Home » News & Events » News Archive » 2003 Press Releases
Complaint Filed on Behalf of Miami-Dade Firefighters Wrongly Suspended After 9-11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JAMES H. MOORE, WILLIAM CLARK
and TERRY WILLIAMS
Plaintiffs,
v.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,
a political subdivision of the
State of Florida, and STEVE SHIVER,
an individual,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
COMPLAINT
COME NOW the Plaintiffs, JAMES H. MOORE, WILLIAM CLARK and TERRY WILLIAMS, and sue the Defendant, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and STEVE SHIVER, and allege:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Amidst the fear and anger that swept the country after the tragic events of September 11, 2001, many worried that one consequence of aroused passions might be a loosening of our commitment to individual liberty. Nowhere was that concern more painfully illustrated than in Miami-Dade, where public officials played to popular prejudice and heaped scorn and ridicule and more upon three African-American firefighters who did no more than raise questions of racial injustice amidst the talk of patriotic duty. While one can understand the discomfort that such questions have stirred in some, public officials are charged with the responsibility of ensuring vigilant protection to those who express their opinions and ideas. The Defendants here utterly failed in that responsibility and the Plaintiff firefighters have suffered greatly as a result.
JURISDICTION
1. This is a civil action for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages and other relief, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, 28 U.S.C. 1651, 2201, and 2202 and under state law.
2. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343 (a), and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง1367.
3. At all times material to this cause the Defendants acted under color of state law, including statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs and usages.
PARTIES
4. The Plaintiffs, JAMES H. MOORE ("Firefighter Moore"), WILLIAM CLARK ("Firefighter Clark") and TERRY WILLIAMS ("Firefighter Williams") are all African-American citizens of the United States and at all times material hereto were employed as firefighters by the Defendant, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ("the County").
5. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida.
6. At times material hereto, the Defendant, STEVE SHIVER ("Shiver"), was employed by the County as its County Manager. The County Manager is the chief executive officer of the County.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
7. On or about September 15, 2001, an informal conversation took place among Firefighter Moore, Firefighter Williams and several other employees of the Miami-Dade County Fire Department (the "Fire Department") about the displaying of a large flag on a Miami-Dade County fire truck. During said conversation, Firefighters Moore and Williams expressed their views and opinions on the significance of race relations in the United States.
8. Shortly after the conversation described in paragraph 7, above, the County, by and through the Fire Department's public information office and Shiver, and other County representatives, made and published, in words or substance, the following comments about the Plaintiffs:
(a) That Firefighters Moore, Williams and Clark refused to ride on a fire truck with an American flag attached;
(b) That Firefighters Moore, Williams and Clark are "Muslims";
(c) That Firefighters Moore, Williams and Clark threatened to leave work unless an American flag was removed from a fire truck; and
(d) Other statements intended to inflame the passions of the public against the Plaintiffs.
9. In addition to the statements made through the public information office above,
Defendant Shiver, who was then County Manager, made inflammatory public statements regarding the Plaintiffs to the media, including but not limited to statements that he "would support any disciplinary actions against the Plaintiffs, up to and including termination".
10. Those statements by the County and Shiver about the Plaintiffs were made and published several days after the horrific September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, and were widely publicized on radio and television and in the newspapers.
11. At all times material hereto, the Defendants were aware that the Plaintiffs, who are African-American men, had participated in political and community activities and were outspoken advocates for racial equality within the Miami-Dade County Fire Department and the community at large.
12. In fact, Firefighters Moore, Williams and Clark did not refuse to ride on a fire truck with an American flag attached, they are not Muslims, and they did not threaten to leave work unless an American flag was removed from a fire truck.
13. As a result of the statements and actions by County employees and Shiver, Firefighters
Moore, Williams and Clark were subjected to relentless ridicule, hostility, threats and personal attacks from their co-workers, firefighters from other departments, representatives of the County, the media, and members of the public. Firefighters Moore, Clark and Williams have been shunned by many of their co-workers and acquaintances, and continue to live in fear for their safety and the safety of their families.
14. On or about September 19, 2001, as a result of the statements and other actions by the Defendants, Firefighter Clark was interviewed by a television reporter at his place of employment. During the ensuing taping, which was widely publicized, Firefighter Clark expressed his opinions about the plight of African -Americans in the United States.
15. On or about September 22, 2001, the Plaintiffs were suspended with pay. The suspension was widely publicized by the County and in the media. The Plaintiffs have also been subjected to unfair and arbitrary discipline and employment conditions, their job safety has been jeopardized, and they have lost the opportunity for overtime work and additional contributions to their pensions.
16. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the wrongful and unlawful actions of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs, and each of them, have suffered and will continue to suffer loss of income, loss of value of assets, mental anguish, psychological injuries, public humiliation, damage to their reputations, careers and good names, and other damages.
COUNT I: VIOLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT
17. Plaintiffs re-allege and adopt paragraphs 1 through 16, above, insofar as they are material and pertinent hereto.
18. The Plaintiffs' political and community activities and statements of opinion described above were a legitimate expression of belief on issues of public importance and concern. As such, the Plaintiffs' activities and statements were fully protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. By the actions described above, Defendants violated Plaintiffs' right to liberty under the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
19. The actions of the Defendants in making false statements about the Plaintiffs and suspending them from their employment were in retaliation for the Plaintiffs' political and community activities and speech, and were in violation of the Plaintiffs' rights to freedom of speech and assembly as guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
COUNT II: VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS
20. Plaintiffs re-allege and adopt paragraphs 1 through 16, above, insofar as they are material and pertinent hereto.
21. The Plaintiffs have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in their good names and reputations.
22. By the actions described above, Defendants violated Plaintiffs' right to liberty under the Due process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
COUNT III: VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION
23. Plaintiffs re-allege and adopt paragraphs 1 through 16, above, insofar as they are material and pertinent hereto.
24. On information and belief, the Plaintiffs were subjected to the actions of the Defendants described above solely because they were African-Americans.
25. In treating Plaintiffs differently than they would have treated similarly situated white persons, Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
COUNT IV: SLANDER
26. This is an action for damages in excess of $100,000.00.
27. Plaintiffs re-allege and adopt paragraphs 1 through 16, above, insofar as they are material and pertinent hereto.
28. The statements about the Plaintiffs made and publicized by County employees and Shiver were false and malicious. The Defendants knew or should have known at the time they made and publicized those statements that Firefighters Moore, Williams and Clark were not Muslims, did not refuse to ride on a fire truck bearing an American flag, and did not threaten to leave work unless an American flag was removed from a fire truck.
29. The statements about the Plaintiffs were cynically made and publicized by the Defendants several days after the horrific September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and were made and published with a malicious and reckless disregard for the truth.
30. On information and belief, the Defendants acted as set forth above because the Plaintiffs are African-American activists and in retaliation for the Plaintiffs' exercise of their rights of free speech and assembly.
31. The statements by the County were exacerbated by public outbursts and slanderous attacks on the Plaintiffs by high-ranking County personnel, including but not limited to the then County Manager Shiver. The County and Shiver acted willfully and in violation of the Plaintiffs' clearly established Constitutional rights of freedom of speech and assembly.
32. The statements made and published by the Defendant about the Plaintiffs were slanderous and slanderous per se insofar as they relate to the Plaintiffs' employment.
RELIEF SOUGHT
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests and prays that this Court provide relief as follows:
A. Declare that the actions of the Defendants set forth above were unconstitutional and illegal;
B. Expungement of all references to the events alleged in this Complaint from all records maintained by the Miami-Dade County Fire Department;
C. Injunctive relief, including but not limited to, a public retraction and/or apology by the Defendants, appropriate remedial action in the workplace, and other effective actions to restore the Plaintiffs to their former status;
D. Award the Plaintiffs, and each of them, damages for said violations of their constitutional rights and the slander against them;
E. Award the Plaintiff attorneys= fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988; and
F. Grant such further additional relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
The Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
NEVEL & GREENFIELD, P.A.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
11900 Biscayne Boulevard
Suite 806
North Miami, Florida 33181
Tel: 305 895-1284
Fax: 305 895-1290
By: David H. Nevel, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 201537
ALAN LEVINE, ESQ.
(5297) Of Counsel
207 West 106th Street
Suite 11C
New York, New York 10025
Tel: 212-665-6711
