FILED

DALLAS COUNTY
10/1/2015 11:55:30 AM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK

1 CT-ATTY

DC-15-12090
CAUSE NO. ________________
CHRISTOPHER WORDEN &
JASON SCOGGINS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS,
Defendant.

Freeney Anita

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

E-101ST
______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Plaintiffs, Christopher Worden and Jason Scoggins, bring this cause against Defendant,
City of Dallas, Texas (Dallas), pursuant to the Texas Whistleblower Act, TEX. GOVT CODE
554.001, et seq., and in support thereof would show the Court as follows:
A. Discovery Control Plan
1.

Plaintiffs intend to conduct discovery under Level 3 of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure

190.4 because this case presents unique circumstances and involves an abuse of the public trust.
B. Parties
2.

Plaintiffs, are individuals who reside in Dallas County. Plaintiff Worden is a Police

Officer with the Dallas Police Department. Plaintiff Scoggins is a Sergeant with the Dallas Police
Department.
3.

Defendant, City of Dallas, Texas, is a municipality located in Dallas County, Texas.

Pursuant to Section 17.024(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Defendant may be
served by serving Rosa A. Rios, City Secretary, at 1500 Marilla, Room 5D South, Dallas, Texas
75201-6390.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 1

C. Jurisdiction
4.

This is a claim brought under the Texas Whistleblower Act, Texas Government Code

chapter 554. The court has jurisdiction over this claim under the Whistleblower Act because the
Texas Legislature waived Defendants governmental immunity for claims brought by a public
employee against a governmental entity for retaliatory personnel actions in violation of Texas
Government Code section 554.002. TEX. GOVT CODE 554.0035. This suit, as set out more fully
in Count 1, seeks damages for adverse personnel actions that were the result of Plaintiffs goodfaith report of illegal conduct. This court has subject-matter jurisdiction because the amount in
controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of the Court. TEX. GOVT CODE 24.007.008.
D. Venue
5.

Venue is proper in Dallas County under Texas Government Code section 554.007(b)

because this suit is a Whistleblower Act claim brought by employees of a local government entity,
and this is the county where the cause of action arose.
E. Facts
6.

On April 25, 2014, several juveniles were detained by Dallas Police Officers beside

the Wal-Mart on Duff Street. Officer Christopher Worden arrived on scene and overheard a verbal
altercation between Officer N. Smith and a juvenile seated in the back of a squad car. Sgt. F. Mears
was on scene and within earshot of the verbal altercation. Sgt. Mears then ordered Officer
Christopher Worden to remove the handcuffs from the juvenile suspect. Officer Worden complied
with this order from the on-scene supervisor. Officer N. Smith then removed his badge and Sam
Browne belt and Sgt. Mears, who was standing behind Officer Smith said, Aww shit. Officer
Worden is not aware what Officer Smiths intentions were, but it appears that Sgt. Mears ordered
Officer Worden to remove the handcuffs from the juvenile so that Officer Smith could engage the
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 2

juvenile in a fist fight. The intention to fight the juvenile appears to be clear from Sgt. Mears and
Officer Smiths actions and the video recording. Plus, Sgt. Mears simply looked on while Officer
Smith removed his badge and Sam Browne belt. Officer Worden ended the incident by quickly
returning and re-cuffing the juvenile.
7.

On April 26, 2014, Officer Worden reported this incident to Sgt. Jason Scoggins.

Sgt. Scoggins directed Officer Worden to make a verbal report to Sgt. D. Bryant. Sgt. Scoggins
was then approached by Sgt. Bryant and Sgt. S. Digby about the incident. Sgt. Scoggins insisted
that a Control Number be generated regarding the incident in order to start an internal-affairs
investigation. The conduct of Sgt. Mears and Officer Smith were clearly in violation of 42 U.S.C.
1983 and constituted official oppression under section 39.03 of the Texas Penal Code. Once the
internal investigation started, Lt. Bell went to internal affairs and insisted that Sgt. Scoggins be
interviewed regarding the fact that he had insisted that an investigation be initiated. The involved
officers and Sgt. Scoggins were interviewed in May regarding this incident, which was assigned
DPD IA CN2014-137.
8.

On September 28, 2014, Sgt. Scoggins and Officer Worden responded to a

Disturbance Active Shooter in Vehicle. The suspect was apprehended and his gun secured after a
short pursuit. The suspect suffered no injury, but Officer Worden was charged with unnecessary
force. This charge originated on October 3, 2014, when Lt. W. Griffith, in consultation with Lt.
Bell, claimed there was no probable cause to stop the vehicle containing the armed suspect. Lt.
Griffith initiated a Control Number regarding the event. Lt. Griffith also works the same off-duty
job as Sgt. Mears.
9.

On October 3, 2014, the decision was made to place Officer Worden on

administrative leave pending the investigation. Lt. Griffith left a message for Officer Worden to
call him, but was not available when Officer Worden returned the call. Officer Worden reported
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 3

to his off-duty job at Jesuit. Sergeants Palmer and Allen then called Officer Worden and met
Officer Worden at Jesuit College Preparatory instead of at the station or his home. At Jesuit, they
confiscated Officer Wordens duty weapon, warrant of appointment, etc. and left. Officer Worden
was left in uniform without a weapon or an escort to return home. That evening, Sgt. Mears
celebrated Officer Worden being placed on administrative leave with a fist pump in front of at
least two other Sergeants.
10.

On November 3, 2014, Officer Worden reported to IAD. IAD detectives re-

interviewed him concerning CN2014-137 and then he was interviewed by Det. Menchaca
regarding the September 28, 2014 incident.
11.

On November 4, 2014, Sgt. Scoggins reported to IAD. He was interviewed by Det.

Menchaca regarding the September 28, 2014 incident.

12.

On November 13, 2014, Sgt. Scoggins emailed Lt. Coffey regarding the fact that

Officer Worden was still on administrative leave.

13.

On November 14, 2014, Sgt. Scoggins was ordered to report to IAD again. Sgt.

Merritt conducted the interview and indicated that he was recommending the allegations be not
sustained.
14.

On November 18, 2014, Sgt. Scoggins and Officer Worden were again ordered to

report to IAD at 2:15 p.m. They were informed that Det. Menchaca and Sgt. Merritt were removed
from the investigation. Officer Worden had received less than 24-hours notice and was scheduled
to go off-duty at 5:00 p.m. The investigation was re-assigned to Lt. Griffiths subordinates and
new allegations were written. An objection was made regarding Lt. Griffiths participation in the
process and the obvious conflict of interest. Lt. Griffith denied having any involvement in the
investigation. However, the Request for Control Number confirmed that Lt. Griffith was listed as
the complainant in the matter. Sgt. Scoggins was caused to remain at IAD past 6:00 p.m. despite
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 4

the fact that he was supposed to receive a Life Saving Award at a banquet. Officer Worden was
released at 4:30 p.m. after having waited over two hours and Lt. Griffith ordered Officer Worden
to cancel a physicians appointment and report the next morning at 8:30 a.m.
15.

On or about November 24, 2014, Plaintiffs sent a notice to First Assistant Chief

Charlie Cato and the City Attorneys Office concerning the retaliatory treatment they were
receiving for having reported Sgt. Mears conduct and giving notice to the City of their claim of
Whistleblower status.
16.

Plaintiffs

were

given

unsubstantiated

allegations

for

excessive

force,

untruthfulness, and providing inconsistent, conflicting, and/or misleading information. Officer

Worden was assessed a total of 25-days off without pay based on these unsubstantiated allegations,
placed in the remedial employee-development program, served months on administrative leave,
and was re-assigned to a less desirable position in Communications. Scoggins was assessed a total
of 15-days off without pay based on these unsubstantiated allegations, and transferred to a less
desirable position in the Jail. Plaintiffs timely appealed the allegations and discipline.
17.

On September 2, 2015, Officer Worden received notice that he had exhausted his

appeals process with the City of Dallas. The allegations of excessive force, untruthfulness, and
providing inconsistent, conflicting, and/or misleading information were all rescinded on appeal.
Significantly, Officer Wordens discipline was reduced from 25-days off to one-day off for failing
to wear a body microphone and exceeding the speed limit when responding to the call.
18.

On September 8, 2015, Sgt. Scoggins received notice that he had exhausted his

appeals process with the City of Dallas. The allegations of excessive force, untruthfulness, and
providing inconsistent, conflicting, and/or misleading information were all rescinded on appeal.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 5

F. Count 1 - Whistleblower Claim

19. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 18 as if fully set forth here.
20. Plaintiffs have complied with all provisions of section 554.001 et seq. of the Texas
Government Code prior to filing this suit.
21. Plaintiffs, in good faith, reasonably believed that the actions of Sgt. Mears and Officer
Smith violated the law. Specifically, Plaintiffs believed the conduct of Sgt. Mears and Officer
Smith violated 42 U.S.C. 1983 and constituted official oppression under section 39.03 of the
Texas Penal Code. Plaintiffs complaints were at all times a report of a violation of law as that
term is defined in the Texas Whistleblower Act.
22. Plaintiffs reports were made to Defendant Citys Police Department. Therefore,
Plaintiffs reports were at all times made to a proper authority as that term is defined in the Texas
Whistleblower Act.
23. Defendant, a local government entity, has taken adverse employment action against
Plaintiffs in violation of Section 554.002(a) of the Texas Whistleblower Act.
24. Plaintiffs reports were the cause of the unlawful actions taken by Defendant, as cited
herein.
25. Plaintiffs exhausted their administrative remedies and are timely filing this suit within
30 days of exhausting said remedies.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 6

26. Defendant Citys conduct caused injury to Plaintiffs, including the loss of reputation, loss
of wages, loss of seniority, loss of promotion, future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering,
inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses.
G. Damages
27. Plaintiffs professional careers and personal lives have been irreversibly damaged due to
Defendants unlawful conduct, and they have suffered great physical and emotional pain and
damage, mental pain and damage, suffering and anguish, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life,
and in all reasonable probability will continue to suffer in this manner for an extended time.
28. Plaintiffs have suffered lost wages and employment benefits, loss of promotion, past and
future damages to their reputations, as well as loss of earning capacity in the future as a result of
having an adverse employment action on their permanent professional employment records.
29. Plaintiffs are seeking damages at the level prescribed by statute and at a total of
$250,000.00 each.
H. Attorneys Fees
30. Plaintiffs seek reasonable attorneys fees and court costs, including expert witness costs,
as provided for in section 554.003(a)(4) of the Texas Government Code.
I. Reinstatement
31. Plaintiffs seek reinstatement to their former positions as well as reinstatement of fringe
benefits and seniority rights.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 7

J. Conditions Precedent
32. All conditions precedent to Plaintiffs claims for relief have been performed or have
occurred.
K. Request for Disclosure
33. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Plaintiffs request that Defendant disclose,
within fifty (50) days of the service of this request, the information or material described in Rule
194.2.
L. Documents to be Used
34. Pursuant to Rules 193.3(d) and 193.7, Plaintiff intends to use all documents exchanged
or produced between the parties, including but not limited to, correspondence, disclosures, and
discovery responses, during trial of this cause.
M. Jury Demand
35. Plaintiffs demand a jury trial.
N. Prayer
36. For these reasons, Plaintiffs ask that Defendant City answer, and that Plaintiffs be
awarded a judgment against Defendant City for their damages identified above in Section G,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, court costs, attorneys fees, and all other relief, at law
and at equity, to which Plaintiffs are entitled.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 8

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Christopher D. Livingston
CHRISTOPHER D. LIVINGSTON
State Bar No. 24007559

LYON, GORSKY, GILBERT & LIVINGSTON, LLP

12001 N. Central Expressway
650 CBS Tower
Dallas, Texas 75243
214-965-0090
214-965-0097 (Fax)
clivingston@lyongorsky.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 9