Lawsuit

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_________________
BRANDON HANKS, NOTICE OF CLAIM (GML 50-E)
PLAINTIFF, CLAIM-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

vs.
A. FEDERAL CLAIMS
CITY OF SYRACUSE, CHIEF OF POLICE 1. TITLE VII VIOLATIONS, RACE
KENTON T. BUCKNER, POLICE DISCRIMINATION,
OFFICERS, TIMOTHY GAY, COLIN HARASSMENT & HOSTILE
HILLMAN, DEREK MCGORK, WILLIAM WORK ENVIRONMENT;
KITTELL, ANOTHONY FIORINI, DAVID 2. MONELL CLAIM AGAINST
METZ, SHAWN HAUCK and Does 1-100, CITY OF SYRACUSE (42 U.S.C. §
1983);
Defendant(s). 3. 42 U.S.C. § 1981 VIOLATIONS,
RACIAL HARASSMENT,
DISCRIMINATION &
RETALIATION;
4. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 VIOLATIONS,
FIRST AMENDMENT;
5. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 VIOLATIONS,
FOURTH AMENDMENT
VIOLATIONS;
6. 42 U.S.C. 1983 VIOLATIONS,
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
VIOLATIONS;
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHT TO
CONTRACT;
CONSPIRACY;
FAILURE TO PROTECT
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS;
B. STATE CLAIMS
10. N.Y.S. EXC. LAW § 296
VIOLATIONS -
DISCRIMINATION,
HARASSMENT & HOSTILE
WORK ENVIRONMENT;
11. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
NOTICE OF CLAIM FOR BRANDON HANKS 1

12. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
13. NEGLIGENT TRAINING,
DISCIPLINE, RETENTION, AND
SUPERVISION;
14. SLANDER;
15. LIBEL;
16. DEFAMATION PER SE;
PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST

“PERSONS” POLICE OFFICERS
TIMOTHY GAY, COLIN
HILLMAN, & DEREK
MCGORK, IN THEIR
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY;
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
LIABILITY OF CITY OF
SYRACUSE.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
I. INTRODUCTION
1. PLAINTIFF, by his attorneys, CHARLES A. BONNER of the LAW OFFICES OF
BONNER & BONNER, and JESSE RYDER of the RYDER LAW FIRM, as and for his Notice-
of-Claim, respectfully allege, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, upon information
and belief, as follows:
2. This is an action for legal and equitable relief to redress DEFENDANTS’ unlawful
discrimination and harassment based on race, and retaliation against the PLAINTIFF. The suit is
brought to seek damages for economic and non-economic damages; and a declaratory judgment
that DEFENDANTS have engaged in a systemic pattern and practice of racial discrimination in
employment opportunities and have engaged in a campaign of retaliation towards PLAINTIFF
based upon his race.
NOTICE OF CLAIM FOR BRANDON HANKS 2

3. By engaging in unlawful employment practices and intentional racial
discrimination, DEFENDANTS violated federal law in 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 providing: “(a)
Statement of Equal Rights: All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the
same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give
evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons
and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains,
penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”
4. PLAINTIFF’S action is to redress the deprivation of rights secured by Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of
1991, 42 U.S.C.§1981 (hereinafter “Title VII”); and 42 U.S.C. §1981 (hereinafter “§1981") and
N.Y.S. EXC Law §§ 296(1)(a)(e)(h) and 296(7), which provide for relief against discrimination
and harassment in employment on the basis of race and retaliation related thereto.
5. Specifically, PLAINTIFF allege that DEFENDANTS have subjected African-
American employees to a hostile work environment based on their race, African-American.
DEFENDANTS have embarked on a pattern and practice of pervasive and severe hostile conduct
in the work environment, depriving PLAINTIFF of the terms, conditions and benefits of their
employment including, promotion, discipline, and training.
6. PLAINTIFF seeks a permanent injunction and other equitable relief necessary to
eliminate the effects of the DEFENDANTS’ past and present racial discrimination and to prevent
such discrimination from continuing to adversely affect their lives and careers. PLAINTIFF
requests this Court to require DEFENDANTS to affirmatively restructure the work environment
to eliminate all forms of discrimination and to create an equitable promotion selection procedure,
NOTICE OF CLAIM FOR BRANDON HANKS

including but not limited to, fairly providing training and other terms and conditions of
employment. PLAINTIFF seeks damages, back-pay, front-pay; and
A. Economic loss, including lost wages, lost benefits, pharmacy bills,

medical bills, and other economic loss can be quantified when
ascertained.
B. Non-economic loss, including, but not limited to, pain, anxiety,
inconvenience, mental distress, emotional distress, loss of
enjoyment of life, humiliation, fear, discomfort, damage to health
image, damage to career, suffering and misery.
C. Punitive damages.
D. Attorney fees and costs.
7. The PLAINTIFF seeks compensatory and punitive damages and request a jury trial
pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1981a. Further, the PLAINTIFF seeks attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant
to 42U.S.C.§1988; and other equitable remedies necessary to make them whole.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3) and 1343(a)(4),
and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5; and 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) and 12203, which incorporates by reference
Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1)
and (3), Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a and the "Civil
Rights Act of 1866," as amended by § 101 of the "Civil Rights Act of 1991," and codified at 42
U.S.C. § 1981; N.Y. Exec Law §§ 296(1)(a)(e)(h) and 296(7); and N.Y. Exec. Law, art. 15
("Human Rights Law").
9. Venue is proper in this judicial district because the unlawful employment practices
alleged herein below were committed by the DEFENDANTS within Onondaga County, State of
New York. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5.
III. PARTIES

10. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS is an African-American male citizen of the
United States over the age of nineteen (19) years and is a resident citizen of the State of New York
and residing at 4242 Huntingcreek Drive, Clay, New York 13041.
11. Defendant CITY OF SYRACUSE POLICE DEPARTMENT is a division of the
CITY OF SYRACUSE governmental organization of the State of New York.
12. DEFENDANTS TIMOTHY GAY, COLIN HILLMAN, DEREK MCGORK,
WILLIAM KITTELL, ANOTHONY FIORINI, DAVID METZ, and SHAWN HAUCK are
“Persons” officers employed by Defendant CITY OF SYRACUSE as police officers.
13. At all times relevant to this action Defendant CITY OF SYRACUSE is the
employer of the PLAINTIFF within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §1981 and of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a)
and (b).
14. Defendant CHIEF KENTON T. BUCKNER is the managing agent, supervisor of
PLAINTIFF at all times relevant to this action.
IV. DOE DEFENDANTS
15. PLAINTIFF does not know the true names and capacities, whether individual,
corporate, associate, or otherwise of DEFENDANT Does 1 through 100 inclusive, and therefore
sue these DEFENDANTS by such fictitious names. PLAINTIFF will amend their complaint to
allege their true names and capacities when this has been ascertained.
16. At all times relevant to this action, the PLAINTIFF is an employee of CITY OF
SYRACUSE and was rightfully attempting to make and enforce the terms of contract(s) regarding
his employment. At all times relevant to this action, CITY OF SYRACUSE has employed at least
fifteen (15) or more employees.
V. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUISITES

17. PLAINTIFF pursues claims against the Defendant under both Title VII and 42
U.S.C. §1981, and for New York State Law Claims. Each PLAINTIFF has met all administrative
conditions precedent for the filing of this case under Title VII. This PLAINTIFF timely filed a
charge of discrimination with the EEOC and New York and is awaiting a Right-To-Sue Notice.
VI. STATEMENT OF FACTS
18. PLAINTIFF at all relevant times is an employee of Defendant CITY OF
SYRACUSE.
19. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS has been employed as a Syracuse Police Officer
for approximately four (4) years. Mr. Hanks has received multiple awards and commendations
from the Mayor of Syracuse, NAACP and the Defendant CITY OF SYRACUSE for his
commitment to professionalism and community relations. During the Summer of 2019 Mr. Hanks
initiated a community outreach program, known as “Pull Up Challenge,” whereby he challenges
the youth of Syracuse to one-on-one basketball games. Mr. Hanks plays in full uniform and duty
belt and if his challenger wins, they receive a free pair of sneakers and if they lose, they must do
pushups. Mr. Hanks has recruited NBA star, Rajon Rondo, to participate in this outreach program
by donating twenty-five (25) pairs of sneakers. Mr. Hanks has received national recognition for
his progressive approach to policing and his commitment to his community, including the Mayor’s
Achievement Award. Mr. Hanks is currently employed as a Police Officer assigned to the Gun
Violence Suppression Detail and is the only African-American in his unit. Due to his high level of
performance, his direct supervisor Lieutenant Patti, has recommended him for a transfer to a more
prestigious position as a member of the Gang Violence Taskforce. Mr. Hanks, being a very driven
and committed police officer viewed this as an opportunity to advance his career. In response to
his pending promotion, DEFENDANTS TIMOTHY GAY, COLIN HILLMAN, DEREK
MCGORK, WILLIAM KITTELL, ANOTHONY FIORINI, DAVID METZ, and SHAWN

HAUCK, entered into a conspiracy to deprive the PLAINTIFF of this career advancement. There
are currently no African-American members of the Gang Violence Taskforce and the
DEFENDANTS have taken extraordinary steps to deprive Mr. Hanks of his promotion by
undertaking a covert investigation into Mr. Hanks’ life and publishing a memorandum whereby
they have fabricated a false persona of Mr. Hanks with the intent of destroying his career.
20. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, maintained discriminatory hiring practices to
avoid hiring minorities. Consequently, PLAINTIFF Mr. Hanks is the only African- American
working as a member of the Gun Violence Suppression Detail. Further, there are currently no
African-American members of the Gang Violence Taskforce.
21. During the pendency of his transfer into the Gang Violence Taskforce,
DEFENDANTS set upon scouring PLAINTIFF’S social media accounts and other aspects of his
personal life to concoct a scheme to deprive him of this employment advancement. On April 8,
2021, Captain TIMOTHY GAY published an internal memorandum whereby he falsely accused
the PLAINTIFF of being gang affiliated, listening to rap music, being involved in gang violence,
being a passenger in a vehicle with known gang members during a traffic stop, being involved in
gangs, narcotics trafficking, and other criminal activity. DEFENDANTS have all conspired to
deprive Mr. Hanks of his rightful advancement within the Police Department based upon his race
and upon malicious accusations which are all completely manufactured for such purpose.
22. PLAINTIFF, Mr. Brandon Hanks, has been treated less favorably than European-
American employees in the terms and conditions of his employment. Defendant CITY OF
SYRACUSE has applied their rules and policies differently and discriminatorily to Mr. Brandon
Hanks as compared to the more favorable treatment of the European-American counterpart
employees.

23. As a direct result of being denied training and promotional opportunities,
PLAINTIFF has also been denied greater pay and prestige.
24. Throughout PLAINTIFF’S employment, he has experienced and witnessed other
African-American employees subjected to retaliation and discriminatory treatment.
25. PLAINTIFF has been subjected to racially discriminatory and hostile comments
and conduct from European-American employees, including “Lead” Persons and Supervisors.
26. PLAINTIFF has complained about the racially discriminatory and hostile conduct,
but DEFENDANTS failed to take remedial actions to stop and prevent such unlawful conduct.
27. The racially discriminatory and hostile conduct is on-going and continuing. This
illegal conduct creates a racially hostile environment in which African-Americans, and anyone
who complains, including the PLAINTIFF, are forced to work.
28. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, owes PLAINTIFF a duty of care to be free from
discrimination, harassment and hostile work environment. The evidence adduced above and law,
demonstrate DEFENDANTS owed a duty specifically to PLAINTIFF and to African-Americans
and other protected classifications, "a targeted group of individuals within a population."
DEFENDANTS’ European-American harassing racist employees discriminated against
PLAINTIFF because of his African-American “Race”. DEFENDANTS’ European-American
harassing racist employees only used such racist tactics against PLAINTIFF Mr. Hanks because
those white employees felt comfortable in their presumption that other European-Americans would
acquiesce and participate in the racist environment and hostile work environment. Therefore,
DEFENDANTS’ European-American harassing racist employees’ conduct in creating a race based
hostile working environment was motivated by the “Race” of the PLAINTIFF, African-American.
DEFENDANTS took no action against their racist employees. The “Race” discrimination against

PLAINTIFF, an African-American, violates Title VII and New York’s State law prohibiting
discrimination in the work place based on protected classifications, inter alia, as race.
29. Mr. Hanks maintains that he was targeted by Supervisor DEFENDANTS
TIMOTHY GAY, COLIN HILLMAN and DEREK MCGORK, and also his peers within the Gang
Violence Taskforce. Mr. Hanks maintains that the retaliatory actions consisted of being called a
“gang member,” a “narcotics trafficker,” “gang affiliated,” and accused of being a person who
listens to “rap music.”
FEDERAL CLAIMS
COUNT I
TITLE VII VIOLATIONS
RACE DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT AND HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
30. The PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference each of the foregoing
paragraphs above with the same force and effect as if fully set out in specific detail hereinafter.
31. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have engaged in an illegal employment
practice including, but not limited to, discrimination, creating a hostile work environment,
retaliation, and denying PLAINTIFF his federally guaranteed right to enter into contracts because
of his race in the same manner as white people.
32. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have discriminated against the PLAINTIFF in
the terms, conditions and privileges of his employment through the creation and toleration of a
racially charged and hostile work environment.
33. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have authorized, ratified, encouraged and
condoned illegal employment practices, including but not limited to, a racially hostile work
environment, racial harassment, racial stereotypes, and other disparate treatment by which
African-American persons are treated as inferior to European-Americans. The racially hostile

environment changed, and continues to change, the terms and conditions of the employment of the
PLAINTIFF.
34. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, including supervisors and management
officials, participated in, were aware of, encouraged, and condoned the racially hostile work
environment.
35. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, failed to train their employees, including the
named PLAINTIFF on its purported anti-discrimination policy and reporting procedures.
36. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, through their agents and employees, have
allowed European-American employees to openly display racial animus against African-American
employees, including the named PLAINTIFF, Mr. Brandon Hanks.
37. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, engaged in a pattern and practice of systemic
discrimination, and hostile work environment that was pervasive and severe, adversely affecting
PLAINTIFF’S terms and conditions of employment by promoting and reinforcing racial
stereotypes and racial bias in the workplace.
38. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, rejected PLAINTIFF’S repeated good faith
complaints in opposition to the racial discrimination and racial harassment to which Mr. Brandon
Hanks, and other African-American employees, were subjected.
39. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, retaliated against PLAINTIFF because of
PLAINTIFF’S engaging in protected activities resulting in racial discrimination and harassment.
40. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, engaged in unlawful actions constituting a
practice, pattern, custom and policy of allowing acts of racial harassment, racial discrimination
and retaliation in violation of its employees’ state and federally protected rights.

41. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, failed to take any prompt and effective action
reasonably calculated to result in the prevention of and remedy of the racial harassment, racial
discrimination and retaliation of the named PLAINTIFF. The actions of DEFENDANTS, as set
out herein, violate Title VII, 42 USC 1981, and all state discrimination laws.
42. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have caused PLAINTIFF to suffer damages as
follows:

ascertained.
43. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, engaged in conduct that was despicable,
malicious, fraudulent, oppressive, vile, and intentionally calculated to harm and injure PLAINTIFF
by displaying a conscious disregard to PLAINTIFF’S safety, health, and constitutional rights.
DEFENDANTS’ illegal conduct entitles PLAINTIFF to punitive damages hereinafter set forth.
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays judgment hereinafter set forth.
COUNT II
42 U.S.C. § 1983 MONELL CLAIM
AS TO DEFENDANT CITY OF SYRACUSE
44. PLAINTIFF hereby incorporate the allegations contained in the preceding
paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein.
45. At the time of PLAINTIFF’S discrimination each individual Defendant was acting
under color of all the laws and regulations of the State of New York and the CITY OF

SYRACUSE. The CITY OF SYRACUSE has a policy, custom, practice and pattern of conduct in
place that enables it agents and employees police officers to act with deliberate disregard for
constitutionally protected rights.
46. At the time of the constitutional violations committed against Mr. Hanks each
Defendant was acting under color of all the laws and regulations of the State of New York and the
CITY OF SYRACUSE. The CITY OF SYRACUSE has a policy, custom, practice and pattern of
conduct in place that enables it agents and employees police officers to act with deliberate
indifference to the constitutional rights of individuals. This policy, custom, practice and pattern of
conduct, includes, but is not limited to, tolerating misconduct by its police officers, encouraging
misconduct by failing to adequately supervise, discipline and train its police officers.
47. PLAINTIFF asserts that the CITY OF SYRACUSE is liable for any constitutional
torts committed by the individual Defendant Police Officers because the CITY OF SYRACUSE
maintains a custom, policy and pattern and practice of failing to exercise reasonable care in
training, supervising and hiring its officers. PLAINTIFF further alleges the CITY OF SYRACUSE
maintains a custom, policy, pattern and practice of inaction regarding disciplining police officers
for racial discrimination; and a custom, policy, practice and pattern of failing to discipline its police
officers for violating the constitutional rights of its citizens. PLAINTIFF also alleges that the CITY
OF SYRACUSE has an inadequate Racial Discrimination Policy, which does not clearly draw a
bright line defining constitutional violations for racial discrimination. The CITY OF
SYRACUSE’S policy, custom, practice and pattern were a motivating factor causing a deprivation
of Mr. Hanks’s constitutional rights.
48. The CITY OF SYRACUSE has an urgent need for a clear policy regarding racial
discrimination. PLAINTIFF requests a Declaratory Judgment that the CITY OF SYRACUSE’S

policy on excessive force is inadequate and presents clear and present danger of deprivation of the
constitutional rights of persons who are employed by the CITY OF SYRACUSE.
49. Under Monell, local governments and their agencies can be sued as "persons" under
§ 1983 and may be liable where a government policy or custom gives rise to a constitutional
deprivation. A "custom" does not require official sanction; instead, a custom "may fairly subject a
municipality to liability on the theory that the relevant practice is so widespread as to have the
force of law." 1Thus, the elements of a Monell claim include: 1) an official policy or custom that,
2) causes the PLAINTIFF to be subjected to, 3) a deprivation of a constitutional right. 2
50. An “official policy or custom” can be shown in several ways: (1) a formal policy
officially endorsed by the municipality; (2) actions taken by government officials responsible for
establishing municipal policies related to the particular deprivation in question; (3) a practice so
consistent and widespread that it constitutes a custom or usage sufficient to impute constructive
knowledge of the practice to policymaking officials; and (4) a failure by policymakers to train or
supervise subordinates to such an extent that it amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of
those who come in contact with the municipal employees. 3
51. The record of this case, based on investigation, research, complaints to the CITY
OF SYRACUSE, and News Paper Reports of Claims of racial discrimination by the CITY OF
SYRACUSE shows a pattern, practice, custom and policy by in failing to respect, uphold and
enforce the constitutional rights of employees of the CITY OF SYRACUSE. Defendant’s failure
1 Board of County Comm'rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404, 117 S. Ct. 1382, 137 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1997) To make a
claim for municipal liability, it is not sufficient to allege merely conduct attributable to the municipality. Id. "A
plaintiff must show that the municipal action was taken with the requisite degree of culpability and must
demonstrate a direct causal link between the municipal action and the deprivation of federal rights." Id.
2
Batista v. Rodriguez, 702 F.2d 393, 397 (2d Cir. 1987).
3
Dorsett-Felicelli v. C’nty of Clinton, 371 F. Supp. 2d 183, 194 (N.D.N.Y. 2005) (citing Monell, 436 U.S at 690,
Pembaur v. VILLAGE of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 483-84 (1986), and VILLAGE of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378,
388 (1989)).

to discipline, train and supervise the police officers under their command has resulted in the civil
rights violations of Mr. Hanks and many, many other African-American employees of
SYRACUSE. Defendant’s actions and inactions as the government official responsible for
establishing municipal policies related to discipline, training and supervising the CITY OF
SYRACUSE Police Department have been the motivating factors in the deprivations of
constitutional rights of Mr. Hanks and of many other victims of racial discrimination.
52. The CITY OF SYRACUSE’S Police Chief’s inactions, resulting in a policy of
inaction, a policy of lack of supervision, and a policy of lack of training for his police officers in
how to protect the constitutional rights of African-American police officers was a direct and
proximate cause of the violation of Mr. Hanks’ constitutional rights as stated herein. The CITY
OF SYRACUSE’S Police Chief’s policy, custom and practice of inaction, lack of discipline and
lack of training of his officers led his Defendant police officers to perform a sham investigation
into Mr. Hanks and publish a memorandum stating that Mr. Hanks is “gang affiliated,” a “narcotics
trafficker,” affiliated with “criminal activity,” and someone who listens to “rap music.”
53. The evidence the CITY OF SYRACUSE’S Policy and Custom and Practice of
racial \discrimination and failure to train and discipline its officers will be presented after discovery
in this action.
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.
COUNT III
42 U.S.C. § 1981 VIOLATIONS
RACIAL HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION & RETALIATION
55. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, denied PLAINTIFF the right to contract the
same as white people because of his race. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, retaliated and

discriminated against PLAINTIFF, denying him the terms, conditions and privileges of his
employment through the creation and toleration of a racially charged and hostile work
environment. This racially hostile environment includes, but is not limited to, racial harassment,
racial stereotypes, and other disparate treatment by which African-American persons are treated
as inferior, as set out in detail above and below.
56. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, through their agents and employees, denied
PLAINTIFF’S right to contract the same as white people by maintaining an intolerable hostile
work environment fueled by racial animus against African-Americans.
57. As set out in detail above, the DEFENDANTS have retaliated against the
PLAINTIFF and other African-American employees who have sought and earned promotions. The
DEFENDANTS’ conduct was retaliation based, at least in part, on the PLAINTIFF’S protected
activities of progressive community policing and community outreach. The unlawful actions of
the DEFENDANTS, as set forth above, constitute a practice, pattern, custom and policy of the
DEFENDANTS for allowing acts of racial harassment, racial discrimination and retaliation in
violation of their employees’ state and federally protected rights.
58. Mr. Brandon Hanks was hired by DEFENDANTS on or about December 5, 2016
as a Police Officer and is currently still employed by the DEFENDANTS.
59. PLAINTIFF, Mr. Hanks, has been treated less favorably than European-American
employees in the terms and conditions of his employment and employment rules and policies are
applied differently to Mr. Hanks than his European-American counterparts.
60. During the course of his employment, Mr. Hanks was denied proper training and
promotions based on his African-American race.

61. Throughout Mr. Hanks’ employment, in the Gun Violence Suppression Detail
DEFENDANTS hired no African-American Supervisors and all of the upper management is
European-American, excluding Chief Kenton T. Buckner.
62. DEFENDANTS do not post vacancy announcements for the positions of
Supervisors or Lead Persons within their specialized units. DEFENDANTS have a practice and a
custom of merely selecting less qualified European-American employees for these positions with
no posting or application process. This custom and practice by DEFENDANTS deny African-
American employees the opportunities for promotions.
63. Mr. Hanks was given lower evaluations than similarly situated
European-American employees, resulting in lower wage increases than the European-American
employees, as pay increases are allegedly tied to employment evaluations and promotions.
64. The lower evaluations given to the African-American employees, including Mr.
Hanks, results in receiving lower pay increases and promotions than less qualified European-
American employees.
65. Mr. Hanks has been denied promotions and training for positions which would have
afforded him greater pay and prestige.
66. DEFENDANTS continued to employ the primary offenders who subjected the
PLAINTIFF to hostility, animus, lack of training, and lack of promotions, and all the mistreatment
reserved for African-American employees.
67. PLAINTIFF has been subjected to racially charged and stereotypical comments
being made by European-American workers. The comments include, but are not limited to, the
following: “gang member,” “narcotics trafficker,” “gang affiliated,” a person who listens to “rap
music,” among countless others.

68. These racially derogatory comments and slurs are severe and pervasive and have
changed the terms and conditions of PLAINTIFF’S employment and the PLAINTIFF is subjected
to such racially derogatory comments and slurs.
follows:

ascertained.
DEFENDANTS illegal conduct entitles PLAINTIFF to punitive damages hereinafter set forth.
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF pray judgment hereinafter set forth.
COUNT IV
FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOM OF SPEECH
72. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides: “Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

73. Mr. Hanks alleges that DEFENDANTS violated his First Amendment Right of Free
Speech by scouring through his Social Media accounts and personal life and by using statements
made by him, along with his enjoyment of rap music, as evidence for denying him a promotion
because of his privileged speech.
74. DEFENDANTS’ conduct was intentional, malicious, fraudulent, and shows a
reckless disregard of the constitutional rights, safety and health of Mr. Hanks. DEFENDANTS’
conduct warrants punitive damages to protect the public in an amount according to proof.
COUNT V
FOURTH AMENDMENT INVASION OF PRIVACY
76. DEFENDANTS invaded the privacy of Mr. Hanks when DEFENDANTS set upon
a conspiracy to scour through PLAINTIFF’S personal life for the intention of compiling evidence
to satisfy their intentional deprivation of his constitutional rights. DEFENDANTS subjected the
PLAINTIFF to unwarranted surveillance and fabricated multiple accusations against the
PLAINTIFF without his consent, permission or agreement. This invasion into the personal life of
Mr. Hanks was unwelcomed. DEFENDANTS conducted a covert invasion into the PLAINTIFF’S
personal life without consent or the knowledge of Mr. Hanks.
77. DEFENDANTS’ invasion of privacy caused Mr. Hanks great distress, humiliation,
injuries and harm and was a major invasion of their privacy. Defendant’s conduct was intentional,
malicious, fraudulent, and shows a reckless disregard of the constitutional rights, safety and health
of Mr. Hanks. Defendant’s conduct warrants punitive damages in an amount according to proof.

COUNT VI
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROPERTY, LIBERTY, EQUAL PROTECTION AND
DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS
79. The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, provides important
rights that are applicable to the States: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." By setting upon a conspiracy to investigate the
PLAINTIFF and publishing a memorandum that accuses the PLAINTIFF of being “gang
affiliated,” a “gang member,” a “narcotics trafficker,” and someone who listens to “rap music,”
with the intention of depriving him of a career advancement, the DEFENDANTS have violated
Mr. Hanks’ Fourteenth Amendment Rights.
80. By setting upon a course of conduct, described above and below this paragraph, to
deprive Mr. Hanks of his right to pursue his career and seek advancement the DEFENDANTS
have violated Mr. Hanks’ right to property.
81. Pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution,
PLAINTIFF has a liberty right to pursue his career and advancement.
have violated Mr. Hanks’ right to Liberty.
PLAINTIFF has a right to equal protection of law.

have violated Mr. Hanks’ right equal protection of law.
PLAINTIFF has a right to due process of law.
have violated Mr. Hanks’ right of due process of law.
COUNT VII
42 U.S.C § 1981 VIOLATIONS
RIGHT TO CONTRACT
88. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have engaged in an illegal employment practice
including, but not limited to, discrimination, creating a hostile work environment, retaliation, and
denying PLAINTIFF his federally guaranteed right to enter into contracts because of his race in
the same manner as white people.
89. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have discriminated against the PLAINTIFF in
the terms, conditions and privileges of his employment through the creation and toleration of a
racially charged and hostile work environment.
90. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have authorized, ratified, encouraged and
condoned illegal employment practices, including but not limited to, a racially hostile work
environment, racial harassment, racial stereotypes, and other disparate treatment by which
African-American persons are treated as inferior to European-Americans. The racially hostile

environment changed, and continues to change, the terms and conditions of the employment of the
PLAINTIFF.
91. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, including supervisors and management
officials, participated in, were aware of, encouraged, and condoned the racially hostile work
environment.
92. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, failed to train their employees, including the
named PLAINTIFF on its purported anti-discrimination policy and reporting procedures.
93. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, through their agents and employees, have
allowed European-American employees to openly display racial animus against African-American
employees, including the named PLAINTIFF, Mr. Brandon Hanks.
94. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, engaged in a pattern and practice of systemic
discrimination, and hostile work environment that was pervasive and severe, adversely affecting
PLAINTIFF’S terms and conditions of employment by promoting and reinforcing racial
stereotypes and racial bias in the workplace.
95. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, rejected PLAINTIFF’S repeated good faith
complaints in opposition to the racial discrimination and racial harassment to which Mr. Brandon
Hanks, and other African-American employees, were subjected.
96. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, retaliated against PLAINTIFF because of
PLAINTIFF’S engaging in protected activities resulting in racial discrimination and harassment.
97. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, engaged in unlawful actions constituting a
practice, pattern, custom and policy of allowing acts of racial harassment, racial discrimination
and retaliation in violation of its employees’ state and federally protected rights.

98. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, failed to take any prompt and effective action
reasonably calculated to result in the prevention of and remedy of the racial harassment, racial
discrimination and retaliation of the named PLAINTIFF. The actions of DEFENDANTS, as set
out herein, violate Title VII, 42 USC 1981, and all state discrimination laws.
follows:

ascertained.
DEFENDANTS’ illegal conduct entitles PLAINTIFF to punitive damages hereinafter set forth.
COUNT VIII
CONSPIRACY
101. PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates the allegations contained in the preceding
102. Federal Law 42. U.S.C. §1985 provides in pertinent part: “If two or more persons
in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from
accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from

discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave
any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure
him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while
engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder,
or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;
103. Mr. Hanks alleges that individual DEFENDANTS conspired, agreed and schemed
with each other to fabricate evidence for the purpose of depriving him of a career advancement,
whereby violating Mr. Hanks’’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
104. By recruiting multiple members of the Gang Violence Taskforce to dig up dirt on
Mr. Hanks for the purpose of depriving him of a career advancement, TIMOTHY GAY and all
DEFENDANTS set upon a course of action meant to deprive Mr. Hanks of his Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendment Rights.
105. The evidence proves by the requisite preponderance standard that individual
DEFENDANTS, and each of them, set upon a conspiracy to deprive Mr. Hanks of a career
advancement by labeling him as “gang affiliated,” a “gang member,” a “narcotics trafficker,” a
person who listens to “rap music,” and other accusations, published these accusations in a
memorandum and used this memorandum to deprive Mr. Hanks of his career.
106. DEFENDANTS’ conduct violated 42 U.S.C. §1985 because DEFENDANTS acted
under the color of law in depriving Mr. Hanks of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights of
Privacy and his Fourteenth Amendment Right of Liberty, Property, Due Process and Equal
Protection under law.

107. In spite of their knowledge, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in a joint enterprise,
scheme and conspiracy with each other, displayed a conscious disregard and a deliberate
indifference to Mr. Hanks’ constitutional rights and to is health and safety.
108. DEFENDANTS’ conduct was the direct and proximate cause of Mr. Hanks’
injuries, damages and harms including his economic and non-economic damages. The individual
DEFENDANTS herein acted with deliberate indifference, malice, fraud and oppression in their
total disregard of Mr. Hanks’ constitutional rights, health and safety. DEFENDANTS’ intentional
conduct resulting in the deprivation of Mr. Hanks’ constitutional rights entitle Mr. Hanks to
punitive damages against each of the individual DEFENDANTS.
COUNT IX
FAILURE TO PROTECT
109. PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates the allegations contained in the preceding
110. 42 U.S.C. § 1986 provides in pertinent part: “Every person who, having knowledge
that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about
to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same,
neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured,
or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by
reasonable diligence could have prevented;…”
111. DEFENDANTS, and all of them, knew they were participating in a conspiracy, as
defined under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, to deprive Mr. Hanks of his career and the advancement thereof,
as described above and below.

112. By furthering this conspiracy to deprive Mr. Hanks of his career and the
advancement thereof, as described above and below, the DEFENDANTS, and each of them, are
liable.
113. The actions of the DEFENDANTS, and each of them, was wanton, willful,
malicious, illegal, and meant to deprive Mr. Hanks, an African-American police officer, from his
career and his constitutionally protected rights.
STATE CLAIMS
COUNT X
N.Y.S. EXC. LAW § 296 VIOLATIONS – DISCRIMINATION,
HARASSMENT AND HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
114. The PLAINTIFF reallege and incorporate by reference each of the foregoing
N.Y.S. Exc. Law § 296 (1)(h) states in part:
1. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice:

(h) For an employer, licensing agency, employment agency or labor organization
to subject any individual to harassment because of an individual's age, race, creed,
color, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, military
status, sex, disability, predisposing genetic characteristics, familial status, marital
status, domestic violence victim status, or because the individual has opposed any
practices forbidden under this article or because the individual has filed a
complaint, testified or assisted in any proceeding under this article, regardless of
whether such harassment would be considered severe or pervasive under precedent
applied to harassment claims. Such harassment is an unlawful discriminatory
practice when it subjects an individual to inferior terms, conditions or privileges of
employment because of the individual's membership in one or more of these
protected categories.
115. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, caused PLAINTIFF to suffer the indignities of
blatant and extreme racism every day while employed by the DEFENDANTS.

116. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, forced PLAINTIFF to endure racial slurs, such
as “gang affiliated,” “gang member,” “narcotics trafficker,” a person who listens to “rap music,”
among others, directed toward himself, an African-American employee.
117. The retaliation suffered by the PLAINTIFF includes, but is not limited to, failure
to train, refusal to promote, isolation and ridicule of the PLAINTIFF by management and co-
workers, purposely being put into scenarios where PLAINTIFF would fail, extreme scrutiny and
discipline meant to intimidate the PLAINTIFF, among other harassment.
118. Defendant, and each of them, have caused PLAINTIFF to suffer damages as
follows:

ascertained.
COUNT XI
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

121. PLAINTIFF asserts claims for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. "To
maintain a claim of IIED under New York law, the PLAINTIFF must establish '(1) extreme and
outrageous conduct, (2) intent to cause severe emotional distress, (3) a causal connection between
the conduct and the injury, and (4) severe emotional distress.'" Sylvester v. City of New York,
(S.D.N.Y. 2005) DEFENDANTS' actions were sufficiently extreme and outrageous to support
PLAINTIFF’S IIED claim. To state an IIED claim, the conduct must be "so outrageous in
character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be
regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.'" Howell v. N.Y. Post Co.,
(N.Y. 1993) (quoting Murphy v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 448 N.E.2d 86, 90 (N.Y. 1983)).quoting
Bender v. City of New York, 78 F.3d 787, 790 (2d Cir. 1996)).
122. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, intentionally promoted, encouraged, endorsed
and ratified the hostile work environment, the blistering racial discrimination, and the retaliation
against PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANTS intentionally failed to remedy and chose to allow the illegal
employment practice to continue unabated; chose to refrain from implementing corrective and
remedial actions to protect PLAINTIFF from discrimination and a hostile work environment,
knowing, and were informed, that their inaction caused severe mental and severe emotional
injuries and severe mental and emotional distress inflicted by employee’s vile conduct that should
not, and is not, tolerated in our civilized society.
123. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, permitted, and failed to correct such racial
epithets and hostile conduct as outlined above.
124. DEFENDANTS’ actions were sufficiently extreme and indisputably so outrageous
in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and [is] be
regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.

125. By reason of DEFENDANTS’ discriminatory employment practices the named
PLAINTIFF has experienced harm, including loss of compensation, back and front pay, and other
employment benefits, and continue to be injured, suffering distress, humiliation, loss of prestige,
mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, and monetary and economic losses.
follows:

ascertained.
COUNT XII
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
129. PLAINTIFF also assert a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress
(NIED) against Defendant, and each of them. Under New York State Law, there are two (2) ways
to state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress: first, by alleging that the Defendant

breached a duty owed to PLAINTIFF that "unreasonably endangered [their] safety," and second,
by alleging that Defendant's negligence threatened the PLAINTIFF with physical harm, "and, as
a result, [PLAINTIFF] suffered emotional injury from witnessing the death or serious bodily injury
of an immediate family member." Hiralall v. Sentosacare, LLC, No. 13-cv-4437 (GBD), 2016 WL
1126530, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35781, at *46 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2016).
130. PLAINTIFF alleges claims for NIED against DEFENDANTS, and each of them,
under both theories of liability. The first type of liability, known as the "direct duty" theory,
requires PLAINTIFF to show that the DEFENDANTS owed a duty that was "specific to the
PLAINTIFF, and not some amorphous, free-floating duty to society." Mortise v. United States,
102 F.3d 693, 696 (2d Cir. 1996). It is not sufficient to demonstrate that the DEFENDANTS had
a "generalized duty to prevent unreasonable risks of harm to passers-by"; the duty owed by the
DEFENDANTS must have been "specific [and] unique" to PLAINTIFF. Id.; see also Hazan v.
City of New York, No. 98 Civ. 1716(LAP), 1999 WL 493352, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 1999)
(holding that the City's "general duty to prevent its police force from inflicting unreasonable harm
on society at large" was insufficient to state an NIED claim under a direct duty theory).
131. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, owed the PLAINTIFF a duty of care to be free
from discrimination, harassment and hostile work environment. The evidence adduced above, and
law demonstrate Defendant owed a duty specifically to African-American PLAINTIFF and to
other protected classifications, "a targeted group of individuals within a population."
132. DEFENDANTS’ inaction and failure to protect the PLAINTIFF breached a duty
owed to the PLAINTIFF that "unreasonably endangered [their] safety," and DEFENDANTS’
negligence threatened the PLAINTIFF with physical harm. PLAINTIFF Mr. Hanks, so afraid to
go to work due to being labeled as a “gang member,” “gang affiliated,” a “narcotics trafficker,”

being accused of “criminal activity,” and being targeted for listening to “rap music.” This
harassment caused Mr. Hanks to fear for his safety.
133. By reason of DEFENDANTS’ discriminatory employment practices including,
wrongful denial of promotion, the named PLAINTIFF has experienced harm, including loss of
compensation, back and front pay, and other employment benefits, and continue to be injured,
suffering distress, humiliation, loss of prestige, mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, and
monetary and economic losses.
134. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have caused the PLAINTIFF to suffer damages
as follows:

ascertained.
malicious, fraudulent, oppressive, vile, and intentionally calculated to harm and injure the
PLAINTIFF by displaying a conscious disregard to PLAINTIFF’S safety, health, and
constitutional rights. DEFENDANTS illegal conduct entitles the PLAINTIFF to punitive damages
hereinafter set forth.

COUNT XIII
NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, RETENTION, AND SUPERVISION
137. PLAINTIFF alleges claims for Negligent Hiring, Training, Retention, and
Supervision. To prevail in any such claims, a PLAINTIFF must prove, in addition to the elements
of standard negligence, that “(1) the tort-feasor and the defendant were in an employee-employer
relationship, (2) the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the
conduct which caused the injury prior to the injury’s occurrence, and (3) that the tort was
committed on the employer’s premises or with the employer’s chattels.” Ehrens v. Lutheran
Church, 385 F.3d 232, 235 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
141.DEFENDANTS, and each of them, owed the PLAINTIFF a duty of care to be free from
discrimination, harassment and hostile work environment. The evidence adduced above and law,
demonstrate DEFENDANTS owed a duty specifically to the PLAINTIFF and to African-
Americans, and other protected classifications, "a targeted group of individuals within a
population." DEFENDANTS’ European-American harassing racist employees discriminated
against PLAINTIFF, African-American, because of PLAINTIFF African-American’ “Race.”
DEFENDANTS’ European-American harassing racist employees only used such racist language
against PLAINTIFF Mr. Hanks because those white employees felt comfortable in their
presumption that other European-Americans would acquiesce and participate in the racist name
calling and hostile work environment. Therefore, DEFENDANTS’ European-American harassing
racist employees’ conduct in creating a race based hostile working environment was motivated by
the “Race” of PLAINTIFF, African-American. DEFENDANTS have consistently hired less
qualified European-Americans as members of the Gang Violence Taskforce and have

discriminated against other African-Americans, such as the PLAINTIFF Mr. Hanks, thereby
violating Title VII and New York’s State law prohibiting discrimination in the work place based
on protected classifications, inter alia, as race.
138. DEFENDANTS breached the statutory duty imposed by Title VII and the anti-
discrimination laws of the State of New York by failing to protect PLAINTIFF from
discrimination, harassment, hostile work environment and retaliation.
139. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, failed to hire employees who respected the laws
of America and the State of New York, prohibiting racial discrimination and all forms of
discrimination on the basis of protected classifications. The employees who subjected the
PLAINTIFF to perpetual racism were racist at the time of hire, even after DEFENDANTS received
repeated reports of racist conduct exhibited by employees. DEFENDANTS had actual and
constructive knowledge of the discrimination occurring in its work force. DEFENDANTS knew
or should have known of the European-American employee’s propensity for the racist conduct
because such conduct was reported to DEFENDANTS. The illegal discrimination, hostile work
environment, harassment and retaliation occurred on DEFENDANTS’ premises. Hence,
DEFENDANTS are liable to the PLAINTIFF for all of his injuries, damages and harm.
140. By reason of DEFENDANTS’ discriminatory employment practices including
wrongful termination, the named PLAINTIFF has experienced harm, including loss of
compensation, back and front pay, and other employment benefits, and continues to be injured,
suffering distress, humiliation, loss of prestige, mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, and
monetary and economic losses.
141. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have caused the PLAINTIFF to suffer damages
as follows:

ascertained.
malicious, fraudulent, oppressive, vile, and intentionally calculated to harm and injure the
PLAINTIFF by displaying a conscious disregard to PLAINTIFF’S safety, health, and
constitutional rights. DEFENDANTS illegal conduct entitles the PLAINTIFF to punitive damages
hereinafter set forth.
COUNT XIV
SLANDER
143. DEFENDANTS have repeatedly and viciously slandered the name and reputation
of the PLAINTIFF. These statements have been intentionally meant to harm the PLAINTIFF and
his ability to enjoy his career as a police officer. The DEFENDANTS have repeatedly accused the
PLAINTIFF of being “gang affiliated,” a “gang member,” a “narcotics trafficker,” of being
involved in “criminal activity,” of listening to “rap music,” among others. Due to DEFENDANTS
continual slander, the PLAINTIFF has been deprived of the ability to advancement within the
Syracuse Police Department.
144. These statements made by the DEFENDANTS are directly related to the
PLAINTIFF’S ability to perform his duties as a police officer.

145. These statements made by the DEFENDANTS were repeated continually and
damaged the PLAINTIFF’S reputation beyond repair and resulted in a drastic loss of his career.
COUNT XV
LIBEL
146. DEFENDANTS have published a memorandum that viciously slandered the name
and reputation of the PLAINTIFF. These published statements have been intentionally meant to
harm the PLAINTIFF and his ability to enjoy his career as a police officer. The DEFENDANTS
have repeatedly accused the PLAINTIFF of being “gang affiliated,” a “gang member,” a “narcotics
trafficker,” of being involved in “criminal activity,” of listening to “rap music,” among others. Due
to DEFENDANTS publication and continual slander, the PLAINTIFF has been deprived of the
ability to advancement within the Syracuse Police Department.
147. This publication made by the DEFENDANTS are directly related to the
148. This publication made by the DEFENDANTS were repeated has damaged the
PLAINTIFF’S reputation beyond repair and resulted in a drastic loss of his career.
COUNT XVI
DEFAMATION PER SE
149. DEFENDANTS have repeatedly and viciously defamed the name and reputation of
the PLAINTIFF by publishing a memorandum accusing the PLAINTIFF of being “gang
affiliated,” a “gang member,” a “narcotics trafficker,” being involved in “criminal activity,” and
being a “rap music” fan, among others. All of these published accusations were part of an ongoing
campaign of defamation meant to damage the PLAINTIFF’S reputation and cause harm to the
PLAINTIFF’S ability to maintain his livelihood by accusing the PLAINTIFF of being a criminal

and committing the crimes of narcotics trafficking and being part of an illegal gang as defined in
the NYS Penal Law. These statements have been meant to cause injury to the PLAINTIFF’S career
and to hurt the PLAINTIFF’S standing and reputation in the Syracuse Police Department.
150. As a result of this defamation Per Se, PLAINTIFF has suffered damage to his
reputation and has had to defend himself to the various individuals in the Syracuse Police
Department.
151. These statements made by the DEFENDANTS are directly related to the
152. These published statements have caused the PLAINTIFF harm with the Syracuse
Police Department and affected the PLAINTIFF’S ability to maintain cooperative relationships
with fellow officers and the public at large. Attached as Exh. 1 is the published statements made
by the DEFENDANTS accusing the PLAINTIFF of being “gang affiliated,” being a gang
member,” being a “narcotics trafficker,” being engaged in “criminal activity,” and listening to “rap
music,” among others. These published statements have caused the PLAINTIFF to defend his
reputation with other police officers and leadership in the Syracuse Police Department and affected
other professional relationships.
153. These statements constitute Defamation Per Se.
VII. REQUEST FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
154. Mr. Hanks seeks punitive damages for the protection of the community against
DEFENDANT OFFICER GAY.
DEFENDANT OFFICER HILLMAN.

DEFENDANT OFFICER MCGORK.
DEFENDANT OFFICER KITELL.
DEFENDANT OFFICER FIORINI.
DEFENDANT OFFICER METZ.
DEFENDANT OFFICER HAUCK.
DEFENDANT CHIEF OF POLICE KENTON T. BUCKNER.
VIII. RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
162. PLAINTIFF, Mr. Hanks claims that the CITY OF SYRACUSE is liable under the
theory of respondeat superior for Defendant Police Officers violations of Mr. Hanks’ State and
Federal Constitutional Rights and other violations of PLAINTIFF’S rights. Cities may be held
vicariously liable for state law torts committed by police officers under a theory of respondeat
superior. See Williams v. Village of White Plains, 718 F. Supp. 2d 374, 381 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
Therefore, the respondeat superior claim against the CITY OF SYRACUSE regarding Defendant
Police Officers is a valid claim, establishing liability against the CITY OF SYRACUSE.
IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the named PLAINTIFF requests the following relief:
1. Acceptance of jurisdiction of this cause;

2. A declaratory judgment that the DEFENDANTS’ employment
practices challenged herein are illegal and in violation of Title
VII and 42 U.S.C. §1981, 1983, 1985 & 1986;
3. A temporary and permanent injunction against DEFENDANTS
and their partners, officers, owners, agents, successors,
employees, representatives and any and all persons acting in
concert with it, from engaging in any further unlawful practices,
policies, customs, usages, racial discrimination and retaliation by
such DEFENDANTS set forth herein;
4. An Order requiring DEFENDANTS to initiate and implement
programs that provide (i) equal employment opportunities for
African-American employees; (ii) remedy the effect of
Defendant’s past and present unlawful employment practices;
and (iii) eliminate the continuing effects of the discriminatory
and retaliatory practices described above;
5. An Order requiring DEFENDANTS to initiate and implement
systems of assigning, training, transferring, compensating, and
promoting African-American employees in a non-discriminatory
manner;
6. An Order establishing a task force on equality and fairness to
determine the effectiveness of the programs described in (4) and
(5), above, which would provide for (i) the monitoring, reporting,
and retaining of jurisdiction to ensure equal employment
opportunity, (ii) the assurance that injunctive relief is properly
implemented, and (iii) a quarterly report setting forth information
relevant to the determination of the effectiveness of the programs
described in (4) and (5), above;
7. An award of back pay; front pay; lost job benefits; preferential
rights to jobs, and other equitable relief for the named
PLAINTIFF;
8. An award of compensatory and punitive damages for all legal
relief sought in this complaint; including an award of punitive
damages in the amount of $33,000,000 against all
DEFENDANTS to protect society from such illegal and
despicable conduct, and as exemplary damages to deter such
multi-national DEFENDANTS as CITY OF SYRACUSE
POLICE DEPARTMENT engaging in Jim Crow culture and
illegal discriminatory behavior;
9. An award of litigation costs and expenses, including reasonable
attorneys’ fees;

10. Pre-judgment and Post-judgment interest; and
11. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Date: June 14, 2021 …….RYDER LAW FIRM
By: /s/Jesse P. Ryder
Jesse P. Ryder, Esq.
Attorney for PLAINTIFF
RYDER LAW FIRM
6739 Myers Road East
Syracuse, NY 13057
Tel: (315) 382-3617
Fax: (315) 295-2502
ryderlawfirm@gmail.com
Dated: June 14, 2021

LAW OFFICES OF BONNER & BONNER
By: /s/Charles A. Bonner
Charles A. Bonner
California State Bar No.: 85413
(Pro Hac Vice Pending)
475 GATE FIVE RD, SUITE 211
SAUSALITO, CA 94965
TEL: (415) 331-3070
FAX: (415) 331-2738
charles@bonnerlaw.com
Dated: June 14, 2021 LAW OFFICES OF BONNER & BONNER

By: /s/A. Cabral Bonner
A. Cabral Bonner
California State Bar No.: 247528
(Pro Hac Vice Pending)
475 GATE FIVE RD, SUITE 211
SAUSALITO, CA 94965
TEL: (415) 331-3070
FAX: (415) 331-2738

Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

PLAINTIFF, CLAIM-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

NOTICE OF CLAIM FOR BRANDON HANKS 1

PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

1. PLAINTIFF, by his attorneys, CHARLES A. BONNER of the LAW OFFICES OF

and belief, as follows:

employment opportunities and have engaged in a campaign of retaliation towards PLAINTIFF

based upon his race.

NOTICE OF CLAIM FOR BRANDON HANKS 2

penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”

4. PLAINTIFF’S action is to redress the deprivation of rights secured by Title VII of

5. Specifically, PLAINTIFF allege that DEFENDANTS have subjected African-

American employees to a hostile work environment based on their race, African-American.

employment including, promotion, discipline, and training.

6. PLAINTIFF seeks a permanent injunction and other equitable relief necessary to

NOTICE OF CLAIM FOR BRANDON HANKS

employment. PLAINTIFF seeks damages, back-pay, front-pay; and

A. Economic loss, including lost wages, lost benefits, pharmacy bills,

to 42U.S.C.§1988; and other equitable remedies necessary to make them whole.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3) and 1343(a)(4),

("Human Rights Law").

NOTICE OF CLAIM FOR BRANDON HANKS

and residing at 4242 Huntingcreek Drive, Clay, New York 13041.

11. Defendant CITY OF SYRACUSE POLICE DEPARTMENT is a division of the

CITY OF SYRACUSE governmental organization of the State of New York.

12. DEFENDANTS TIMOTHY GAY, COLIN HILLMAN, DEREK MCGORK,

“Persons” officers employed by Defendant CITY OF SYRACUSE as police officers.

14. Defendant CHIEF KENTON T. BUCKNER is the managing agent, supervisor of

PLAINTIFF at all times relevant to this action.

IV. DOE DEFENDANTS

fifteen (15) or more employees.

V. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUISITES

NOTICE OF CLAIM FOR BRANDON HANKS

VI. STATEMENT OF FACTS

18. PLAINTIFF at all relevant times is an employee of Defendant CITY OF

initiated a community outreach program, known as “Pull Up Challenge,” whereby he challenges

his pending promotion, DEFENDANTS TIMOTHY GAY, COLIN HILLMAN, DEREK

MCGORK, WILLIAM KITTELL, ANOTHONY FIORINI, DAVID METZ, and SHAWN

NOTICE OF CLAIM FOR BRANDON HANKS

20. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, maintained discriminatory hiring practices to

African-American members of the Gang Violence Taskforce.

Hanks as compared to the more favorable treatment of the European-American counterpart

NOTICE OF CLAIM FOR BRANDON HANKS

PLAINTIFF has also been denied greater pay and prestige.

24. Throughout PLAINTIFF’S employment, he has experienced and witnessed other

African-American employees subjected to retaliation and discriminatory treatment.

who complains, including the PLAINTIFF, are forced to work.

demonstrate DEFENDANTS owed a duty specifically to PLAINTIFF and to African-Americans

DEFENDANTS’ European-American harassing racist employees discriminated against

PLAINTIFF because of his African-American “Race”. DEFENDANTS’ European-American

DEFENDANTS’ European-American harassing racist employees’ conduct in creating a race based

NOTICE OF CLAIM FOR BRANDON HANKS

29. Mr. Hanks maintains that he was targeted by Supervisor DEFENDANTS

listens to “rap music.”

31. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have engaged in an illegal employment

of his race in the same manner as white people.