DOCUMENT 2 ELECTRONICALLY FILED 5/31/2018 3:53 PM 70-CV-2018-900079.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF TALLAPOOSA COUNTY, ALABAMA PATRICK CRADDOCK, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TALLAPOOSA COUNTY, ALABAMA SANDRA MACHEN,
) ) PLAINTIFF, ) ) VS. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. ) CHARLES SHAW, ) AN INDIVIDUAL, ) ) CHARLES SHAW, in his official capacity ) as mayor of Alexander City, and Alexander ) City, AL, a municipal corporation, and ) ) FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS, 1 - 10, ) being the persons or entities ) which intentionally, negligently, recklessly, ) maliciously, willfully, and/or wantonly, harmed ) the Plaintiff by committing some or all of the ) acts and/or omissions set out in this Complaint, ) and whose identity are unknown to the Plaintiff ) and will be added by amendment when ) ascertained. ) DEFENDANTS. ) COMPLAINT COUNT ONE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Sandra Machen, is a resident of Tallapoosa County, Alabama, and is subject to the jurisdiction of this court (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”). Plaintiff is over the age of 19 years. 2. Plaintiff is the former Finance Director (an unelected employee) of the City of Alexander City, Alabama, a municipal corporation. 3. Defendant, Charles Shaw, upon information and belief, is a resident of Tallapoosa County, Alabama, and is subject to the jurisdiction of this court (hereinafter referred to as
DOCUMENT 2
“Defendant Shaw”). Said Defendant Shaw is guilty, in his individual capacity and in his capacity as mayor of Alexander City, Alabama, of committing the acts complained of herein. Defendant Shaw is a resident of Tallapoosa County, Alabama. 4. Defendant, Charles Shaw, in his official capacity as mayor of Alexander City, Alabama, committed the acts complained of herein in Tallapoosa County, Alabama. The City of Alexander City is subject to the jurisdiction of this court and is located in Tallapoosa County, Alabama (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant City”). Said Defendant City is believed to be a municipal corporation and is liable to the Plaintiff for some or all of the acts complained of herein. Defendant Shaw acted in his official capacity as the Mayor of the City of Alexander City, Alabama at the time the allegations contained in this complaint occurred. Any reference to Defendant Shaw, in his official capacity, is separate and cumulative of any liability of Defendant Shaw in his personal capacity. 5. Fictitious Defendants 1 - 10, are individuals or entities which intentionally, negligently, or recklessly caused or contributed to the harm to the Plaintiff by the allegations set forth herein. 6. Plaintiff complied with § 11-47-23, Ala. Code 1975, giving Defendant City and Defendant 1 notice of a claim as required by law. COUNT TWO LIBEL, SLANDER AND DEFAMATION 7. Plaintiff hereby adopts and incorporates by reference paragraphs (1) through (6) above as if fully stated herein. 8. Defendant Shaw, Defendant City and Defendants 1 - 10, libeled, defamed and slandered the Plaintiff. All allegations of libel, slander, and defamation as stated in complaint
DOCUMENT 2
herein, were made by the Defendants in reference to the Plaintiff and were negligently and intentionally communicated to third parties (by oral or written publication and/or communication), and caused injury and damage to the Plaintiff. Said communications were false. 9. During and throughout the years 2016 and 2017, Defendant Charles Shaw, in his individual and official capacity, operated a social media page on FaceBook known as Charles Shaw, which could be accessed via readily available electronic means on the publicly available internet and was accessible to the pubic. 10. During and throughout the years 2016 and 2017, Defendant Charles Shaw, in his official capacity, upon information and belief, operated a social media page on FaceBook, known as Alexander City Mayor’s Office, which could be accessed via readily available electronic means on the publicly available internet and was accessible to the pubic. 11. Throughout 2016 and 2017, Defendants published, orally and/or in writing, a series of posts on the above referenced social media platforms, a number of statements calculated to embarrass the Plaintiff and injure her reputation in the community. 12. During and throughout the years 2016 and 2017, Defendants made statements to news reporters, which were published in news platforms throughout the state of Alabama, said statements were false, defamatory, and caused injury and damage to the Plaintiff. 13. In statements to the public, Defendants alleged, through false and defamatory statements, that the Plaintiff was incompetent, involved in criminal and fraudulent activity and said statements were made for the purpose of harming the Plaintiff and damaging her reputation in the community. 14. Statements published and communicated to the public, both orally and written, were false and Defendants either knew of the falsity of said statements or published them with a
DOCUMENT 2
reckless disregard for the truth and/or with actual malice. 15. Statements named the Plaintiff specifically and/or described the Plaintiff in such detail that it was apparent to all in the local community and throughout the state that the statements were made in reference to the Plaintiff. 16. Some or all of the Defendants made slanderous statements about the Plaintiff in the presence of one of more persons, and said statements and/or allegations were false. 17. In 2016, Defendant Charles Shaw, in his individual and official capacity, reported to Alabama News that the financial director was “incompetent” and that the City was unable to obtain reliable accounting information due to the Plaintiff’s incompetence, negligence or both. The report further stated, from information received from and through some or all of the Defendants, that the Plaintiff would be (or was) fired due to “financial reasons”. The report was published to the public and contained false, derogatory and defaming statements made by some or all of the Defendants. 18. Defendants actions amounted to willful and wanton misconduct, fraud, and/or gross negligence, and were false and made with reckless disregard for the truth. 19. On or about July 22, 2016, Defendant Charles Shaw, in his individual and official capacity, made posts on the public social media page referenced herein, stating, in clear reference to the Plaintiff, that “for the last approximately two years, the City’s finance director, Sandra Machen, has been unable to accurately report financial numbers and has not efficiently run our finance department ” and further stated, “Last week, Department Heads were given their budgets for the remainder of 2016 and the majority of these were incomplete and incorrect. Most importantly, the 2016 numbers for the golf course were wrong and it was discovered that numerous entries into the City’s accounting system were entered incorrectly” (or words to that
DOCUMENT 2
effect). Said statements and allegations were not true, and made intentionally and/or made with reckless disregard for the truth. Defendants’ actions were negligent, willful and malicious. Defendants’ actions amount to willful and wanton misconduct, fraudulent misconduct, and/or gross negligence and/or made with reckless disregard for the truth. 20. During the fall of 2016, Defendant Shaw distributed Mayoral campaign paraphernalia to the public stating that he attempted to solve the problems in the finance department of the City “by asking the Council to replace the finance director” and that the City Council “refused to acknowledge that the finance director was responsible for the issues until the damage had been done.” Said statement and allegation was not true, made intentionally and/or with reckless disregard for the truth. Defendants’ actions were negligent and/or willful and malicious. The statements set forth herein were made in an effort to mislead the public and for personal and politic gain. 21. On or about August 2, 2016 and August 3, 2016, Defendant Charles Shaw, in his official capacity, made statements to the news media, published throughout the State of Alabama via television broadcast and newspaper printings, stating the Plaintiff was dismissed by said Defendant for dishonesty, falsifying documents, and incompetence. Similar statements have been made by Defendant(s) using other platforms to communicate defamatory statements. 22. Defamatory statements made by Defendants have held the Plaintiff up to scorn, hatred, ridicule, disgrace, and contempt, in the mind of even the considerable and respectable segment of the community. Plaintiff suffered damages and adverse consequences. 23. Defamatory statements made by Defendants caused Plaintiff to not be renewed in her employment contract. Plaintiff experienced great difficulty finding new employment. 24. As a proximate consequence, Plaintiff suffered loss of her employment, damage to
DOCUMENT 2
her employability and reputation in the community, was caused to suffer pain and public humiliation, monetary damages in terms of legal costs, loss of employment, and reduced compensation at future employment. Plaintiff was the subject of numerous news articles placing Plaintiff in a negative light to the public. 25. As a proximate consequence of the acts of Defendants, the reputation of Plaintiff is damaged in her trade and profession, it has brought public disgrace, ridicule, odium, contempt, and infamy, in her community and throughout the state of Alabama. Plaintiff has suffered great worry, anxiety, humiliation, and mental and emotional distress. 26. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, special and punitive damages for said injuries. 27. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages as a result of the Defendants willful and wanton false and libelous statements published maliciously and with total disregard for the truth. 28. In addition to special damages suffered by the Plaintiff, other damages suffered by the Plaintiff are implied by law due to the fact that the statements of the Defendant constitute slander and libel per se in that the false and defamatory statements accuse Plaintiff of having committed an indictable offense involving infamy or moral turpitude, i.e. dishonesty in her trade and criminal activity, specifically involving taxpayer money.
COUNT THREE OUTRAGE 29. Plaintiff hereby adopts and incorporates by reference paragraphs (7) through (28) above as if fully stated herein. 30. The acts of the Defendants, as stated herein, are so reckless and malicious as to
DOCUMENT 2
constitute the tort of outrage. The acts of the Defendants amount to willful and wanton misconduct, fraud, and/or gross negligence. 31. The conduct of Defendants was outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency. 32. Defendants have acted in a manner that is utterly intolerable in a civilized society. Those acts have severely interfered with Plaintiff’s ability to live as a normal member of society. Plaintiff has been intentionally held to public ridicule and shame. 33. Plaintiff has been made fearful of her life, has been caused to suffer great emotional distress and mental anguish that no reasonable person could be subject to endure, and has been otherwise injured and damaged as aforesaid. 34. As a proximate consequence Plaintiff suffered loss of her employment, damage to her employability and reputation, was caused to suffer pain and public humiliation, and caused to suffer monetary damage in terms of legal costs and loss of employment. COUNT FOUR MENTAL ANGUISH AND EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 35. Plaintiff hereby adopts and incorporates by reference paragraphs (29) through (34) above as if fully stated herein. 36. Misconduct of Defendants are so intentional, reckless, negligent, wanton and or wilful as to cause the Plaintiff mental anguish and emotional distress. 37. As a proximate consequence, Plaintiff suffered loss of sleep, pain and public humiliation, decrease in quality of life, monetary damages, and had to seek professional help to cope with the consequences and effects Defendants acts caused.
DOCUMENT 2
COUNT FIVE NEGLIGENCE 38. Plaintiff hereby adopts and incorporates by reference paragraphs (35) through (37) above as if fully stated herein. 39. Defendants owed a legal duty to Plaintiff. 40. Defendants breached that legal duty by acts and/or omissions. 41. Defendants actions and/or inactions caused Plaintiff’s injurys. 42. Defendants, both individuals and entities, negligently published or republished, either orally or in writing, defamatory statements and/or information or alternatively aided and/or allowed said statements to be published. 43. Defendants negligently failed to investigate claims of misconduct brought forth by Plaintiff. 44. Defendants failed to act as a reasonable person or entity would under the same or similar circumstances. 45. Defendant aided and/or allowed the misconduct of others, causing harm to Plaintiff, by beaching a duty which is owed Plaintiff. 46. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, court costs, and such other relief as is proper which are a proximate cause of the Defendants negligence. 47. In addition to special damages suffered by the Plaintiff, other damages suffered by the Plaintiff are implied by law due to the fact that Defendant City violated state and federal statutes, that violation caused harm to Plaintiff said statute was intended to prevent, and Plaintiff was a member of the class that the statute protected. COUNT SIX
DOCUMENT 2
RETALIATION, HARASSMENT AND WRONGFUL TERMINATION 48. Plaintiff hereby adopts and incorporates by reference paragraphs (38) through (47) above as if fully stated herein. 49. Plaintiff has been retaliated against, harassed and subjected to wrongful dismissal, termination, and denial of reinstatement by some of all of the Defendants with regard to her employment as Finance Director at the City of Alexander City. 50. Plaintiff reported information concerning potential ethics violations to the State Ethics Commission. The information provided by the Plaintiff to the ethics commission was based on a good faith belief to be a violation and said information contained truthful statements concerning an alleged ethics violation. 51. Plaintiff reported information to the Alexander City City Counsel regarding illegal pay raises given to City Employees by Defendant Mayor. Defendant Mayor attempted to dismiss Plaintiff from her employment on at least three (3) occasions. 52. On or about July 22, 2016, Defendant Charles Shaw, in his official capacity, dismissed Plaintiff from her employment as Finance Director of the City of Alexander City, alleging dishonesty and falsification of records as the reason for dismissal. Said allegation was imaginary, baseless, false, without merit, and Defendant was unable to provide any documentation for the allegation. City Council did not uphold said Defendants dismissal. 53. On or about August 2, 2016 and August 3, 2016, Defendants organized an employee “sickout” to oppose council vote to reinstate Plaintiff in her employment. The acts amount to willful and wanton misconduct, calculated to harass, embarrass, and intentionally inflict emotional distress on the Plaintiff. The acts did in fact cause harassment, embarrassment, and emotional distress, in addition to other injuries suffered by Plaintiff.
DOCUMENT 2
54. On or about August 2, 2016, Defendants denied Plaintiff access to her work computer, work email, and network for the City of Alexander City accounting system. Plaintiff was required to perform her duties as Finance Director using paper and pencil and outdated reports for several days. The retaliatory acts amount to willful and wanton misconduct, calculated to harass, embarrass, and intentionally inflict emotional distress on the Plaintiff. The acts did in fact cause harassment, embarrassment, and emotional distress, in addition to other injuries suffered by Plaintiff. 55. After Plaintiff reported to the City Council the denial of access to necessary information and tools to perform her job, Defendant Mayor, accompanied by a Deputy Sheriff, entered Plaintiff’s employment office and dismissed Plaintiff effective immediately. Plaintiff was instructed to leave immediately and required to turn keys over to the Deputy Sheriff. This harassing retaliatory act was willful and amounts to wanton misconduct and resulted in public humiliation causing additional injury to the Plaintiff. 56. On or about November 7, 2016, during an organization meeting, the City Council voted not to reappoint the Plaintiff as Finance Director. Plaintiff was escorted to her office by a law enforcement officer to remove personal items and keys were taken immediately. 57. Defendants misconduct amount to willful and/or wanton retaliatory acts and/or gross negligence and is in direct violation of § 36-25-24, Ala Code 1975, enacted in 1995 and subject to the circuit courts of this State, pursuant to the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure as promulgated by the Alabama Supreme Court and in violation of §10-11-1 et, seq., Ala. Code 1975. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in an amount adequate to compensate the Plaintiff for all special damages, and in an amount adequate to compensate the
DOCUMENT 2
Plaintiff for damages presumed or implied by law under the circumstances, compensatory damages, and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the triers of fact, and the costs of these proceedings, to include interests and all expenses allowable by law.
AMANDA HARDY LAW, LLC
/s/ Amanda G. Hardy By: Amanda G. Hardy (HAR388) Robert M. Echols, Jr. Attorneys for Plaintiff Suite 116, 4 Office Park Circle Birmingham, Alabama 35223 Telephone (205) 870-3700 Facsimile (205) 870-3936
JURY DEMAND
PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY OF ALL THE ISSUES IN THIS ACTION.
/s/ Amanda G. Hardy Amanda G. Hardy
Plaintiff's Address: Ms. Sandra Machen 510 Shady Point Alexander City, Alabama 35010
Serve Defendant at: (Plaintiff will serve defendants)