her candidacy for District Clerk.
18. Plaintiff Rieley was not discharged because of unsatisfactory job performance.
19. Defendants have established and, in terminating Plaintiff, have implemented employment policies and practices which are arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, and have no rational basis.
20. Defendants’ employment policies and practices have subjected Plaintiff to unequal treatment. Defendants’ employment policies and practices discriminate on the basis of political registration, affiliation, and/or association.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF CIVIL ACTION FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS 21. Plaintiff Rieley engaged in speech concerning a matter of public concern. Her interest in
22. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 21. Defendants have terminated Plaintiff’s employment in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Title 42 USCA § 1983. This claim arises both directly under 42 USCA § 1983 and under the United States Constitution. Plaintiff’s protected speech (her political beliefs, association, and affiliation as a former candidate) motivated Defendants’ imposition of these adverse employment actions.
23. In consideration of the law clearly established at the time they occurred, these deprivations and violations were objectively unreasonable. Therefore, Defendant Sandra Baker may be held liable under Section 1983 in her individual capacity and is not entitled to qualified immunity from liability in this civil action. Furthermore, Defendant Sandra Baker (in her individual capacity) displayed reckless and callous indifference to Plaintiff Rieley’s federally protected rights.
JURY DEMAND
25. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, Plaintiff, Carole Rieley, demands a trial by jury of all issues raised in this civil action that are triable of right (or choice) by a jury.
DEMAND FOR JUDGMENT
26. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), Plaintiff, Carole Rieley, makes the following demand that judgment be issued in her favor on all her claims and respectfully requests that this Court:
a. Issue a declaratory judgment that Defendant Gonzales County and Defendant Sandra Baker (in her individual capacity and official capacity as District Clerk) unlawfully deprived Plaintiff, Carole Rieley, of her right to free speechas guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitutionin violation of Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code (declaratory relief);
b. Issue a monetary judgment in an amount equal to the difference between the wages and benefits Plaintiff, Carole Rieley, actually received and the wages and benefits she would have received but for Defendants’ illegal acts (back pay);
Plaintiff, Carole Rieley, for losses she is likely to suffer in the form of future pay and benefits and loss of seniority (reinstatement or front pay);
d. Issue a monetary judgment in an amount sufficient to compensate Plaintiff, Carole Rieley, for all other damages she has suffered as a result of Defendants’ violations of law as described herein (compensatory and actual damages);
e. Issue a monetary judgment in an amount sufficient to punish Defendant Sandra Baker (in her individual capacity) for violating Plaintiff Carole Rieley’s constitutional right to free speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and to deter her from engaging in such action in the future (punitive damages);
f. To the greatest extent allowed by law, issue a monetary judgment granting Plaintiff, Carole Rieley, prejudgment and postjudgment interest on all amounts to which she is entitled.
g. Award Plaintiff, Carole Rieley, attorneys’ fees and costs;
h. To the extent not otherwise requested herein, issue a monetary judgment in favor of Plaintiff, Carole Rieley, for all back pay, front pay (in lieu of reinstatement), compensatory damages, punitive damages, exemplary damages, prejudgment interest, postjudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs to which she is entitled; and
i. Award Plaintiff, Carole Rieley, such additional relief as this Court deems proper and just and to which she is entitled.