Case 1:14-cv-14755-LTS Document 1 Filed 12/31/14 Page 1 of 20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

TIMOTHY TURLEY,
Plaintiff
v.
DANIEL ZIVKOVICH, Individually and
as Executive Director of the MPTC; CURTIS
MCKENZIE, Individually and as Director
of the WMRPA; ROBERT POWERS;
DELILAH YEE; SEAN SHATTUCK;
MUNICIPAL POLICE TRAINING
COMMISSION; and WESTERN
MASSACHUSETTS REGIONAL POLICE
ACADEMY,
Defendants.

Civil Action No.

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

INTRODUCTION
This is a civil rights hazing and retaliation action that sounds primarily in Title IX and
42 U.S. C., 1983. Plaintiff, Timothy Turley (Mr. Turley) attended a 22-week police officer
training course which began in August 2013. At the time he previously had served the
Commonwealth for approximately 20 years in law enforcement.
Defendants repeatedly singled out Mr. Turley because of his age. Mr. Turley
simultaneously recognized that the routine training regimen involved hazing which amounted
to gross discrimination and harassment against himself and others. He vociferously objected.
Subsequently, he was the victim of gross retaliation, which culminated in a pretextual dismissal
from the academy, essentially destroying his goal of becoming a police officer.
1

Case 1:14-cv-14755-LTS Document 1 Filed 12/31/14 Page 2 of 20

Supplemental Massachusetts state claims sounding in M.G.L. c. 151B, 151C, 214, 1C,
and common law are simultaneously alleged.
PARTIES
1.

The Plaintiff, Timothy Turley resides in West Roxbury, Suffolk County, and is domiciled
in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

2.

The Western Massachusetts Regional Police Training Academy ("WMRPA") is an

educational institution authorized by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to train and
certify student officers. The WMRPAs principle place of business is 1 Armory Square,
Building 11, Springfield, Hampden County, Massachusetts.

3.

The Municipal Police Training Committee (MPTC) is an agency of the Commonwealth

of Massachusetts, as a division of the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security and
is directly responsible for supervision of Defendant WMRPA. The MPTCs principle
place of business is 6 Adams Street, Randolph, Norfolk County, and Massachusetts.

4.

Defendant Daniel Zivkovich is the current Executive Director of the MPTC. Defendant
Zivkovichs address is currently unknown to Plaintiff but, upon information and belief,
he is domiciled and regularly conducts business in Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

5.

Defendant Curtis McKenzie is the current WMRPA Director. Defendant McKenzies

address is currently unknown to Plaintiff but, upon information and belief, he is
domiciled and regularly conducts business in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

6.

Defendant Robert Powers was, at all times relevant to this complaint, and is currently an
instructor at WMRPA. Defendant Powers address is currently unknown to Plaintiff but,
upon information and belief, he is domiciled in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Case 1:14-cv-14755-LTS Document 1 Filed 12/31/14 Page 3 of 20

7.

Defendant Delilah Yee was, at all times relevant to this complaint, and is currently an
instructor at WMRPA. Defendant Yees address is currently unknown to Plaintiff but,
upon information and belief, she is domiciled and regularly conducts business in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

8.

Defendant Sean Shattuck was, at all times relevant to this complaint, an instructor at
WMRPA. Defendant Shattucks address is currently unknown to Plaintiff but, upon
information and belief, he is domiciled and regularly conducts business in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
JURISDICTION

9.

The Court has original jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. 1331 as Mr. Turley
seeks redress for violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 20 U.S.C., 1681 (Title IX). The
Court has supplemental jurisdiction of the other related claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1367 which arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. All relevant facts and the
gravamen of this Complaint occurred in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

10.

Mr. Turley is currently 47 years old

11.

Prior to the incidents in question, Mr. Turley enjoyed a successful 20-year law
enforcement career in the service of the Suffolk County Sheriffs Department.

12.

Upon retirement, Mr. Turley sought to advance his career by becoming a certified police
officer.

13.

Thus, Mr. Turley enrolled as a self-sponsored student officer in the WMRPA on or

around August 19, 2013.

Case 1:14-cv-14755-LTS Document 1 Filed 12/31/14 Page 4 of 20

14.

Generally, the course in which Mr. Turley enrolled lasts for 22 weeks. Participation in the
program required Mr. Turley to relocate temporarily to Central Massachusetts and forego
wages. Mr. Turley paid for all fees, materials, and commuting expenses.

15.

Almost all of the other students in the program were in their 20s and 30s. On information
and belief, none had the kind of substantial law enforcement experience that Mr. Turley
had.

16.

Immediately following Turleys matriculation, instructors under the supervision of

Director McKenzie repeatedly disparaged Mr. Turley with crude age related jokes,
including, but not limited to, the repeated mantra that Mr. Turley needed Viagra.

17.

Similarly, commencing almost immediately, the WMRPA instructors singled Mr. Turley
out for harsh reprimands for so-called offenses that the WMRPA did not enforce
against other student officers.

18.

For example, Mr. Turley, and only Mr. Turley, was ordered to perform the degrading task
of kneeling down and placing socks on the bare feet of another student officer. This
occurred in front of his entire class and in the presence of several MPTC Staff Instructors
under the supervision of Sgt. Powers.

19.

On another occasion, Sgt. Powers ordered Mr. Turley to write the entire Use of Force
Model on the white board every day for several weeks during his lunch break. This
punishment was ordered for misspelling the word volatile. Thus, Mr. Turley was
deprived of the right to eat his lunch on several occasions during this physically
demanding training. No other students had any other similar requirements during their
lunch break despite the fact that several students made similar errors throughout the
course.

Case 1:14-cv-14755-LTS Document 1 Filed 12/31/14 Page 5 of 20

20.

The WMRPA required Mr. Turley to endure incessant jokes about his age. Staff
Instructors including Sergeant Robert Powers (Sgt. Powers), Instructor Delilah Yee,
and others repeatedly ridiculed Mr. Turley about his supposed use of Viagra, rotary
phones, and numerous other age-related topics.

21.

The WMRPA facultys repeated disparagement of his age caused Mr. Turley to feel
singled out, humiliated, and embarrassed.

22.

It quickly became clear to Mr. Turley that WMRPA tolerated a culture of abuse; the
students were subjected to hazing apparently in the belief it would 'toughen them up.'
However, much of the conduct amounted to discrimination, offensive racial profiling
instruction, abuse, harassment and a hostile environment. Mr. Turley resisted this culture
at every turn, often on behalf of other individuals.

23.

As a result, Mr. Turley quickly became the objectnot just of abusive comments
concerning his agebut retaliation as well.

24.

In a module on motor vehicles law, Instructor Sgt. Powers clearly expressed his pleasure
that Mr. Turleys the class was not ethnically diverse because the entire class was made
up of apparently white recruits.

25.

When student officer Nick Latino described his experience in this class of being pulled
over just outside of his own driveway for no apparent reason, Sgt. Powers asked him: Is
your vehicle ethnically modified? continuing, that could be the reason for the stop.
Sgt. Powers went on to advise the student officers that Massachusetts police officers
could issue citations to ethnically altered vehicles all day long. Sgt. Powers later
admitted to this commentary and confirmed that he refers to ethnically altered vehicles

Case 1:14-cv-14755-LTS Document 1 Filed 12/31/14 Page 6 of 20

as those commonly driven by Hispanics. Sgt. Powers regularly used the term ethnics
interchangeably with Hispanics.
26.

This kind of commentary stunned Mr. Turley who was already a trained law enforcement
professional and who has a daughter of Guatemalan heritage. He was shocked that in the
first decades of the 21st century, this type of conduct was openly practiced in a
Massachusetts police academy.

27.

Mr. Turley continually objected to this course of instruction and communicated to his
fellow student officers that it is illegal to aggressively enforce laws on any ethnic group.

28.

The pervasive atmosphere of discrimination and harassment became even more evident
in firearms training class, which began with vulgar, anti-gay, and sexually harassing
diatribes by Instructor Shattuck. Firearms instructors routinely referred to Student
Officers as: faggots, homos and queers among other derogatory terms in the presence of
several MPTC Staff Instructors.

29.

By way of example only, during the initial classroom portion of the firearms class
training, Instructor Shattuck repeatedly told the class to stand like youre getting fucked
in the ass, you should be used to it.

30.

At another point Instructor Shattuck placed two fingers under the nose of student officer
(whose name is known and may be supplied) and asked, Does this smell like your
wife? When Instructor Shattuck noticed that Mr. Turley was watching, he turned and
asked, What is your fucking problem?

31.

Instructor Shattucks abuse culminated at the WMRPAs shooting range in West

Springfield. When a student officer (whose name is known and may be supplied) stood
in front of one of the firing tables, Instructor Shattuck grabbed his buttocks behind the

Case 1:14-cv-14755-LTS Document 1 Filed 12/31/14 Page 7 of 20

genitals at the anus, forced his finger into the victims anus, (over the clothing) and
proceeded to rub his own genitals against the victim, simulating sexual intercourse.
32.

Mr. Turley noticed that this student officer was clearly distressed by this sexual assault
and walked toward the table to stop it. Again Mr. Turley acted to interrupt or otherwise
interfere with the WMRPA facultys harassment and discriminatory remarks directed at
student officers.

33.

Seeing Mr. Turleys approach, Instructor Shattuck released the victim from but then
shouted, Dont you have a fucking sense of humor Turley?! Instructor Shattuck later
expressed his intention to retaliate against Mr. Turley when he threatened. If you ever
graduate, then you can tell me to fuck myself.

34.

In retaliation for Mr. Turleys attempt to aid this officer, Instructor Shattuck, who was
responsible for scoring the qualifying target for the Programs firearms test, failed Mr.
Turley. Mr. Turley has trained in the use of firearms for over 20 years and has never
previously had difficulty passing a firearms exam - yet, Instructor Shattuck found Mr.
Turleys performance inadequate. Mr. Turley, however, retook and passed the firearms
test within two weeks (as was his right under MPTC Policy at 7 and 550 CMR 03.09(b)).
Additionally, Mr. Turley qualified in firearms certification on March 8, 2014 by MPTC
Instructor Fred Leland. This certification utilized the same weapon and standards as the
WMRPA, and Mr. Turley qualified in his first attempt with a perfect score.

35.

Events at the firing range proved to be the first round of the WMRPAs obvious
retaliation against and interference with Mr. Turleys support of officers, particular the
officer noted above, whom Mr. Turley encouraged to report Instructor Shattucks sexual
assault as, in fact, Mr. Turley was required to do by MPTC Policy. Mr. Turley was

Case 1:14-cv-14755-LTS Document 1 Filed 12/31/14 Page 8 of 20

observed by the WMRPA faculty on multiple occasions conferring with the student
officer in P31 and also consulting with other students, whom Mr. Turley encouraged,
within plain hearing of the WMRPA faculty, not to laugh at the facultys anti-gay jokes
and other crude, discriminatory, and harassing behavior.
36.

For example, Mr. Turley told fellow student officers within hearing of WMRPA faculty
that it was very likely on statistical grounds alone that at least some of their fellow
student officers were gay and that it was not right to subject them to ridicule. During this
discourse, fellow student officer Travis Cunningham advised Mr. Turley to keep it
down and said that the instructors are listening.

37.

Formal direct reports of abuse, discrimination, and harassment were foreclosed at the
WMRPA. The WMRPA instructors were, for all practical purposes, the student officers
Program supervisors. Later events confirmed that any report through the WMRPA chain
of command was futile.

38.

When Director McKenzie learned of Instructor Shattucks abusive behavior, nothing was
done to stop it. Director McKenzie announced to the class that he was investigating staff
misconduct. Instead, Director McKenzie endeavored to squelch any report of the incident
and protect Instructor Shattuck even as the interference and retaliation against Mr.
Turley increased.

39.

When the student officers returned from offsite training, the harassment of Mr. Turley
reached a new pitch.

40.

By way of example, on November 26th Sgt. Powers singled out Mr. Turley and ordered
him to get a doctors note for a minor back strain and forbid Mr. Turley from attending
further police training courses until he did so. Sgt Powers is not a PT Instructor and did

Case 1:14-cv-14755-LTS Document 1 Filed 12/31/14 Page 9 of 20

not consult with PT Staff or the onsite Paramedic as was typical for all other medical
matters. Sgt. Powers never required this kind of note from any other student officers. It
was simply a pretext to harass, retaliate against, and exclude Mr. Turley from the
classroom.
41.

Mr. Turley repeatedly protested his treatment and the treatment of others, and discussed
openly with class leaders and fellow student officers.

THE PRETEXTUAL TERMINATION

42.

Mr. Turley was discriminated against and held to arbitrary and capricious academic
standards as a form of retaliation and harassment.

43.

The WMRPA subjected Mr. Turley to an arbitrary and capricious testing regimen in clear
deviation from its pertinent regulations and policies as a form of discrimination,
retaliation, and harassment.

44.

Approximately one month short of Mr. Turleys completion of the Program, in December
2013, Director McKenzie called Mr. Turley into his office and issued him a Separation
Notice, the WMRPAs phrase for a notice of expulsion, for alleged performance
reasons. In plain English, Mr. Turley was advised he flunked out.

45.

Mr. Turleys alleged failure was pretextual. Moreover, the Institution failed to follow its
own protocol which is as follows:
a. After a student officer fails an exam, protocol requires that the WMRPA issue the
student officer an action notice,
b.

and after three such notices, the academy may Separate the student.

Case 1:14-cv-14755-LTS Document 1 Filed 12/31/14 Page 10 of 20

46.

The immediate pretext for Mr. Turleys expulsion from the Program was a third action
notice issued to Mr. Turley on a quiz testing student officers knowledge of the Standard
Field Sobriety Test (SFST).

47.

This action was in direct conflict with Director McKenzies announcement to the class,
that the three-failure rule was applied to comprehensive exams only. The WMRPA had
distributed an inch-thick packet of SFST materials on the afternoon of December 9th and
quizzed the class the following morning of December 10, 2013.

48.

This twenty-question quiz was administered on the morning of Day 2 of a 3-day course,
and prior to the classroom presentation of the majority of the material. Although MPTC
Policy states that [t]he passing score on all tests shall be 70 percent, just prior to Mr.
Turleys test, WMRPA instructors told him that he was required to score 80% to pass.
Mr. Turley scored 75%. The WMRPA now stated that it considered 75% a failure; an
arbitrary and capricious testing practice.

49.

Later in the day of December 10, 2013, Director McKenzie issued Mr. Turley a
Municipal Police Training Committee Separation Notice (the Notice), which stated,
On 10/30/13 SO [student officer] Turley failed to attain a passing score on
comprehensive exam #2. On 11/8/13 SO Turley failed firearms qualification
testing. On 12/10/13 SO Turley failed the written SFST examination. SO Turley
failed three testing components: Comprehensive examination, firearms & SFST.

50.

This statement was false when made and knowingly so. The SFST quiz was reclassified
as the final exam to effectuate Mr. Turleys wrongful dismissal from the academy. On the
firearms exam, Instructor Shattuck retaliated against Mr. Turley and arbitrarily failed him

10

Case 1:14-cv-14755-LTS Document 1 Filed 12/31/14 Page 11 of 20

on that test. Several of the instructors responsible for scoring the firearms exam have
since been terminated as a result of Mr. Turleys complaint.
51.

Significantly, and further evidencing Director McKenzies retaliation and the WMRPAs
discriminatory misconduct, and in direct violation of its own regulations, several student
officers failed exams and quizzes but did not receive action notices.

52.

By way of example, at least one other student, student officer Yvonne, had received a
minimum of three academic failures but was not Separated.

53.

In addition, the WMRPA sometimes issued action notices when officers failed quizzes
and sometimes did not, further exacerbating the arbitrary and capricious nature of the
WMRPAs so-called academic evaluations.

54.

Further, the WMRPA engaged in arbitrary and capricious dismissal practices, in violation
of 550 CMR 3.11(1)(a). Student officer Kurt Wilkins received a Class One Action
Notice. 550 CMR 3.11(1)(a) clearly articulates any Class I violation shall result in
dismissal from the academy.

55.

Nonetheless, Mr. Wilkins remained in good standing and graduated in January 2014.

56.

The WMRPA is obligated to follow its own regulations that forbid retaliation due to
student officers opposition to illegal sexual harassment and other discrimination within
the WMRPA. See 860 CMR 3.01(4)(d)(2-3).

57.

The facts and circumstances of Mr. Turleys Separation clearly indicated that the
WMRPA faculty, Director McKenzie, and in particular Instructor Shattuck violated the
WMRPAs announced policies and regulations (as expressed, without limitation, in the
Municipal Police Training Committee Policies and Procedures for Police Academies and

11

Case 1:14-cv-14755-LTS Document 1 Filed 12/31/14 Page 12 of 20

Reserve/Intermittent Training Programs (the MPTC Policy) and 550 CMR 03.0703.09).
EXHAUSTION OF INTERNAL/ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
58.

Mr. Turley has exhausted all internal and administrative remedies, perfecting his right to
bring suit.

59.

On December 11, 2013, Mr. Turley appealed his dismissal and requested a hearing,
pursuant to MPTC policy. The request was promptly denied without a hearing of fact.

60.

On December 13, 2013, Mr. Turley reported the sexual assault, hostile environment,
discrimination, retaliation, harassment, racial profiling, and arbitrary and capricious
testing practices occurring at WMPRA, to Chief Lavendure of Clinton, MA, Mr. Turleys
sponsoring Chief.

61.

Soon thereafter, Mr. Turley notified Defendant Zivkovich and the MPTC of his
experience and in the form of a demand letter dated January 17, 2014, which sought only
reinstatement to the academy and his then modest legal fees. In response, Defendant
Zivkovich and the MPTC provided no remedy.

62.

On April 16, 2014, in accordance with M.G.L. c. 151B and 151C, Mr. Turley filed a
Complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. No action has
yet been taken.

CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT
63.

Mr. Turleys concerns became public. As a result, the MPTC and the Holyoke Police
Department have placed Instructor Shattuck under investigation and revoked his
certificate to instruct at the WMRPA.

12

Case 1:14-cv-14755-LTS Document 1 Filed 12/31/14 Page 13 of 20

64.

In addition, at least one other instructor at the WMRPA involved in the misconduct has
been terminated.

65.

Despite these actions which acknowledge and address the clear wrongdoing of the
WMRPA, nothing has been done to correct or remedy the egregious wrongs done to Mr.
Turley. The WMRPAs harassment, capricious treatment, and retaliation resulted in Mr.
Turleys termination from the academy on or around December 10, 2013, only weeks
before he would have graduated, thus denying Mr. Turley the certification required of all
Massachusetts police officers. Because of the WMRPAs actions, advanced discussions
with potential employers had to be suspended, and Mr. Turley is ineligible for
employment as a Massachusetts police officer. In addition to Mr. Turley, several fellow
student officers were also offended by Sgt. Powers overtly racist and discriminatory
remarks.

COUNT I
RETALIATION AGAINST CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED SPEECH
(U.S.C. 42 1983)
(Against All Defendants)
66.

The Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth paragraphs 10 through 65,
above as set forth herein.

67.

By engaging in the conduct described above, the defendants each deprived Mr. Turley of
clearly established and well-settled constitutional rights while acting under color of law.
Specifically, the defendant deprived Mr. Turley of rights secured and guaranteed to him
by the United States Constitution including, but not limited to, his First Amendment right
to free speech.

13

Case 1:14-cv-14755-LTS Document 1 Filed 12/31/14 Page 14 of 20

68.

The wrongful acts described were intentionally undertaken in retaliation against Mr.
Turleys constitutionally protected speech. Mr. Turley engaged in protected speech when
he spoke against sexually harassing behavior in the presence of supervising instructors. In
response, Mr. Turley was adversely affected when defendant Shattuck immediately and
arbitrarily gave Mr. Turley a failing grade on a firearms exam. Such unlawful conduct by
the defendants and more, culminated with Mr. Turleys expulsion from the WMRPA.

69.

As a result of the defendants' violations of Mr. Turleys civil rights under 42 U.S.C.
1983, economic loss, loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress, and was otherwise
damaged.

70.

The above constitutes violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983 et seq.

COUNT II
SEXUAL HARASSMENT/ RETALIATION
20 U.S.C. 1681 Title IX
(Against WMRPA, MPTC)
71.

The Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth paragraphs 10 through 70,
above as set forth herein.

72.

The Defendant, WMRPA, is an educational institution with educational programs

receiving financial assistance from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

73.

The MPTC is an agency of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and is directly

responsible for supervision of WMRPA. The MPTC receives federal financial assistance.

74.

While attending WMRPA as a student officer, Mr. Turley was subjected to

discrimination in the form of sexual harassment.

14

Case 1:14-cv-14755-LTS Document 1 Filed 12/31/14 Page 15 of 20

75.

The harassment was sufficiently severe and pervasive to compromise and interfere with
Mr. Turleys educational opportunities, which are normally available to students similarly
situated.

76.

Several other student officers were subjected to sexual harassment sufficiently severe and
pervasive to compromise and interfere with their educational opportunities.

77.

Mr. Turley vocally expressed opposition to and complained of sexual harassment to his
fellow student officers in the presence of program supervisors, including Defendants
Shattuck and Yee.

78.

The program supervisors and Director McKenzie had actual knowledge of the sexual
harassment of Mr. Turley and other students as well as Mr. Turleys vocal opposition and
complaints regarding the instructors sexual harassment.

79.

The Defendants intentionally retaliated against Mr. Turley for expressing opposition to
the sexual harassment of himself and advocating for the rights of other students by
arbitrarily giving him a failing grade on his required firearms test.

80.

Mr. Turley experienced continued harassment and retaliation, which created a hostile
educational environment for Mr. Turley until he was ultimately expelled from the
academy under the pretext of performance reasons.

81.

Retaliation against a person because that person has complained of sex discrimination is a
form of intentional sex discrimination encompassed by Title IX's private cause of action.

82.

Such retaliation has caused Mr. Turley economic loss, loss of enjoyment of life,
emotional distress, and was otherwise damaged.

15

Case 1:14-cv-14755-LTS Document 1 Filed 12/31/14 Page 16 of 20

COUNT III
SEXUAL HARASSMENT
(G.L. c. 214, 1C/151C)
(Against Shattuck, Yee, WMRPA, MPTC)
83.

The Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth paragraphs 10 through 82,
above as set forth herein.

84.

The Defendant sexually harassed Mr. Turley and his classmates by subjecting them to
verbal and physical conduct of a sexual nature.

85.

The effect of the defendants Conduct unreasonably interfered with Mr. Turleys
education by creating an intimidating, hostile, humiliating, and sexually offensive
educational environment.

86.

As a direct result of the defendants conduct, Mr. Turley was denied police certification
and suffered economic loss, loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress, and was
otherwise damaged.
COUNT IV
RETALIATION
(G.L. C. 151C/151B, 4)
(Against All Defendants)

87.

The Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth paragraphs 10 through 86,
above as set forth herein.

88.

Mr. Turley engaged in various protected activities when he opposed practices forbidden
under c. 151C, intending to protect his rights and the rights of his classmates, to a decent
and harassment free education consistent with law. These protected activities included
verbal opposition of the practices forbidden by M.G.L. c. 214, 1C and 151C engaged
in by Defendants Shattuck, Powers, McKenzie, and Yee.

16

Case 1:14-cv-14755-LTS Document 1 Filed 12/31/14 Page 17 of 20

89.

The Defendants, McKenzie, Powers, Shattuck and Yee, as instructors of the academy
were the student officers program supervisors.

90.

The Defendants Zivkovich and McKenzie WMRPA, and MPTC were necessarily made
aware of the above referenced opposition to harassing behavior.

91.

Mr. Turley was immediately subjected to adverse educational action and retaliation as
well as being subjected to continuous and ongoing harassment, which created a
continued, prolonged, sustained, and unusually aggravated retaliatory and hostile
educational environment.

92.

Defendant Shattuck, who was responsible for scoring the qualifying targets during Mr.
Turleys firearms exam immediately and in retaliation of his protected opposition failed
Mr. Turley.

93.

Mr. Turley experienced continued harassment and retaliation, which created a hostile
educational environment for Mr. Turley until he was ultimately expelled from the
academy under the pretext of performance reasons.

94.

Such retaliation has caused Mr. Turley economic loss, loss of enjoyment of life,
emotional distress, and was otherwise damaged.
COUNT V
AGE DISCRIMINATION
(G.L. c. 151C)
(Against All Defendants)

95.

The Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth paragraphs 10 through 94,
above as set forth herein.

96.

At all times relevant to this Complaint, Mr. Turley was forty -five or forty-six years old,
granting him protected class status on the basis of his age under to M.G.L c. 151C.

17

Case 1:14-cv-14755-LTS Document 1 Filed 12/31/14 Page 18 of 20

97.

The WMRPA, as a certified police academy, is an educational institution under the

statute.

98.

Defendants discriminated against Mr. Turley on account of his age when Sgt. Powers,
Instructor Yee and others made discriminatory comments disparaging Mr. Turleys age
and deprived him of benefits, privileges, and placement services because of his age as
compared to younger students similarly situated.

99.

As a direct result of the defendants conduct, Mr. Turley was ultimately denied police
certification and suffered economic loss, loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress, and
was otherwise damaged.
COUNT VI
BREACH OF CONTRACT
(Against WMRPA, MPTC)

100.

The Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth paragraphs 10 through 101,
above as set forth herein.

101.

The Plaintiff and defendants, WMRPA and MPTC, are parties to a valid and binding
contract.

102.

The Plaintiff paid tuition for the full term of the academy.

103.

The defendants breached the contract without right by expelling Mr. Turley from the
WMRPA academy in bad faith.

104.

Such breach caused the defendant great damage.

18

Case 1:14-cv-14755-LTS Document 1 Filed 12/31/14 Page 19 of 20

COUNT VII
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH AN ADVANTAGEOUS
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP
(Against Zimmerman, McKenzie, Shattuck, Powers, Yee)
105.

The Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth paragraphs 10 through 104,
above as set forth herein.

106.

The Plaintiff had an advantageous contractual relationship with WMRPA and MPTC,
whereby Mr. Turley paid tuition for the full term of the academy.

107.

Defendants, Zivkovich,, McKenzie, Shattuck, Powers, and Yee were aware of Mr.
Turleys advantageous contractual relationship with WMRPAand MPTC.

108.

Zivkovich,, McKenzie, Shattuck, Powers, and Yee with malice and improper motive
and/or through the use of improper means, intentionally interfered with Mr. Turleys
advantageous contractual relationship with WMRPA and MPTC.

109.

As a direct and proximate result of their conduct, Turley has suffered and continues to
suffer great damage, including, without limitation, loss of professional opportunities and
emotional distress.

WHEREFORE:
Plaintiff, Timothy Turley respectfully requests that this Honorable Court;
1.

Order that the matter be tried to a jury;

2.

Order that WMRPA reinstate the Plaintiff, Timothy Turley, as a student officer to
allow him to complete the final weeks of his training and/or issue the Plaintiff
certification that is a prerequisite before serving as a police officer in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts;

3.

Permanently Enjoin the defendants from future acts of age discrimination,

harassment, retaliation, and other forms of harassment and abuse as set forth above;
19

Case 1:14-cv-14755-LTS Document 1 Filed 12/31/14 Page 20 of 20

4.

Order defendants Shattuck, Powers, McKenzie and Yee receive training to address
harassing behavior as well as racial, sex, and age discrimination.

5.

Enter judgment against Defendants in an amount that will fairly and adequately
compensate Plaintiff to the maximum amount authorized by the law and evidence
adduced;

6.

Enter an award for special, exemplary, or punitive damages to the maximum amount
authorized by the law and evidence adduced;

7.

Order an assessment of interest and costs

8.

Enter an award of attorneys fees in accord with 42 U.S.C. 1983 and/or M.G.L. c.
151B;

9.

Order that Mr. Turley receive such further relief as is fair and just.

JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on each claim asserted or hereafter asserted in the
Complaint, and on each defense asserted or hereafter asserted by any Defendant.
Respectfully Submitted,
December 31, 14
/s/
Robert S. Sinsheimer
Robert S. Sinsheimer BBO # 464940
Wesley B. Stoker BBO # 692159
Sinsheimer and Thomas
92 State Street
Boston, MA. 02109
rsinsheimer@sinsheimerlaw.com
wstoker@sinsheimerlaw.com
(617)-722-9954

20