Hanks, Brandon V City of Syracuse Et Al - Complaint

Case 5:21-cv-00921-GLS-ATB Document 1 Filed 08/16/21 Page 1 of 60
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_________________ CASE NO. 5:21-cv-00921 (GLS/ATB)

BRANDON HANKS, AND OTHER
SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PLAINTIFF, A. FEDERAL CLAIMS

vs. 1. TITLE VII VIOLATIONS, RACE
DISCRIMINATION,
CITY OF SYRACUSE, KENTON HARASSMENT, RETALIATION
BUCKNER, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL & HOSTILE WORK
CAPACITY; DEPUTY CHIEF RICHARD ENVIRONMENT;
TRUDELL, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; 2. MONELL CLAIM AGAINST
DEPUTY CHIEF JOSEPH CECILE, IN HIS CITY OF SYRACUSE (42 U.S.C. §
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; POLICE 1983);
OFFICERS, CAPTAIN TIMOTHY GAY, IN 3. 42 U.S.C. § 1981 VIOLATIONS,
HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; COLIN RACIAL HARASSMENT,
HILLMAN, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL DISCRIMINATION &
CAPACITY; DEREK MCGORK, IN HIS RETALIATION;
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; WILLIAM 4. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 VIOLATIONS,
KITTELL, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; FIRST AMENDMENT;
ANOTHONY FIORINI, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL 5. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 VIOLATIONS,
CAPACITY; DAVID METZ, IN HIS FOURTH AMENDMENT
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; SHAWN HAUCK, VIOLATIONS INVASION OF
IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; SUSAN PRIVACY;
IZZO, IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; 6. 42 U.S.C. 1983 VIOLATIONS,
ANN CLARK, IN HER INDIVIDUAL FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
CAPACITY; BRANDON FOUGNIER, IN HIS VIOLATIONS;
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; and Does 1-100; 7. 42 U.S.C. 1981 VIOLATIONS,
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHT TO
DEFENDANT(S). CONTRACT;
8. 42 U.S.C. 1985 VIOLATIONS,
CONSPIRACY;
9. 42 U.S.C. 1986 VIOLATIONS,
FAILURE TO PROTECT
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
B. STATE CLAIMS
10. N.Y.S. EXC. LAW § 296
VIOLATIONS -
DISCRIMINATION,
HARASSMENT, RETALIATION
& HOSTILE WORK
ENVIRONMENT;
COMPLAINT FOR BRANDON HANKS 1

11. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF

EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
12. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
13. NEGLIGENT TRAINING,
DISCIPLINE, RETENTION, AND
SUPERVISION;
14. SLANDER;
15. LIBEL;
16. DEFAMATION PER SE;
17. RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR;
VIOLATION OF FEDERAL 1980

CONSENT DECREE;
VIOLATION OF MAYOR
WALSH’S EXECUTIVE ORDER
OF 2020;
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
I. INTRODUCTION
1. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, agreed, conspired, and took overt acts
preventing the promotion of Officer Brandon Hanks, with an award-winning reputation for
policing, under the knowingly false and contrived assertions, Inter Alia, that Officer Hanks was
“gang affiliated,” a “narcotics trafficker,” and listens to “rap music.”
2. Despite a long and entrenched history of racially discriminatory policing carried
out by the Syracuse Police Department (“SPD”) whose brunt has been predominantly born by the
African American citizens of the CITY OF SYRACUSE, those same discriminatory and racist
tendencies have now been directed inward at one of the Department’s own. Having grown up in
Syracuse and having experienced firsthand the SPD’s oppressive and disparate treatment directed
at his African American peers and community, PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS, rather than
carry forth a scorn and disdain for the Department and policing in general, sought out a career in
policing in order to model a more just and affirming role that the Department could play in the

lives of its citizens. As a police officer with the SPD, PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS engaged
in creative strategies to assist in redirecting the young people in Syracuse to a life of service and
contribution rather than a life of crime. Nevertheless, the achievements that PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS made in this regard were not fully shared by his peers and supervisors in the
Department but instead, wholly conflicted with the Department and CITY OF SYRACUSE’s
custom, practice and policy of perceiving and disparately treating the African American
community under racialized terms as criminals and undeserving of the rights endowed them under
state, federal and constitutional law.
3. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ success in garnering the respect and
acknowledgment of his positive contributions to the community were far too much for his peers at
the SPD who, as predominantly European American, were adamantly opposed to PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS’ joining the ranks of the coveted, all European American SPD Gang
Violence Taskforce. Rather than championing one of their own who was excelling in his police
work, PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ peers affirmatively sought to derail his promotion to the
Taskforce by conjuring and fabricating evidence to show that he too, merely on account of his
race, was but a criminal and gang member who was merely hiding behind his SPD badge and
uniform. It is with the intention to not only redress the egregious and deeply disheartening harms
that PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS incurred at the hands of his peers in uniform and his
employer, the CITY OF SYRACUSE, but to also to shine a light on the SPD and CITY OF
SYRACUSE’s pervasive and unrelenting discriminatory and downright racist proclivities and
actions directed at the African American community of Syracuse, New York.
4. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS, by his attorneys, CHARLES A. BONNER of
the LAW OFFICES OF BONNER & BONNER, and JESSE RYDER of the RYDER LAW FIRM,

respectfully allege, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, upon facts, evidence, and
upon information and belief, as follows:
5. This is an action for legal and equitable relief to redress DEFENDANTS’ unlawful
discrimination and harassment based on race and retaliation against PLAINTIFF BRANDON
HANKS when performing his entrusted role as a police officer for the Syracuse Police Department.
This action seeks economic and non-economic damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive
relief.
6. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to
eliminate the effects of DEFENDANTS’ past and present racial discrimination and to prevent such
discrimination from continuing to adversely affect not only his life and career as a police officer
with the SPD, but also the CITY OF SYRACUSE’s African American community. PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS requests this Court to require DEFENDANTS to affirmatively restructure
their work environment to eliminate all forms of discrimination and to create an equitable
promotion selection procedure, as well as providing training and other terms and conditions of
employment in strict compliance with State and Federal equal protection under the law and
DEFENDANTS’ compliance with the existing Consent Decree of 1980. PLAINTIFF BRANDON
HANKS seeks damages, including back-pay, front-pay; and the following:
A. Economic loss, including lost wages, lost benefits, pharmacy bills,

medical bills, and other economic loss which 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, spiritual injury,
damage to health image, damage to self-image, damage to career,
suffering and misery.
C. Punitive damages against Individual Defendants.
D. Attorney fees and costs.

7. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS also seeks punitive damages against Individual
Defendants and request a jury trial pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1981. Furthermore, PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS seeks attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§§ 1983, 1988; and
other equitable remedies necessary to fully redress his harms.
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 Onondaga County and
the State of New York.
11. Defendant CITY OF SYRACUSE POLICE DEPARTMENT is a division of the
CITY OF SYRACUSE, a governmental organization of the State of New York.
12. DEFENDANTS’ TIMOTHY GAY, COLIN HILLMAN, DEREK MCGORK,
WILLIAM KITTELL, ANOTHONY FIORINI, DAVID METZ, SHAWN HAUCK, SUSAN

IZZO, ANN CLARK, and BRANDON FOUGNIER (“DEFENDANT OFFICERS”) 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. Defendants CHIEF KENTON BUCKNER, DEPUTY CHIEF JOSEPH CECILE,
and DEPUTY CHIEF RICHARD TRUDELL are managing agents and supervisors of PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS, as well as Defendant Officers at all times relevant to this action.
IV. DOE DEFENDANTS
15. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS does not know the true names and capacities,
whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise of DEFENDANT Does 1 through 100
inclusive, and therefore sues these DEFENDANTS by such fictitious names. PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS will amend his complaint to allege their true names and capacities when this
has been ascertained.
16. At all times relevant to this action, PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS is an
employee of CITY OF SYRACUSE and was rightfully attempting to comply with and enforce the
terms of contract(s), including the Consent Decree of 1980, 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 BRANDON HANKS pursues claims against the DEFENDANTS
under both Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §1981, and for New York State Law Claims. PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS has met all administrative conditions precedent for the filing of this case
with respect to state claims having filed a notice-of-claim on or about June 23, 2021. With respect

to his Title VII claim, PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS has timely filed a charge of
discrimination with the EEOC and received his right-to-sue letter on or about July 28, 2021, See
Exhibit 1.
VI. STATEMENT OF FACTS
18. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS, 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. He 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, PLAINTIFF BRANDON
HANKS initiated a community outreach program, known as “Pull Up Challenge,” wherein Officer
Hanks posed a challenge to individual young people of Syracuse to play a game of one-on-one
basketball against him while he is dressed in his full police uniform. If the young person wins,
they would receive a free pair of sneakers while if they lose, they must perform pushups.
PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS recruited NBA star, Rajon Rondo, to participate in this outreach
program by donating twenty-five (25) pairs of sneakers.1
1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjbbB0ilCP8

20. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS has received national recognition for his
progressive approach to policing and to his commitment to his community, including receiving the
Mayor’s Achievement Award. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS is currently employed as a
Police Officer assigned to the Gun Violence Suppression Detail and is the only African American
in this unit. Due to his high level of performance, his direct supervisor Lieutenant Donald Patti,
has recommended him for a transfer to a more prestigious position as a member of the Gang
Violence Taskforce. As a very driven and committed police officer, PLAINTIFF BRANDON
HANKS perceived this as an opportunity to advance his career. In response to his pending
promotion, DEFENDANTS DEPUTY CHIEF RICHARD TRUDELL, TIMOTHY GAY, COLIN
HILLMAN, DEREK MCGORK, WILLIAM KITTELL, ANOTHONY FIORINI, DAVID METZ,
and SHAWN HAUCK, entered into a conspiracy to deprive PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS 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 PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS of this promotion by engaging in a racially motivated campaign to destroy
his career by publishing a memorandum that included falsehoods based upon the fabrication of
results derived from an unjustified and constitutionally infirm covert surveillance campaign.
21. In furtherance of their conspiracy, DEFENDANTS’ DEPUTY CHIEF TRUDELL,
TIMOTHY GAY, COLIN HILLMAN, DEREK MCGORK, WILLIAM KITTELL, ANOTHONY
FIORINI, DAVID METZ, and SHAWN HAUCK informed BRANDON HANKS they were
initiating a surveillance campaign that would monitor his whereabouts and communications on
account of their fabricated and unfounded claim that a gang had placed a ‘hit’ on his life.
DEFENDANTS knew at all times that such was a rouse in order to permit them to conjure
incriminatory evidence that they would use to not only undermine BRANDON HANKS’
promotion to Gang Violence Taskforce, but to destroy his career as a police officer in its entirety.

DEFENDANTS fallacious and racially motivated published memorandum is attached hereto as
Exhibit 2.
22. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, maintained discriminatory hiring practices to
avoid hiring minorities. The CITY OF SYRACUSE, as well as SPD’s leadership, including
DEFENDANTS CHIEF BUCKNER and DEPUTY CHIEF TRUDELL have perpetuated such
practices despite the CITY OF SYRACUSE still being a party to a March 27, 1980 consent decree
with the U.S. Department of Justice, mandating DEFENDANT CITY OF SYRACUSE to
affirmatively correct its police department’s exceedingly racially disparate staffing with an almost
complete absence of African American police officers despite that population comprising 30% of
the citizens of Syracuse. As of June 26, 2020: “Black officers still represent just 9% of a police
force that is 30% Black…” “Of the 109 new officers sworn in since 2018, only 14 — or 12.8% —
have been African American, according to data the police department presented Thursday. Despite
a 40-year-old federal consent decree….”2 Upon information and belief, as of the date of this
lawsuit, the SPD employs approximately Four Hundred and Twenty police officers only a mere
Fifteen are African American, which represents 3.5%. This is a violation of the 1980 Consent
Decree mandating that the number of African American officers mirror the African American
population in Syracuse which is approximately 30%. In order to comply with the federal mandate
of 1980, the SPD must hire and maintain a minimum of approximately One Hundred and Twenty-
Six African American police officers. The SPD has failed to carry out their mandated duty since
the inception of the Consent Decree of 1980. Officer Brandon Hanks hereby requests a Declaratory
2
https://www.syracuse.com/news/2020/06/syracuse-looks-to-hire-more-black-police-but-this-is-not-a-very-popular-
profession-chief-says.html

Judgment commanding the SPD to immediately comply with the federal mandate “with all
deliberate speed.”3
23. On March 27, 1980, the City of Syracuse entered into a Consent Decree with the
Federal Government concerning, among other things, the racial disparity within the Syracuse
Police Department. The Consent Decree, ¶ 13 states, in part:
Subject to the provisions of this decree, the City desires to and shall consider
applications for employment in the fire and police departments from any person
who meets the applicable criteria for any given position without regard to such
person’s race or sex… (A copy the Consent Decree of March 27, 1980 is attached
hereto as Exhibit 3.)
24. Similarly, despite wholly ignoring the terms of its May 27, 1980 Consent Decree
by persisting in its racially disparate hiring and promotion practices, the SPD, in response to the
murder of George Floyd, and the ensuing massive response to its blatant and unyielding racist
underpinnings, on June 19, 2020, CITY OF SYRACUSE Mayor Ben Walsh executed an Executive
Order addressing, among other things, the racial disparity in the City of Syracuse Police
Department. Among other provisions, including the spirit of the existing Executive Order, ¶ 14
states the SPD shall:
25. Continue to review and upgrade the department’s recruitment, screening, and hiring
practices, with an aim to increase the diversity of the department’s membership. (A copy of this
Executive Order is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.)
3
Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, (1954).

26. Despite the Consent Decree and the Executive Order, and more commensurate with
the reality of the lack of representation of African Americans in the SPD, PLAINTIFF BRANDON
HANKS is the only African American working as a member of the Gun Violence Suppression
Detail. Further, there are currently no African American members on the Gang Violence
Taskforce, who are all European Americans.
27. While his transfer to the exclusively all European American Gang Violence
Taskforce was pending, DEFENDANTS actively engaged in a scheme that was intentionally
directed at undermining and ‘railroading’ PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ appointment to the
Gang Violence Taskforce. The scheme entailed scouring PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’
social media accounts, as well as surreptitious surveillance of his personal life, with the concerted
aim of locating anything that could serve as an impediment to his appointment. DEFENDANTS
concocted and fabricated a false record that would deprive PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS of
advancing his career by serving on the Taskforce. As part of DEFENDANTS’ conspiracy and
scheme, DEFENDANT DEPUTY CHIEF RICHARD TRUDELL ordered DEFENDANT
CAPTAIN GAY to conduct a bogus investigation of PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS.
28. DEFENDANT DEPUTY CHIEF RICHARD TRUDELL’s racist proclivities were
unconcealed and publicly manifested, when in the past, he had been blatantly forthcoming as to
his racist views by unashamedly admitting on record that he irremissibly uses the terms ‘niggers’
to connote African Americans and ‘spics’ for Hispanic Americans:




See Attached hereto, as Exhibit 5, is a true and correct copy of the Deposition Transcript
of Richard Trudell, dated, June 24, 2011.
29. Based upon the elicit surveillance and investigation ordered by DEFENDANT
DEPUTY CHIEF RICHARD TRUDELL and carried out by DEFENDANT OFFICERS, on or
about April 8, 2021, Captain TIMOTHY GAY published an internal memorandum whereby he
falsely accused PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS, Inter Alia, of the following: “association with
known gang members-felony and RICO…,” associated with “gang members, convicted criminals,
narcotics trafficking…,” affiliated with local gangs and involved in gang violence, being a
passenger in a vehicle with known gang members during a traffic stop, and most egregiously, in
uniform while listening to “rap music.” DEFENDANTS have all conspired to deprive PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS of his rightful advancement within the Police Department based upon his
race and upon malicious accusations that were completely and utterly manufactured for such
purpose. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of DEFENDANT CAPTAIN
GAY’s Memorandum.
30. As the above allegations make plain, PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS has been
treated less favorably than similarly situated European American employees with respect to the
terms and conditions of his employment, i.e., a denial of promotional and training opportunities.
DEFENDANT CITY OF SYRACUSE has disparately treated PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS
by applying its policies and rules in a constitutionally prohibited fashion by explicitly treating
PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS in a less favorable manner than his similarly situated European
American Caucasian colleagues. Such application of the CITY OF SYRACUSE’s long standing
policy, practice and custom has resulted in the withholding of training and promotional
opportunities to PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS, as well as the residual enhancements in his
pay structure and overall prestige.

31. Throughout PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ employment, he has experienced
and witnessed other African American employees subjected to retaliation and discriminatory
treatment, including diminished opportunities with respect to training and promotion. In
affirmatively perpetuating such policy, practice and custom, DEFENDANTS have persistently and
intentionally failed to take remedial actions to stop and prevent such unlawful conduct.
32. The evidence adduced above, as well as the applicable law, the 1980 DOJ Consent
Decree and June 2020 Executive Order demonstrate that DEFENDANTS owed a specific duty to
BRANDON HANKS and to other African Americans, as well as other protected classifications to
address their long-standing discriminatory employment policies. Despite such specific duties, the
CITY OF SYRACUSE and DEFENDANT CHIEF BUCKNER, through DEFENDANTS
DEPUTY CHIEF TRUDELL perpetuated the Department’s discriminatory policies, practices and
customs of discrimination by permitting and sanctioning DEFENDANT OFFICERS to engage in
explicitly hostile and discriminatory conduct that led the European American DEFENDANT
OFFICERS to believe that their conduct was permissible.
33. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS maintains that he was targeted by Supervisors
DEFENDANTS TIMOTHY GAY, COLIN HILLMAN and DEREK MCGORK, as well as his
peers within the Gang Violence Taskforce. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS maintains that
DEFENDANTS’ retaliatory conduct was comprised of being falsely and maliciously designated a
“gang member,” a “narcotics trafficker,” “gang affiliated,” and accused of being a person who
listens to “rap music.”
34. Further, upon filing a Notice-of-Claim in this case DEFENDANTS immediately
retaliated against PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS by taking disciplinary action against him.
This disciplinary action was intended to cover-up DEFENDANTS’ illegal and discriminatory
behavior and to discourage PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS and/or any similarly situated

employee of the CITY OF SYRACUSE’s Police Department from coming forward with
complaints of racial discrimination.
35. On or about March 24, 2021, DEFENDANTS seized upon PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS’ social media post as grounds for disciplining him despite the video being
posted on Mr. HANKS personal social media page while off-duty and physically located in his
own private vehicle. BRANDON HANKS received a verbal reprimand and ordered to undergo
counseling. The video that DEFENDANTS relied upon to support its reprimand shows
PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS wearing a turtleneck with the letters “SPD” while rap music
can be heard playing from an outside source. In response to DEFENDANTS’ reprimand,
PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS notified the Police Department that he was not the one playing
the rap music, but accepted his discipline and immediately removed the social media post.
36. As a direct result of filing his initial Notice-of-Claim on or about June 23, 2021 that
highlighted the discriminatory culture that prevailed within the Syracuse Police Department, as
well as the racially motivated and constitutionally infirm surveillance and fabricated evidence
compiled in their April 8, 2021 memorandum, whose purpose was to disqualify BRANDON
HANKS from a promotion to the Gang Violence Taskforce, DEFENDANTS immediately
retaliated against Mr. HANKS by disciplining him a second time for a social media post that
included a rap song playing in the background that referenced the word “nigga(s).”
37. Again, in or about July 2, 2021, in response to PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’
Notice-of-Claim on or about June 23, 2021, DEFENDANTS SUSAN IZZO, JOSEPH CECILE,
and KENTON BUCKNER disciplined PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS on the second occasion
for the same offense of playing rap music, this time with an enhanced level of discipline
comprising a written reprimand included in his personnel file. By resorting to a second reprimand
in temporal proximity to BRANDON HANKS’ notice of claim filing for conduct that had already

been disciplined, DEFENDANTS’ actions can only be interpreted as a retaliatory gesture for the
complaints BRANDON HANKS levied against the SPD for its racist culture and the vicious and
racist attacks exacted upon him intended to thwart his promotion. The letter of written reprimand
is attached hereto as Exhibit 6.
38. DEFENDANT ANN CLARK serves the Syracuse Police Department as the
department’s Wellness Officer. As part of her duties ANN CLARK provides mental and physical
healthcare for Syracuse Police Department personnel. Aware of the tremendous psychological
strain that DEFENDANTS’ actions had upon PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS, ANN CLARK
reached out to him in the course of her employment, and provided him with confidential mental
health counseling. Thereafter, DEFENDANT ANN CLARK breached her mandated duty of
confidentiality that she owed PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS by helping to spread
misinformation and perpetuate the personal attacks against him on social media. Attached hereto
as Exhibit 7 is a disparaging social media posting disseminated on a law enforcement home page
that referred to PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS and which ANN CLARK, by ‘liking’ such
posting, affirmatively communicated that she was in agreement with its content. By affirming the
social media posts content, DEFENDANT ANN CLARK had breached her duty of confidentiality
that she unequivocally owed PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS and as such, betrayed the trust that
he had placed in her by publicly supporting unsubstantiated attacks on him on social media.
39. DEFENDANT BRANDON FOUGNIER is a Sergeant with the Syracuse Police
Department and serves in the Gang Violence Taskforce under CAPTAIN GAY’s command.
BRANDON FOUGNIER was aware of the fact that PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS works as
an assistant basketball coach for Cicero-North Syracuse High School. In an attempt to undermine
PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ coaching position, DEFENDANT FOUGNIER sent a text
message to the Head Basketball Coach at Cicero-North Syracuse High School referring to

PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS as “boy” and accusing him of playing the “race-card.”
DEFENDANT FOUGNIER’’s actions were intentional and malicious and meant to harm
PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS. The text message sent by the DEFENDANT FOUGNIER is
attached hereto as Exhibit 8.
FEDERAL CLAIMS
COUNT I
(TITLE VII VIOLATIONS)
RACE DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT, RETALIATION, HOSTILE WORK
ENVIRONMENT AND FAILURE TO PREVENT AND PROTECT FROM
DISCRIMINATION
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
40. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS hereby incorporates the allegations contained in
the preceding paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein.
41. DEFENDANTS’ CITY OF SYRACUSE, CHIEF BUCKNER, DEPUTY CHIEF
TRUDELL, CAPTAIN TIMOTHY GAY and all DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have engaged
in illegal employment practices including, but not limited to, discrimination, creating a hostile
work environment, and retaliation on account of Officer Brandon Hanks’ race, all of which served
to deny PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS of his federally guaranteed right to enter into contracts
in the same manner as European American employees.
TRUDELL, CAPTAIN TIMOTHY GAY and all DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have
discriminated against PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS with respect to the terms, conditions and
privileges of his employment through the creation and toleration of a racially charged and hostile
work environment.
TRUDELL, CAPTAIN TIMOTHY GAY and all DEFENDANTS, and each of them, created,
maintained and perpetuated a severe and pervasive hostile work environment based on race, gender
and ethnicity which altered the terms and conditions of employment for Officer Brandon Hanks.
Officer Brandon Hanks was denied a promotion and other benefits, terms and conditions of
employment based on an animus against his race. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, afforded
more favorable terms, conditions and benefits by DEFENDANTS herein, because
DEFENDANTS, and each of them, exhibited an express positive preference to hire and promote
European American police officers.
44. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, are mandated under Title VII to not only
protect Officer Brandon Hanks from discrimination, but also to prevent all forms of discrimination,
including but not limited to, hostile work environment, harassment, disparate treatment, and
retaliation. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, failed and breached their duty as mandated by Title
VII by allowing this illegal employment conduct and practices to proliferate unabatedly in the
workplace at SPD. Therefore, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, are liable for this breach of duty
under State and Federal Law, including Title VII.
TRUDELL, CAPTAIN TIMOTHY GAY and all 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, retaliation, 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 PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ employment.
TRUDELL, CAPTAIN TIMOTHY GAY and all DEFENDANTS, and each of them, including
supervisors and management officials, participated in, and were aware of, encouraged, and
condoned the racially hostile work environment, including discrimination and retaliation.

TRUDELL, CAPTAIN TIMOTHY GAY and all DEFENDANTS, and each of them, failed to train
their employees, including PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS on the Department’s purported anti-
discrimination policy and reporting procedures.
TRUDELL, CAPTAIN TIMOTHY GAY and all DEFENDANTS, and each of them, through their
agents and employees, have permitted European American employees to openly display racial
animus against African American employees, including PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS.
TRUDELL, CAPTAIN TIMOTHY GAY and all DEFENDANTS, and each of them, engaged in
a pattern and practice of systemic discrimination, retaliation and hostile work environment that
was pervasive and severe, adversely affecting the terms and conditions of PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS’ employment by promoting and reinforcing racial stereotypes and racial bias
in the workplace.
TRUDELL, CAPTAIN TIMOTHY GAY and all DEFENDANTS, and each of them, rejected
PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS repeated good faith complaints in opposition to the racial
discrimination and racial harassment to which he, and other African American employees, were
subjected. Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is Officer Hanks’ rebuttal and complaint of racial
discrimination, retaliation and harassment in response to DEFENDANT CAPTAIN GAY’s
unfounded allegations supporting the denial of his promotion to the Gang Violence Taskforce.
TRUDELL, CAPTAIN TIMOTHY GAY and all DEFENDANTS, and each of them, retaliated
against PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ engagement in protected activities resulting in racial

discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation and harassment. In response to filing an
initial Notice-of-Claim with the City of Syracuse on or about June 23, 2021, wherein PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS exposed the racially discriminatory policies of his employer, the SPD,
DEFENDANTS immediately proceeded to unfairly discipline him a second time for exactly the
same offense that he had been discipline for earlier, but with a higher-level of reprimand. This
second disciplinary action, a violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution as well as double jeopardy, was in retaliation for complaints made by PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS’ concerning the racism, retaliation, hostile work environment and
harassment that he himself incurred, as well as the overall racism in the Police Department.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a copy of the second disciplinary action taken against the
PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS.
52. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, engaged in unlawful actions constituting a
practice, pattern, custom and policy of allowing acts of racial harassment, racial discrimination,
hostile work environment and retaliation in violation of its employees’ state and federally protected
rights. DEFENDANTS, in order to derail PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS, an African
American, from advancement into the all-white Gang Violence Taskforce, undertook a covert
investigation into BRANDON HANKS’ life and published a memorandum constituting
manufactured and fabricated racially stereotypical accusations about him, including, but not
limited to, “gang affiliation,” associating with “gang members,” trafficking narcotics, fraternizing
with gang members in a vehicle, engaging in conduct associated with gun violence and other
“criminal activity,” and most egregiously, being a person who listens to “rap music.” The
memorandum published by the DEFENDANTS is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
53. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, failed to take any prompt, remedial and
effective action reasonably calculated to result in the prevention of and remedy of the racial

harassment, racial discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation that PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS incurred.
54. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have caused PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS
to suffer damages as follows:
A. Economic loss, including lost wages, lost benefits, pharmacy bills,

medical bills, and other economic loss which 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, spiritual injury, suffering and misery.
C. Punitive damages against all individual Defendants.
D. Attorney fees and costs.
55. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, engaged in conduct that was despicable,
malicious, fraudulent, oppressive, vile, and intentionally calculated to harm and injure PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS by displaying a conscious disregard to his safety, health, and rights under
State and Federal law. DEFENDANTS’ illegal conduct entitles PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS
to punitive damages.
56. The actions and inactions of DEFENDANTS, and each of them, were the direct and
proximate cause of all of the economic and non-economic damages sustained by PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS as alleged herein.
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for a judgment as hereinafter set forth.
COUNT II
42 U.S.C. § 1983 MONELL CLAIM
(AS TO DEFENDANT CITY OF SYRACUSE)

58. At the time of the events enumerated above, 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 its managing agents, employees and police officers to act with deliberate
disregard for constitutionally protected rights of persons, including Officer Brandon Hanks.
59. THE CITY OF SYRACUSE’s 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, permitting the
perpetuation of a hostile work environment aimed at its African American police officers,
purposefully limiting the number of African American police officers hired to the Department,
intentionally failing to promote its African American police officers to coveted taskforces and
supervisory positions within the Department, as well as pressuring its African American police
officers to engage in excessive force against African American citizens as a means of garnering
favor and the condition for obtaining promotion and advancement in the Department. As an
example of DEFENDANT’s tolerating misconduct by its command staff, DEFENDANT
DEPUTY CHIEF RICHARD TRUDELL under oath admitted to calling African Americans
“niggers;” calling women “bitches;” and calling Hispanic Americans “spics,” as evidenced in
Exhibit 5 attached herein.
60. DEFENDANTS CHIEF KENTON BUCKNER, DEPUTY CHIEF JOSEPH
CECILE, DEPUTY CHIEF RICHARD TRUDELL and CAPTAIN TIMOTHY GAY disciplined
Officer Brandon Hanks, falsely and pretextually asserting that he was listening to rap music where
“racial slang (nigga(s) is being played.” In contrast and as a further example of disparate treatment
and discrimination, DEFENDANTS command staff have taken no disciplinary action over the past
eleven years against the now Deputy Chief Richard Trudell. Rather, DEFENDANT CITY OF

SYRACUSE and the command staff of the SPD promoted DEFENDANT DEPUTY CHIEF
RICHARD TRUDELL thereby endorsing, encouraging, and ratifying DEFENDANT DEPUTY
CHIEF RICHARD TRUDELL’s animus and hostility, the basis of the hostile work environment
in this action, against the majority of the people of Syracuse.
61. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS asserts that the CITY OF SYRACUSE is liable
for any constitutional torts committed by the individual DEFENDANT OFFICERS because the
CITY OF SYRACUSE maintains a custom, policy, pattern and practice of failing to exercise
reasonable care in training, supervising and hiring its officers. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS
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 African American citizens. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS 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, hostile work environment,
harassment and retaliation. The CITY OF SYRACUSE’S policy, custom, practice and pattern were
a motivating factor that caused a deprivation of PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ constitutional
rights.
62. As the CITY OF SYRACUSE has an urgent need for a clear policy regarding racial
discrimination, hostile work environment, harassment and retaliation, PLAINTIFF BRANDON
HANKS, as a request enumerated as part of his damages, requests a Declaratory Judgment that the
CITY OF SYRACUSE’s policy on racial discrimination is inadequate and presents clear and
present danger of deprivation of the constitutional rights of persons who are employed by the CITY
OF SYRACUSE. Further, PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS requests a Declaratory Judgment
that the City of Syracuse is in violation of the Consent Decree of 1980.

63. 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." Thus, 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.
64. 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.
65. Based upon the record of this case, investigations, research, complaints to the CITY
OF SYRACUSE, and newspaper reports, as well as claims of racial discrimination, harassment
and retaliation against the CITY OF SYRACUSE, there exists a reasonable showing of a pattern,
practice, custom and policy of the CITY OF SYRACUSE failing to respect, uphold and enforce
the constitutional rights of the CITY’s African-American employees. DEFENDANTS’ failure to
discipline, train and supervise the police officers under their command has resulted in violations
of PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ civil rights as well as a sizeable number of other African-
American police officer and non-police officer employees of the CITY OF SYRACUSE.
66. As further evidence of the SPD’s disparate treatment of its African American police
officers, upon information and belief, DEFENDANTS CITY OF SYRACUSE, DEFENDANTS’
CHIEF BUCKNER, DEPUTY CHIEF TRUDELL and other Supervisory SPD police officers

perpetuate, encourage, and arrange promotional opportunities to its African American officers if
they were to engage in excessive force against African Americans in the community and suspects
in order to prove their allegiance to the Department. In exchange and as a quid-pro-quo
arrangement, SPD leadership would offer said Officers advancement and promotional
opportunities within the Department. An example of this pattern and practice of encouraging
African American police officers to harass, arrest and brutalize with excessive force innocent
African American, and particularly African American youth, the following video depicts African
American Officer Leonard Brown accompanying his European American colleagues harassing
innocent Black youth, who at all times were engaged in lawful conduct.4 The current paradigm of
policing, a policy, practice and custom of the SPD, is in stark contrast to the paradigm shift that
Officer Brandon Hanks effectively and compassionately implements in his community policing.
The same basketball court in Skiddy Park where 7-8 European American police officers and
Leonard Brown are seen harassing, brutalizing, traumatizing and arresting Black youth, is the very
same Park where Officer Brandon Hanks challenges these same youth to games of one-on-one
basketball as part of his Pull-up Challenge.
67. DEFENDANTS’ CHIEF BUCKNER, DEPUTY CHIEF TRUDELL’s actions and
inactions as the government officials 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 PLAINTIFF BRANDON
HANKS, as well as many other victims of racial discrimination in the Department.
68. The CITY OF SYRACUSE’s POLICE CHIEF BUCKNER’s inactions, resulting
in a policy of inaction with respect to the supervision and training of his police officers in how to
4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NPmudV7rck

protect the constitutional rights of African American police officers under his command was a
direct and proximate cause of the constitutional rights violations that PLAINTIFF BRANDON
HANKS incurred. The CITY OF SYRACUSE’s POLICE CHIEF BUCKNER’s policy, custom
and practice of inaction, lack of discipline and lack of training of his officers led his DEFENDANT
POLICE OFFICERS to undertake an illegal and predetermined surveillance campaign and
investigation on PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS that resulted in DEFENDANT POLICE
OFFICERS fabricating accusations rendered in a published memorandum concluding that
PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS was a “gang affiliated,” narcotics trafficker who associated
with those engaged in criminal activities while listening to “rap music.”
70. Detailed evidence of the CITY OF SYRACUSE’s policy, custom and practice of
racial discrimination and failure to train and discipline its officers will be presented after discovery
in this action.
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS prays for a judgment as hereinafter set
forth.
COUNT III
42 U.S.C. § 1981 VIOLATIONS
RACIAL HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION & RETALIATION
(AS TO DEFENDANTS CITY OF SYRACUSE, CHIEF KENTON BUCKNER, DEPUTY
CHIEF RICHARD TRUDELL, DEPUTY CHIEF JOSEPH CECILE AND CAPTAIN
TIMOTHY GAY)

72. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, denied PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS, an
African American, the right to contract in the same manner as European Americans on account of
his race. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, retaliated and discriminated against PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS by 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 included, but is not limited to, racial harassment, racial stereotypes,
and other disparate treatment by which African American persons were treated as inferior and
unworthy of the rights afforded all men and women under state, federal and constitutional law.
73. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, through their agents and employees, denied
PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ right to contract in the same manner as European Americans
by maintaining an intolerable hostile work environment fueled by racial animus against African
Americans.
74. As set out in detail above, DEFENDANTS have retaliated against PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS and other African American employees who have sought and were not
afforded promotions. The DEFENDANTS’ conduct was motivated by retaliation on account of
his race and, at least in part, BRANDON HANKS’ progressive community policing and
community outreach. The unlawful actions of the DEFENDANTS, as set forth above, constitute a
practice, pattern, custom and policy of DEFENDANTS for permitting acts of racial harassment,
racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of their employees’ state and federally protected
rights.
75. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS was hired by DEFENDANTS on or about
December 5, 2016 as a Police Officer and is currently still employed by DEFENDANT CITY OF
SYRACUSE.

76. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS has been treated less favorably than European
American employees with respect to the terms and conditions of his employment where
DEFENDANTS’ employment rules and policies were applied differently to PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS despite being similarly situated with his European American counterparts.
77. During the course of his employment, PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS was
denied proper training and promotions based on his African American race.
78. Throughout PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ employment in the Gun Violence
Suppression Unit, DEFENDANTS hired not a single African American supervisor which
otherwise comports with the DEPARTMENT’s prevailing custom and practice of having the
entirety of the DEPARTMENT’s upper management being European Americans despite placing
an African American, DEFENDANT KENTON BUCKNER as its chief of police.
79. Upon information and belief, DEFENDANT CITY OF SYRACUSE does not post
vacancy announcements for any positions, including Supervisory and/or Lead Persons for SPD’s
specialized units, the CITY OF SYRACUSE perpetuates a practice and a custom of selecting less
qualified European American employees for these positions. This custom and practice by
DEFENDANT CITY OF SYRACUSE substantially precludes African American employees any
opportunities for promotions.
80. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS and other African Americans are given lower
evaluations than similarly situated European American employees, resulting in lower wage
increases than the European American employees where Police Department pay increases are
expressly tied to employment evaluations and promotions.
81. The lower evaluations given to the African American employees, including
PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS, results in African American employees receiving lower pay

increases and promotions as compared to the Department’s less qualified European American
employees.
82. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS has been denied promotions and training for
positions which would have afforded him greater pay and prestige.
83. DEFENDANT CITY OF SYRACUSE continues to employ the primary offenders
who subjected PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS to discrimination, hostility, withholding of
training, promotions, and mistreatment.
84. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS has been subjected to racially charged and
stereotypical comments held and made by his European American employee colleagues. The
comments include, but are not limited to, the following: “gang member,” “narcotics trafficker,”
“gang affiliated,” a “rap music listener,” an associate with those who fire gun shots in the City of
Syracuse, a fraternizer with gang members, and a partaker in “criminal activity.”
85. As a result of PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS filing a Notice-of-Claim apprising
DEFENDANTS of their racially discriminatory conduct and the discriminatory culture pervasive
throughout the Syracuse Police Department, DEFENDANTS immediately retaliated against him
by taking disciplinary action intended to punish him for exercising his right to access a court of
law, as well as to dissuade any other similarly situated individuals from coming forward with
complaints. Additionally, DEFENDANTS sought to cover-up its illegal and racist activities by
creating infractions in which to charge BRANDON HANKS. Despite having already cited
PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS for conduct under the DEPARTMENT’s disciplinary matrix,
DEFENDANTS cited BRANDON HANKS a second time for the same infraction after
determining that he filed a notice-of-claim against DEFENDANTS. Under the second filing,
DEFENDANTS inflated the level of discipline to a more serious written reprimand.

86. The above racially derogatory comments, slurs and retaliation are severe and
pervasive and have changed the terms and conditions of PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’
employment.
by displaying a conscious disregard to PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ safety, health, and
constitutional rights. DEFENDANTS illegal conduct entitles PLAINTIFF to punitive damages
only against individual DEFENDANTS.
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS pray for a judgment as hereinafter set
forth.
COUNT IV
FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOM OF SPEECH
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
89. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS hereby incorporates the allegations contained
in the preceding paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein.
90. 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.”
91. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS alleges that DEFENDANTS violated his First
Amendment Right of Free Speech by scouring and searching through his Social Media accounts

and surveilling his 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.
92. On or about March 24, 2021, DEFENDANTS searched and seized upon
PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ social media post as grounds for disciplining him despite the
video being posted on Mr. HANKS personal and private social media page while off-duty and
physically located in his own private vehicle. BRANDON HANKS received a verbal reprimand
and ordered to undergo counseling. The video that DEFENDANTS relied upon to support its
reprimand shows PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS wearing a turtleneck with the letters “SPD”
while rap music can be heard playing from an outside source. In response to DEFENDANTS’
reprimand, PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS notified the Police Department that he was not the
one playing the rap music, but accepted his discipline and immediately removed the social media
post.
93. Again, in or about July 2, 2021, in response to PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’
Notice-of-Claim on or about June 23, 2021, DEFENDANTS SUSAN IZZO, JOSEPH CECILE,
and KENTON BUCKNER disciplined PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS on the second occasion
for the same offense of playing rap music, this time with an enhanced level of discipline
comprising a written reprimand included in his personnel file. By resorting to a second reprimand
in temporal proximity to BRANDON HANKS’ notice of claim filing for conduct that had already
been disciplined, DEFENDANTS’ actions can only be interpreted as a retaliatory gesture for the
complaints BRANDON HANKS levied against the SPD for its racist culture and the vicious and
racist attacks exacted upon him intended to thwart his promotion. The letter of written reprimand
is attached hereto as Exhibit 6.
94. DEFENDANTS’ conduct was a trespass Ab Initio, intentional, malicious,
fraudulent, and shows a reckless disregard of the constitutional rights, safety and health of

PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS. DEFENDANTS’ conduct warrants punitive damages to
protect the public in an amount according to proof.
forth.
COUNT V
FOURTH AMENDMENT INVASION OF PRIVACY
(AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS)
97. DEFENDANTS invaded the privacy of PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS when
DEFENDANTS conspired to scour, search and seize PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ personal
life with the intention of compiling evidence to satisfy their intentional and malicious deprivation
of his constitutional rights. DEFENDANTS subjected PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS to
unwarranted surveillance resulting in fabricating multiple accusations against him without his
consent, permission or agreement. This invasion into the personal life of PLAINTIFF BRANDON
HANKS was unwelcomed. DEFENDANTS conducted a covert and illegal invasion into the
PLAINTIFF’s personal life without consent or the knowledge of PLAINTIFF BRANDON
HANKS, nor with probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or a warrant signed by a court of law.
98. DEFENDANT ANN CLARK used her unique position as a mental health provider
to solicit information from PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS whose confidential interaction she
then violated by publicly affirming disparaging social media posts, thus violating PLAINTIFF

BRANDON HANKS’ privacy, as well as breaching her duty to hold her interactions with
BRANDON HANKS as confidential.
99. DEFENDANTS’ invasion of privacy caused PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS
great distress, humiliation, injuries and harm and was a major invasion of his privacy.
DEFENDANTS’ conduct was intentional, malicious, fraudulent, and shows a reckless disregard
of the constitutional rights, safety and health of PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS.
DEFENDANTS’ conduct warrants punitive damages in an amount according to proof.
forth.
COUNT VI
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROPERTY, LIBERTY, EQUAL PROTECTION AND
DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS
102. 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 engaging in a conspiracy to surreptitiously
investigate and surveil PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS and publish fabricated accusations that
BRANDON HANKS was a “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,
DEFENDANTS conduct rose to the level of deliberate indifference, thus violating PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS’ Fourteenth Amendment Rights.
103. By setting upon an intentional and blatant course of conduct as described above
with the intention of depriving PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ right to pursue his career and
seek advancement, DEFENDANTS have violated his right to property under the Fourteenth
Amendment.
104. Pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution,
PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS has a right to equal protection of law.
105. By engaging in a course of conduct intended to deprive PLAINTIFF BRANDON
HANKS of his right to pursue his career and seek advancement on account of his race,
DEFENDANTS have violated Officer Brandon Hanks’ right equal protection of law.
106. Pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution,
PLAINTIFF has a right to procedural due process of law.
107. By engaging in a course of conduct of retaliation which deprived PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS his right to pursue his career and seek advancement without due process of
law, DEFENDANTS have violated PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ right to procedural and
substantive due process of law.
forth.

COUNT VII
42 U.S.C § 1981 VIOLATIONS
RIGHT TO CONTRACT
(AS TO DEFENDANTS CITY OF SYRACUSE, CHIEF KENTON BUCKNER, DEPUTY
CHIEF JOSEPH CECILE, DEPUTY CHIEF RICHARD TRUDELL AND CAPTAIN
TIMOTHY GAY)
110. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have engaged in an illegal employment practice
including, but not limited to, discrimination, creating a hostile work environment, retaliation,
harassment and denying PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS his federally guaranteed right to enter
into contracts free from racial discrimination and upon equal terms to the right to contract afforded
European Americans.
111. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have intentionally discriminated against
PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS with respect to the terms, conditions and privileges of his
employment through the creation and toleration of a racially charged and hostile work
environment.
112. 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 when in the employ of the CITY
OF SYRACUSE. The racially hostile environment has changed, and continues to change, the terms
and conditions of PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ employment.
113. DEFENDANTS CITY OF SYRACUSE, CHIEF KENTON BUCKNER, DEPUTY
CHIEF JOSEPH CECILE, DEPUTY CHIEF RICHARD TRUDELL and CAPTAIN TIMOTHY

GAY, and each of them, including supervisors and management officials, participated in, were
aware of, encouraged, and condoned the racially hostile work environment.
GAY, and each of them, failed to train their employees, including PLAINTIFF BRANDON
HANKS on its purported anti-discrimination policy and reporting procedures.
GAY, and each of them, through their agents and employees, have allowed European American
employees to openly display racial animus against African American employees, including
116. 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 BRANDON HANKS’ terms and conditions of employment by promoting and
reinforcing racial stereotypes and racial bias in the workplace.
CHIEF JOSEPH CECILE, DEPUTY CHIEF TRUDELL and CAPTAIN TIMOTHY GAY, and
each of them, rejected PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ repeated good faith complaints
opposing the racial discrimination and racial harassment to which he and other African American
employees were subjected, instead of complying with the law by preventing discrimination and
harassment in the workplace, the DEFENDANTS, and each of them, launched a scorched-earth
campaign of retaliation against PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS: 1. DEFENDANTS disciplined
Officer Brandon Hanks the first time for his social media posts, 2. DEFENDANTS placed Officer
Brandon Hanks under illegal surveillance without a probable cause or a warrant, 3.

DEFENDANTS publish a memorandum accusing Officer Hanks of being “gang affiliated,”
affiliated with “narcotics traffickers,” having a “gang tattoo,” associated with “criminal activity”
including associations with “racketeering” and “RICO” and listing to “rap music,” 4.
DEFENDANTS then redisciplined Officer Brandon Hanks for the same offenses with an elevated
level of discipline.
118. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, retaliated against PLAINTIFF BRANDON
HANKS because of he engaged in protected activities which resulted in DEFENDANTS exacting
racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation directed at him.
GAY, 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.
GAY, and each of them, failed to take any prompt and effective action reasonably calculated to
result in the prevention and remedy of racial harassment, discrimination and retaliation of
BRANDON HANKS by displaying a conscious disregard to his safety, health, and constitutional
rights. DEFENDANTS’ illegal conduct entitles BRANDON HANKS to punitive damages
hereinafter set forth.

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS prays for judgment as hereinafter set
forth.
COUNT VIII
CONSPIRACY
124. 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.”
125. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS alleges that individual DEFENDANTS
conspired to violate his rights as afforded him under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by
subjecting him to illegal surveillance and thereafter, fabricating and misconstruing evidence
derived therefrom for the intended purpose of obstructing his promotion to SPD’s Gang Violence
Taskforce on account of his race which thereby deprived him of career advancement.

126. By recruiting and ordering multiple members of the Gang Violence Taskforce to
dig up unfavorable evidence on PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS for purposes of depriving him
of his promotion to the Gang Violence Taskforce, DEFENDANTS’ DEPUTY CHIEF RICHARD
TRUDELL, TIMOTHY GAY, COLIN HILLMAN and DEREK MCGORK, upon reliance on
DEFENDANT OFFICERS surveillance, investigation and official documentation, set upon a
course of action intended to deprive PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS of his Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendment Rights based upon racial animus, as evidenced by DEPUTY CHIEF
RICHARD TRUDELL’s sworn admission that he refers to African Americans as “niggers.”
127. Similarly, DEFENDANTS CHIEF KENTOIN BUCKNER, DEPUTY CHIEF
JOSEPH CECILE, DEPUTY CHIEF RICHARD TRUDELL, TIMOTHY GAY, COLIN
HILLMAN, DEREK MCGORK and SUSAN IZZO, and each of them, carried out their above
scheme, i.e., intentionally producing and highlighting evidence that would undermine PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS employment record in order to obstruct his promotion to the Gang Violence
Task Force, by, in part, disciplining PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS for conduct that had been
previously disciplined on or about March of 2021 and whose discipline the second time was
enhanced to a written reprimand in his employment record. This second disciplinary action
occurred in temporal proximity to PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS filing of a Notice-of-Claim
against the named DEFENDANTS in this instant action. DEFENDANTS retaliated against
PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS in order to punish him for coming forward with his complaints
and to dissuade anyone else in the SPD from whistleblowing and revealing DEFENDANTS’
illegal and racist custom, policy and conduct.
128. The thrust of DEFENDANTS’ scheme however was the fabrication and
misrepresentation of the fruits of their unlawful surveillance and ‘scorched earth’ investigation of
PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ social media accounts wherein, in a memorandum submitted

to DEFENDANTS’ CHIEF OF POLICE KENTON BUCKNER, DEPUTY CHIEF RICHARD
TRUDELL, as well as other SPD DEFENDANT personnel serving in supervisory roles,
deceitfully concluded that BRANDON HANKS was, along with other unfounded accusations,
affiliated with gangs, was himself a gang member and narcotics trafficker, as well as someone who
listened to “rap music.”
129. DEFENDANTS’ conduct violated 42 U.S.C. §1985 because DEFENDANTS acted
under the color of law in depriving PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS of his Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendment Rights.
130. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in a joint enterprise, scheme and conspiracy,
intentionally violated PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ privacy, liberty and property rights by
consciously disregarding and expressing a deliberate indifference to said rights, including most
egregiously, their indifference to PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ health, safety and risk of
serious harm and conceivable death given his allegations against his colleagues in the SPD.
131. DEFENDANTS’ conduct was the direct and proximate cause of PLAINTIFF
BRANDON 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 PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ constitutional rights,
health and safety. DEFENDANTS’ intentional conduct resulting in the deprivation of PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS’ constitutional rights entitle him to punitive damages against each of the
individual DEFENDANTS.
forth.

COUNT IX
FAILURE TO PROTECT
(AS TO DEFENDANTS CITY OF SYRACUSE AND CHIEF KENTON BUCKNER,
DEPUTY CHIEF JOSEPH CECILE, DEPUTY CHIEF RICHARD TRUDELL AND
CAPTAIN TIMOTHY GAY)
133. 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;…”
134. DEFENDANTS, and all of them, participated in a conspiracy, as defined under 42
U.S.C. § 1985, with an intended aim of depriving PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS of his
promotion to the Gang Violence Taskforce as described herein.
135. At any point in DEFENDANTS’ conspiracy, each and every member, being
apprised of the intended result, was capable of ‘preventing or aid[ing] in the prevention’ of the
conspiracy but chose instead, to follow through with its intended result ensuring their liability
under Section 1986.
136. The actions of the DEFENDANTS, and each of them, was wanton, willful,
malicious, illegal, and meant to deprive PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS, a colleague and fellow
police officer, of his constitutional rights and rightfully deserved promotion predominantly and
reprehensibly on account of his race.

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS prays for a judgment as hereinafter
set forth.
STATE CLAIMS
COUNT X
N.Y.S. EXC. LAW § 296 VIOLATIONS – DISCRIMINATION,
HARASSMENT, RETALIATION AND HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
(AS AGAINST CITY OF SYRACUSE, CHIEF KENTON BUCKNER, DEPUTY CHIEF
JOSEPH CECILE, DEPUTY CHIEF RICHARD TRUDELL AND CAPTAIN TIMOTHY
GAY)
138. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS 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.
139. 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.
140. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, caused PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS to
suffer the indignities of blatant and extreme racism every day while employed by DEFENDANTS.
141. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, forced PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS to
endure stereotypical racially charged designations and associations, such as “gang affiliated,”
“gang member,” “narcotics trafficker,” and a person who listens to “rap music,” all of which were
racially and discriminatorily directed at African Americans.
142. The retaliation suffered by PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS includes, but is not
limited to refusal to promote, failure to train, isolation and ridicule by his SPD supervisors and
colleagues, extreme scrutiny and discipline intended to intimidate and harass. Further, in retaliation
for filing a Notice-of-Claim, DEFENDANTS took immediate disciplinary action against
PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS, despite already disciplining him for the same offenses. Such
disciplinary action was taken against PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS as a means of covering
up DEFENDANTS’ illegal and racist practices, as well as to punish him for voicing matters of
public concern as to SPD’s racist work environment.
BRANDON HANKS by displaying a conscious disregard to his rights under state and Federal law,
as well as his personal health and safety.
144. DEFENDANTS illegal conduct entitles PLAINTIFF to punitive damages only
against the named individual defendants.
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS prays for a judgment as
hereinafter set forth.

COUNT XI
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

hereinafter.
147. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS 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).
148. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, intentionally promoted, encouraged, endorsed
and ratified the hostile work environment, the malicious racial discrimination, and the retaliation
against PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS. DEFENDANTS, and all of them, intentionally failed
to remedy and chose instead to allow these illegal employment practices to continue unabated and
as such, refrained from implementing corrective and remedial actions to protect PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS from discrimination and a hostile work environment. DEFENDANTS knew,
and were informed, that their inaction caused severe mental and severe emotional injuries and
severe mental and emotional distress inflicted by DEFENDANTS vile conduct that should not,
and is not, tolerated in our civilized society.
149. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, permitted, and failed to correct such racial
epithets and hostile conduct as outlined above.

150. 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]
regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
151. By reason of DEFENDANTS’ discriminatory employment practices PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS 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.
BRANDON HANKS by displaying a conscious disregard to his rights under state and Federal law,
as well as his personal health and safety. DEFENDANTS illegal conduct entitles PLAINTIFF to
punitive damages against only the individual DEFENDANTS.
COUNT XII
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
hereinafter.
154. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS also asserts a claim for negligent infliction of
emotional distress (NIED) against DEFENDANTS, 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 a plaintiff that "unreasonably endangered [his
or her] 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, 2016 WL
1126530, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35781, at *46 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2016).
155. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS 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 a plaintiff to show that the defendants owed a duty that
was "specific to the plaintiff, and not some amorphous, free-floating duty to society."
156. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, owed PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS a duty
of care to be free from discrimination, harassment and hostile work environment. The evidence
adduced above, as well as the applicable law demonstrates that DEFENDANTS owed a duty
specifically to African-American employees, like PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS, as well as
other protected classifications.
157. DEFENDANTS’ inaction and failure to protect PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS
breached a duty owed to him that "unreasonably endangered his safety," as well as
DEFENDANTS’ negligence threatened him with physical harm. PLAINTIFF BRANDON
HANKS is fearful to report to work on account of his being labeled a “gang member,” “gang
affiliated,” and a “narcotics trafficker” whose accused of engaging in “criminal activity.”
158. By reason of DEFENDANTS’ discriminatory employment practices including,
wrongful denial of promotion, PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS 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.
malicious, fraudulent, oppressive, vile, and intentionally calculated to harm and injure the
PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS by displaying a conscious disregard to his rights under state

and Federal law, as well as his personal health and safety. DEFENDANTS illegal conduct entitles
PLAINTIFF to punitive damages.
COUNT XIII
NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, RETENTION, AND SUPERVISION
(AS AGAINST DEFENDANTS CITY OF SYRACUSE AND CHIEF KENTON
BUCKNER)
hereinafter.
162. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS 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).
163. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, owed PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS a duty
of care to be free from discrimination, harassment and hostile work environment.
164. DEFENDANTS owed a duty specifically to PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS, an
African American, as well as other employees that fall within protected classifications.

165. DEFENDANTS discriminated against PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS, an
African American, because of his race.
166. DEFENDANT OFFICERS, as well as ratification by DEFENDANTS’ CITY OF
SYRACUSE, CHIEF KENTON BUCKNER, DEPUTY CHIEF JOSEPH CECILE, DEPUTY
CHIEF RICHARD TRUDELL and CAPTAIN GAY, subjected PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS
to racist language on account that said European American employees felt comfortable and
unthreatened in their presumption that other European American employees and supervisors would
acquiesce, look aside and/or participate in perpetuating in the hostile work environment.
167. DEFENDANTS have consistently hired less qualified European Americans as
members of the Gang Violence Taskforce and have discriminated against other African
Americans, such as PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS, thereby violating Title VII and New York
State law prohibiting discrimination in the workplace based on protected classifications, inter alia,
as race.
168. 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 BRANDON
HANKS from discrimination, harassment, hostile work environment and retaliation.
169. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, failed to hire employees who respected the laws
and Constitution of the United States, as well as the State of New York which expressly prohibits
racial discrimination and all forms of discrimination on the basis of protected classifications.
DEFENDANTS had actual and constructive knowledge of the discrimination occurring in its work
force. DEFENDANTS knew or should have known of their European American employees’
propensity for the racist conduct because such conduct was reported to DEFENDANT supervisors.
The illegal discrimination, hostile work environment, harassment and retaliation occurred on
DEFENDANTS’ premises.

malicious, fraudulent, oppressive, vile, and intentionally calculated to harm and injure by
displaying a conscious disregard to his rights under state and Federal law, as well as his personal
health and safety. DEFENDANTS illegal conduct entitles PLAINTIFF to punitive damages only
against individual defendants.
COUNT XIV
SLANDER
“A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches,

and loving favour rather than silver and gold.” Proverbs 22:1
hereinafter.
173. DEFENDANTS have repeatedly and viciously slandered the name and reputation
of PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS. These statements have been intentionally meant to harm
him and his ability to partake in his chosen and cherished career as a police officer.
DEFENDANTS have repeatedly accused PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS of being “gang
affiliated,” a “gang member,” a “narcotics trafficker,” involved in “criminal activity,” and listening
to “rap music,” among others. Due to DEFENDANTS continual slander, PLAINTIFF BRANDON
HANKS has been deprived of the ability to advance in rank and attain supervisorial responsibilities
within the SPD.

174. By contacting PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ head basketball coach and
referring to him as “boy” and accusing him of playing the “race card,” DEFENDANT BRANDON
FOURGNIER harmed the reputation and career of BRANDON HANKS.
175. Similarly, by relying on her unique and confidential relationship with PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS, DEFENDANT ANN CLARK expressly affirmed DEFENDANTS’
slanderous designations and accusations levied against BRANDON HANKS that were
disseminated on social media, further harming his reputation and career.
176. These statements and actions made by the DEFENDANTS are directly related to
injuries against PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ ability to perform his duties as a police officer
and a basketball coach.
177. As these statements made by the DEFENDANTS were repeated, they served to
continually damage PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ reputation beyond repair and resulted in a
drastic loss of his career.
178. DEFENDANTS have cause irreparable harm to PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS
with their libelous and slanderous accusations that Officer Brandon Hanks is associated with
criminal conduct such as, narcotics trafficking, gang affiliation and criminal activities, because
such slanderous injury to his reputation is spread and broadcast to the infinity of the world-wide
web by repetition of these false accusations.
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for a judgment hereinafter as set forth herein.

COUNT XV
LIBEL
180. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of
hereinafter.
181. DEFENDANTS have published a memorandum that viciously slandered the name
and reputation of PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS. These published statements have been
intentionally created to harm BRANDON HANKS and his ability to take part and enjoy his career
as a police officer. DEFENDANTS have repeatedly accused PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS of
being “gang affiliated,” a “gang member,” a “narcotics trafficker,” and partaking in “criminal
activity.” Due to DEFENDANTS publication and persistent slander, PLAINTIFF BRANDON
HANKS has been deprived of his ability to advance through the ranks of SPD.
182. By contacting PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ head basketball coach and
referring to him as “boy” and accusing him of playing the “race card,” DEFENDANT BRANDON
FOURGNIER harmed the reputation and career of BRANDON HANKS.
183. By relying on her unique and confidential relationship with PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS, DEFENDANT ANN CLARK expressly and publicly affirmed the
slanderous designations and accusations levied against BRANDON HANKS as disseminated on
social media.
184. This publication made by the DEFENDANTS directly called into question
PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ ability to perform his duties as a police officer.
185. This publication made by DEFENDANTS has repeatedly damaged PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS’ reputation that is beyond repair and has effectively resulted in the loss of
his career.

forth.
COUNT XVI
DEFAMATION PER SE
hereinafter.
188. DEFENDANTS have repeatedly and viciously defamed the name and reputation of
PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS by publishing a memorandum accusing him of being “gang
affiliated,” a “gang member,” a “narcotics trafficker,” and partaking in “criminal activity.” All of
these published accusations were part of an intentional and ongoing campaign of defamation meant
to damage PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ reputation and cause harm to his ability to achieve
a promotion to the Gang Violence Taskforce, as well as overall to maintain his livelihood. By
accusing PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS of being affiliated with criminals and crimes of
narcotics trafficking and being affiliated with illegal gangs as defined in the NYS Penal Law,
DEFENDANTS have engaged in Defamation per se.
189. DEFENDANTS conduct was without any privilege, justification or any legitimate
business reason.
190. These statements have been intended to, and did, cause injury to PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS’ career and to detrimentally harm his standing and reputation in the SPD.

These published statements have equally affected BRANDON HANKS’ ability to maintain
cooperative relationships with fellow officers and the public at large.
COUNT XVII
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
hereinafter.
192. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS claims that the CITY OF SYRACUSE is liable
under the theory of respondeat superior for DEFENDANTS’ violations of PLAINTIFF
BRANDON HANKS’ rights under State and Federal law, as well as rights under the U.S.
Constitution where DEFENDANTS harms occurred while on duty, in and during the course and
scope of their duties and functions as SPD officers and supervisors, and while they were acting as
agents and employees of DEFNDANT CITY OF SYRACUSE. 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.
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ prays that the Court will: Issue a
judgment declaring that the SPD’s policy, practice and/or custom of engaging in illegal
employment practices challenged herein is unconstitutional in that it violates the
Fourteenth Amendment, Title VII, and the Constitution and laws of the State of New York,
and that its implementation and sanctioning by DEFENDANTS’ CITY OF SYRACUSE,
SPD, CHIEF KENTON BUCKNER DEPUTY CHIEF JOSEPH CECILE, DEPUTY

CHIEF RICHARD TRUDELL and CAPTAIN TIMOTHY GAY is a direct and proximate
result of the following policies, practices and/or customs of:
i. creation and maintenance of a discriminatory hostile work
environment;
ii. failing to adequately monitor the SPD and its officers and discipline
those SPD officers who violate the constitutional rights of their
fellow employees serving in the Department;
iii. encouraging, sanctioning, and failing to rectify the SPD’s
unconstitutional discriminatory employment policies, including
retaliation for whistleblowing, failure to promote, failure to hire
African-American police officers, failure to discipline Officers who
engage discriminatory and racist conduct, and failure to cease
disparate treatment of African-American employees;
(b) Issue a judgment declaring that DEFENDANTS CITY OF SYRACUSE has
violated both its 1980 Consent Decree with the United States Department of Justice
and its own Executive Order, dated June 19, 2020 by taking affirmative steps to
discriminate against African American SPD employees that, on account of the
hostile work environment that ensues therein, results in a decrease of a racially
diverse police department and a significantly low number of African American
personnel in SPD supervisory positions, as well as proportionally represented in the
Department’s coveted taskforces and other elite departments with SPD.
(c) Issue an order for the following Injunctive relief

i. Enjoining the SPD from continuing its policy, practice, and/or
custom of discriminating against its African American personnel;
ii. Enjoining the SPD leadership and supervisory personnel from
continuing to refuse to train, reprimand and discipline its police
officers who engage in discriminatory, racist and retaliatory conduct
directed at SPD’s African American personnel;
iii. Requiring the CITY OF SYRACUSE, CHIEF KENTON
BUCKNER, DEPUTY CHIEF JOSEPH CECILE, DEPUTY
CHIEF RICHARD TRUDELL and CAPTAIN TIMOTHY GAY to
institute and implement improved policies and programs with
respect to training, discipline and promotion designed to eliminate
SPD’s policy, practice and/or custom of discriminatory and racist
conduct, as well as hostile work environment directed at SPD
employees of color;
iv. Requiring the CITY OF SYRACUSE, CHIEF KENTON
deploy SPD officers with appropriate and adequate supervision to
ensure that SPD officers cease resorting to discriminatory and racist
conduct directed at African-American SPD staff;
v. Requiring the CITY OF SYRACUSE, CHIEF KENTON
institute and implement appropriate measures to ensure compliance

with the directives in both the USDOJ’s Consent Decree of 1980 as
well as the City’s Executive Order, dated June 19, 2020.
vi. 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;
vii. Requiring DEFENDANTS to initiate and implement systems of
assigning, training, transferring, compensating, and promoting
African American employees in a non-discriminatory manner;
viii. Establishing a task force on equality and fairness to determine the
effectiveness of the programs described in (vi) and (vii), 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 (vi)
and (vii), above;
(d) Award PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS compensatory damages in the amount of
33 million for full and compensation for the irreparable damage and injury to
Officer Brandon Hanks’ reputation and career and self-image, plus compensation
for pain, anxiety, inconvenience, mental distress, emotional distress, loss of

enjoyment of life, humiliation, spiritual injury, discomfort, misery and suffering,
past and future;
(e) Award PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS damages against all DEFENDANTS and
the individual OFFICER DEFENDANTS, to the extent that their liability is based
upon reprehensible actions and/or inaction undertaken in their individual capacities,
in an amount which is fair, just and reasonably designed to punish and deter said
reprehensible conduct in the amount to be determined at trial;
(f) Award PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to
42 U.S.C. Sections §§1981, 1983, and 1988.
(g) Award PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS costs of suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§
1920 and 1988;
(h) Pre-judgment and Post-judgment interest; and
(i) Award such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate and
equitable, including injunctive and declaratory relief as may be required in the
interests of justice.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Date: August 16, 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: August 16, 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: August 16, 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

Hanks, Brandon V City of Syracuse Et Al - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hanks, Brandon V City of Syracuse Et Al - Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Hanks, Brandon V City of Syracuse Et Al - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 5:21-cv-00921-GLS-ATB Document 1 Filed 08/16/21 Page 1 of 60

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

_________________ CASE NO. 5:21-cv-00921 (GLS/ATB)

PLAINTIFF, A. FEDERAL CLAIMS

COMPLAINT FOR BRANDON HANKS 1

11. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF

VIOLATION OF FEDERAL 1980

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

“gang affiliated,” a “narcotics trafficker,” and listens to “rap music.”

2. Despite a long and entrenched history of racially discriminatory policing carried

COMPLAINT FOR BRANDON HANKS 2

state, federal and constitutional law.

3. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS’ success in garnering the respect and

actions directed at the African American community of Syracuse, New York.

4. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS, by his attorneys, CHARLES A. BONNER of

COMPLAINT FOR BRANDON HANKS 3

upon information and belief, as follows:

6. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to

BRANDON HANKS requests this Court to require DEFENDANTS to affirmatively restructure

HANKS seeks damages, including back-pay, front-pay; and the following:

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

COMPLAINT FOR BRANDON HANKS 4

7. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS also seeks punitive damages against Individual

other equitable remedies necessary to fully redress his harms.

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").

10. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS is an African American male citizen of the

the State of New York.

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

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

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

WILLIAM KITTELL, ANOTHONY FIORINI, DAVID METZ, SHAWN HAUCK, SUSAN

COMPLAINT FOR BRANDON HANKS 5

officers employed by Defendant CITY OF SYRACUSE as police officers.

14. Defendants CHIEF KENTON BUCKNER, DEPUTY CHIEF JOSEPH CECILE,

IV. DOE DEFENDANTS

whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise of DEFENDANT Does 1 through 100

has been ascertained.

16. At all times relevant to this action, PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS is an

V. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUISITES

17. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS pursues claims against the DEFENDANTS

COMPLAINT FOR BRANDON HANKS 6

VI. STATEMENT OF FACTS

18. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS, at all relevant times, is an employee of

Defendant CITY OF SYRACUSE.

program by donating twenty-five (25) pairs of sneakers.1

COMPLAINT FOR BRANDON HANKS 7

Mayor’s Achievement Award. PLAINTIFF BRANDON HANKS is currently employed as a

promotion, DEFENDANTS DEPUTY CHIEF RICHARD TRUDELL, TIMOTHY GAY, COLIN

HILLMAN, DEREK MCGORK, WILLIAM KITTELL, ANOTHONY FIORINI, DAVID METZ,

BRANDON HANKS of this promotion by engaging in a racially motivated campaign to destroy

21. In furtherance of their conspiracy, DEFENDANTS’ DEPUTY CHIEF TRUDELL,

TIMOTHY GAY, COLIN HILLMAN, DEREK MCGORK, WILLIAM KITTELL, ANOTHONY

COMPLAINT FOR BRANDON HANKS 8

DEFENDANTS fallacious and racially motivated published memorandum is attached hereto as

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

with the U.S. Department of Justice, mandating DEFENDANT CITY OF SYRACUSE to