Boyd Complaint

Case 4:16-cv-00361 Document 1 Filed 05/31/16 Page 1 of 25 PageID #: 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
DEREK BOYD,
Plaintiff,
V.
COLLIN COUNTY,
COLLIN COUNTY SHERIFFS
OFFICE,
TERRY G. BOX,
& CHRISTOPHER PEREPICZKA,
Defendants.
CASE NO. 4:16-cv-361
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Derek Boyd respectfully files this Complaint against Defendants Collin
County, Collin County Sheriffs Department, Collin County Sheriff Terry G. Box, and
Lieutenant Christopher Perepiczka, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, 42 U.S.C. 2000, the
Texas Whistleblower Act, and the common law of the State of Texas.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. which provides relief against discrimination
in employment on the basis of sex, (Count 1) and that defendants retaliated against
plaintiffs in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a) and other laws,
(Count 2).
Under 42 U.S.C. 1983, Plaintiff contends that defendants violated plaintiffs
Due Process rights, (Count 3) First Amendment rights of free speech, (Count 4), right to
petition the government, (Count 5), right to associate freely, (Count 6), Right to Privacy
(Count 7), and Liberty Interests by way of Defamation (Count 8).
COMPLAINT
Finally, under state law, Plaintiff alleges Violation of the Texas Whistleblower
Act (Count 9) and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Count 10) as follows:
JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Derek Boyd (Officer Boyd) is an individual and citizen of the State of
Texas who resides in the city of Denton, Denton County, Texas.
2. Defendant Collin County ( the County ) is a political subdivision. Collin County
may be served with process by serving The Honorable Keith Self at 2300 Bloomdale Rd.,
Suite 4192 McKinney, TX 75071.
3. Defendant Collin County Sheriffs Office (the Sheriffs Office) is a law enforcement
agency of a political subdivision. The Sheriffs Office may be served with process by
serving Sheriff Terry G. Box at Collin County Sheriffs Office, 4300 Community
Avenue, McKinney, Texas 75071.
4. Defendant Terry G. Box is the elected official responsible for Collin County Sheriffs
Office. Defendant Box may be served with process at his usual place of business: Collin
County Sheriffs Office, 4300 Community Avenue, McKinney, Texas 75071.
5. Defendant Christopher Perepiczka is Officer Boyds immediate supervisor at the
Sheriffs Office. Defendant Perepiczka may be served with process at his usual place of
business: Collin County Sheriffs Office, 4300 Community Avenue, McKinney, Texas
75071.
6. Officer Boyd brings his claims against Defendants under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and to redress the deprivation, under
color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of rights, privileges and
COMPLAINT
immunities secured to the plaintiff under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the
United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983.
7. This Court has jurisdiction of this case according to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343 and
42 U.S.C. 2000e. Supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims is conferred by 28
U.S.C. 1067. Venue is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 and 42 U.S.C. 2000.
INTRODUCTION AND FACTS
8. Officer Boyd is a heteronormative male who privately identifies as homosexual.
9. Officer Boyd has, since youth, dedicated himself to a clean lifestyle in pursuit of a
career in the criminal justice system.
10. Boyd serves as a Collin County detention officer while studying Criminal Justice at
Collin County Community College.
11. Officer Boyd has been employed by the Sheriffs Office from January, 2016 until and
as of the date of the filing of this suit continues to be so employed.
12. Plaintiff performed his duties successfully as employee of the Sheriff and has been
productive and competent. He is fully qualified for the position he occupied as well as
those of higher ranks to which he was not promoted.
13. Through his employment with Collin County Sheriffs Office, Officer Boyd became
aware of the following discriminatory practices:
1. Detaining those who are perceived to be homosexual in a specific facility/pod
on the basis of their sexual orientation
2. Detaining those who are transgendered or transitioning in a separate
facility/pod on the basis of their gender identity or expression.
3. Sending transgendered persons or persons in the process of transitioning to the
SHU or Special Housing Unit designated for particularly offensive inmates
who have committed heinous crimes such as child sex abuse or serial rape.
Transitioning persons are regularly sent here as standard custom or practice
COMPLAINT
when the Sheriffs Office or its employees dont know what to do with
them.
4. Deliberately refusing to hire otherwise qualified homosexual or transgendered
applicants as detention officer on the basis of those qualities or characteristics.
14. On information and belief, Collin County Sheriffs Office engages in
application/hiring practices that discriminate and refuse to employ persons on the basis of
their sexual orientation, gender expression, and/or gender identity.
15. On or about March 19, 2016, Nurse Sondra and Nurse D made hateful and
discriminatory remarks regarding a male inmate with purple/pink hair, stating that
particular inmate should be with the other faggots in pod D1.
16. Nurse Sondra and Nurse D further discussed their dislike for faggots in front of
Officer Boyd.
17. Officer Boyd told the nurses, in private, that their statements were offensive and
inappropriate. Nurse Sondra ceased further discriminatory comments towards Officer
Boyd, while Nurse D proceeded to call Officer Boyd, himself, a faggot.
18. On March 20, 2016, Officer Boyd called and spoke to Millie, a head nurse for Collin
County Sherriffs Office, who stated that she would advise the nurses to be mindful of
their statements while working.
19. Nurse D proceeded to harass and intimidate Officer Boyd on the basis of his sexual
orientation and in response to his complaint to her supervisor.
20. On or about the week of April 5, 2016, Officer Boyd again called the Sheriffs Office
head nurse line and spoke with a different nurse who stated there are no replacements for
Nurse D.
COMPLAINT
21. Nurse D responded by escalating the situation. Nurse D routinely and intentionally
created a hostile and unsafe environment in Officer Boyds pod by deliberately
disobeying safety orders, telling Officer Boyd she does not have to listen to him, laughing
at him, calling him derogatory names, and entirely undermining his authority in the
presence of potentially violent or sexually aggressive inmates. These are just a few
examples of the inappropriate behavior she engaged in while she should have been
focusing on her job duties and associated safety precautions.
22. Boyd suffered Nurse Ds behavior for almost a month because he feared that things
might get even worse if Boyd reported to anybody beyond Nurse supervisors, and
believed reports to the head nurse would and should be sufficient to address the problem.
Finally, Officer Boyd reached the end of his rope and went to human resources with his
complaint.
23. Human Resources instructed Officer Boyd that they do not handle these complaints
and refused to make a report.
24. On April 16, 2016 at 0922 AM, Officer Boyd signed and filed a formal written
incident report with the Lieutenant on duty, Defendant Christopher Perepiczka, which
described Nurse Ds behavior, including her frequent, intentionally discriminatory, and
highly offensive use of the word faggot with respect to inmates and Officer Boyd. This
report also detailed Officer Boyds reports to Nurse Ds supervisors, and Nurse Ds
worsening retaliatory behavior which created a threat to Officer Boyds safety within his
unit.
25. Instead of taking action to immediately remedy the situation by separating Officer
Boyd and Nurse Ds assignments and/or duties, Perepiczka and Collin County Sheriffs
COMPLAINT
office took a diametrically different course and started to egregiously harass Officer Boyd
for filing the complaint.
26. On April 17, 2016, Officer Boyd again filed an incident report with Perepiczka
detailing the worsening retaliation and safety concerns with respect to Nurse D.
27. Specifically, Boyd complained that Nurse D deliberately and maliciously undermine
the authority of Officer Boyd in front of his inmates, by refusing to administer
medication to a particular inmate.
28. Collin County Sheriffs Office would not listen to Officer Boyds repeated requests
that a different nurse was assigned to his unit during his shift, and employees began to
avoid Officer Boyd whenever they could.
29. On or about April 19th, 2016, Officer Boyd telephoned Human Resources
Department, the central Sheriffs Office line, the head nurses, the Professional Standards
Section, and his Union representative, all of which confirmed that Boyds complaints
regarding discrimination and harassment was not sent up or otherwise distributed or
addressed, and that nothing could be done.
30. On April 25, 2016, Officer Boyd filed a third written incident report with Perepiczka,
which read as follows:
On March 19, 2016, I, Detention Officer Derek Boyd, witnessed Nurse Sondra
and Nurse D making derogatory comments about LGBT people. Specifically,
they referred to inmates as faggots and continued their derogatory remarks in
regard to all LGBT people and commented that they could not work with
faggots. I am a member of the LGBT community and these comments were
offensive and I believe that the statements that they couldnt work with faggots
was obviously directed at me. I reported this illegal and discriminatory behavior
to supervising nurses. I believed I had extenuating circumstances to contact the
supervisory nurse since the nurses are not employees of the Sheriffs Department
and, therefore, the nurses supervisor needed to be apprised of their illegal and
discriminatory behavior. I also reported the illegal and discriminatory behavior to
Lieutenant Perepiczka. I completed Jail Incident Reports concerning this illegal
COMPLAINT
and discriminatory behavior on April 16, 2016 and April 17, 2016 when Nurse
D continued to harass and disrespect me while on duty and in front of other
inmates. This is not only illegal, discriminatory behavior; it also undermines the
inmates respect for me and, therefore, causes a safety issue and security risk.
Nurse D continues to harass me, is making my status as a member of the LGBT
community an issue with other employees and is in general, creating a hostile
work environment for me. I further believe that the complaint initiated against me
is in retaliation for my engaging in a protected activity. Specifically, I am being
retaliated against for reporting the illegal and discriminatory behavior of the
nurses.
31. Perepiczka told Officer Boyd thank you for his reports, but that nurses are not
employees of the Sheriffs department, so Boyds complaints could not be addressed or
resolved.
32. The retaliation has become so severe that Officer Boyd is prohibited from effectively
performing his assigned duties. When Officer Boyd makes a standard radio call,
employees agents and supervisors of Collin County Sheriffs Office intentionally
disregard and ignore Officer Boyds call, but will respond immediately and without
apology to any and all other calls on the radio.
33. In order to intimidate him from taking further action, Perepiczka constantly brought
up the civil and criminal penalties and liabilities associated with making false reports.
34. On or about April 22, 2016, Nurse D prepared a complaint of accusations against
Officer Boyd that was prepared to try to get him to drop his complaint.
35. Perepiczka reported the nurses complaints and allegations to Officer Boyd, but upon
request, Boyd was refused a copy of the allegations.
36. In the same meeting, Boyd was also informed of a complaint filed against Boyd by
Perepizka himself.
37. On April 22, 2016, Lieutenant Perepiczka issued a Personnel Complaint for a Policy
Violation written against officer Boyd for
COMPLAINT
Violation of Collin County Sheriffs Office Detention Bureau Policy 110.020

ACCOUNTABILITY & CHAIN OF AUTHORITY:
4. The administration exercises the management principle which provides a chain
of authority to ensure that each employee is accountable to one immediate
supervisor, and that all issues of operational relevance are communicated to that
supervisor.
38. The complaint further specifies that on April 16, Boyd failed to communicate with
his immediate supervisor and contacted a supervisor of an independent company without
approval and/or in an extenuating circumstance.
39. Perepiczkas decision to file a complaint against Officer Boyd for his report tramples
numerous distinct constitutional rights. This is a blatantly retaliatory sexual harassment
and discrimination policy, and is clearly a violation of Title VII, as well as due process
and free speech pursuant to 42 U.SC. 1983.
40. A formal investigation into Officer Boyds complaint was commenced with internal
affairs regarding violations of Sheriffs office policy on chain of command and the
truthfulness of events reported by Officer Boyd.
41. On April 29, 2016, Officer Boyd was subjected to an interrogation by the
Professional Standards Section of the Sheriffs Office regarding his complaints of
discrimination and retaliation, and was then required to hand-write and sign an affidavit
as to the facts alleged herein.
42. Boyd was called into an interrogation room with a visible microphone extending from
the ceiling. This room exists inside the classification office where inmates are taken to
speak with law enforcement officials about their case, and questioned by detectives on
any cases against them.
COMPLAINT
43. Following his interrogation, Boyd felt threatened and intimidated, and made several
written requests to meet with the Sheriff, but the Sheriffs Administrative staff stated that
Boyd was not entitled to any such meeting, and that Sheriff Terry Box personally denied
Boyds requests.
44. The Sheriffs Office studiously avoided taking any action to correct the
discriminatory imprisonment practice of putting all homosexuals or transgender people in
Pod D1, or sending transgendered persons to the shoe (the mental institution) if they
dont know what to do with them.
45. Supervisors also refused to move Officer Boyd or replace the nurses, even as they
conceded that the same discrimination on the basis of race would have different results.
46. They claimed there was nowhere else to put Boyd or no nurses available, which was
absolutely untrue.
47. Employees and supervisors continue to publicly disclose private information in
particular, that Officer Boyd identifies as a homosexual.
48. As a result of Defendants egregious unconstitutional actions, Officer Boyd suffered
such severe mental anguish and emotional distress that for the first time in his life he
sought treatment from a mental health professional. Officer Boyd continues to attend
treatment for the severe mental anguish caused by Defendants.
49. As of the filing of this complaint, Officer Boyd is commanded to undergo a
Polygraph Interrogation on May 31, 2016, and is the only party affiliated with any
complaint or allegation discussed herein who is commanded to submit to a polygraph.
Officer Boyd is the only gay detention officer.
COMPLAINT
50. When Officer Boyd asked supervisors to refer him to the policy requiring a polygraph
examination as part of the investigation, they stated that its office policy. Boyd was
required to sign an agreement for the polygraph titled Administrative Warning where
Boyd was aggressively urged to read and understand the criminal consequences of false
allegations.
51. Officer Boyd maintained that he would take and pass the exam if mandated because
his allegations are unequivocally true.
52. The Administrative Warning included a gag order as to Boyds allegations of
Discrimination and Retaliation on the basis of his sexual orientation and the policies
discriminating against inmates on the same grounds.
53. Boyd was instructed to attend the polygraph in plain clothes, but Officers appearing
in plain clothes usually indicates they are pending termination. Boyd requested the
location of the polygraph examination, and the Sheriffs Office failed to provide it,
requiring that Boyd ride with the Sheriffs Office to and from the location.
54. Officer Boyd filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission by and through the Texas Workforce Comission on May 30,
2016, requesting a right to sue letter from the United States Department of Justice, and
timely files this complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and accompanying application for
temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo.
CAUSE OF ACTION
Count One
42 U.S.C.A. 2000 - Sex Discrimination
COMPLAINT
10
55. The allegations of each of the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein as if
realleged.
56, Sheriff Box and Collin County are employers subject to Title VII under 42 U.S.C.A.
2000e(b), having 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more
calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and/or the agent of that person.
57. Defendants intended to discriminate based on sex and sexual orientation.
58. Officer Boyd was and is treated less favorably than his peers because of his sexual
orientation and attempt to report policy violations.
59. Officer Boyd was subjected to an abusive and hostile work environment because of
his sex and sexual orientation.
60. The defendants conduct motivated by sex and sexual orientation had the purpose or
effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment and had the
purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with plaintiffs work performance and/or
otherwise adversely affected plaintiffs employment opportunities in violation of Title
VII and 29 C.F.R. 1606.8(b).
61. The hostile working environment was sufficiently severe and/or pervasive to alter the
conditions of employment for plaintiffs and to create an abusive working environment.
62. The acts of the defendants and the employees or agents of defendants were not
isolated or trivial.
COMPLAINT
11
63. The defendants knew or should have known of the conduct creating a hostile work
environment and failed to take prompt and effective remedial action.1
64. Plaintiff is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable harm and injury as a
result of Defendants' policies, practices, customs and usages as set forth herein.
65. The defendants conduct constitutes discrimination against an individual on the basis
of sex and retaliation against Officer Boyd for reporting such discrimination.
Count Two
Violation of 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3
Retaliation
realleged.
67. Officer Boyd engaged in protected activities under Title VII in opposing the unlawful
employment practices and detention policies of Collin County Sheriffs Office.
68. Officer Boyd suffered adverse employment actions which were causally connected
between the plaintiffs actions and the harm suffered.
69. Aforementioned acts and utterances by Defendants were made because of Plaintiffs
expressed opposition to earlier discriminatory acts and utterances, and because of their
complaints to their superiors and others about such acts.
In Baldwin v. Dep't of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 0120133080 (July 15, 2015), the Commission held that a claim of
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily states a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex under Title VII.
COMPLAINT
12
70. Plaintiff was made to feel shunned and isolated by the retaliatory actions of
Defendants.
71. Plaintiffs are now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable harm and injury as
a result of Defendants' retaliatory acts and utterances as set forth herein.
72. As a direct result of Defendants' retaliatory and wrongful acts as set forth herein,
Plaintiffs have suffered lost wages by means of benefits and privileges of employment,
medical expenses, emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish,
and lost income.
Count Three
42 U.S.C. 1983 Action for Violations of United States Constitution Due Process
realleged.
74. The defendant's conduct also violates 42 U.S.C. 1983, which prohibits deprivation
of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and law by those acting
under color of law. The defendants conduct violates both the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the First Amendment of
the United States Constitution.
75. The actions of Defendants refusing to remedy, report, or investigate Officer Boyds
complaints of sex discrimination and filing an actual violation for such attempt to
exercise due process rights, and demanding Officer Boyd to sign a gag order regarding
was and is demeaning and humiliating to the plaintiffs and is an unconstitutional
infringement upon Boyds right to due process.
COMPLAINT
13
76. Because Plaintiff protested The Sheriffs Offices discriminatory detention and
employment practices, and was interrogated by the Professional Standards Section
regarding that protest; Collin County Sheriffs Office is attempting to force Boyd to
resign his employment is searching for and/or fabricating a reason for his separation. The
aggressive and intrusive investigation of Boyd is inherently discriminatory since it is not
being conducted against those who were the subject of his original complaint.
77. Allegations of any misconduct are clearly not grounded on Plaintiffs work
performance or inadequacy thereof, but were in fact because of Plaintiffs exercise of
protected speech.
78. The actions of Defendants set forth above violated Plaintiffs right of free speech as
guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,
and would chill a reasonable person in the exercise of protected rights.
79. Defendants are liable for the violations of Plaintiffs rights as set forth above because
they are given the final authority to make and execute disciplinary employment policy on
behalf of Collin County. But for Boyds exercise of Free Speech, Plaintiff would not have
been subjected to the adverse actions inflicted upon him by the Sheriffs Office, Box, and
Perepiczka.
80. As a result of the actions of the defendants set forth above, Plaintiff has been
damaged by loss of benefits, loss of professional stature, and public humiliation.
Count Four
42 U.S.C. 1983 Action for Violations of United States Constitution
Free Speech Retaliation Against Public Employee
realleged.
COMPLAINT
14
82. Officer Boyds speech reporting discriminatory detention and employment policies
address a matter of public concern.
83. The agreement incident to polygraph examination titled Administrative Warning
again expressly prohibits Officer Boyds speech with regard to these complaints.
84. The actions of Defendants were committed by Defendants under color of the policy
and procedures of the Sheriffs Office.
85. Any alleged interests of the Sheriff, as employer, in promoting the efficiency of the
public services it performs through its employees must be weighed against the actions it
has taken against other employees who have spoken or acted in such a way as to be
grossly offensive and highly inflammatory and to exemplify a behavior that is malicious,
manipulative, inciting fellow employees, embarrassing the agency and the community,
adversely impacting the efficient operation of the Sheriffs Department, diminishing the
close working relationship, trust and teamwork necessary in an environment which could
place staff in a dangerous position, undermining the expectations and diminishing the
confidence of the public in the Sheriffs department.
86. Officer Boyds speech in making those reports played, at the very least, a substantial
part in Collin Countys subsequent investigation, interrogation, and demands for
polygraph.
87. Because the Sheriff, Lieutenant, and Sheriffs Office failed to act to discipline
employees who spoke or acted often with regards to matters not protected by the First
Amendment, because the speech or actions were not regarding matters of public concern
where such speech or actions were grossly offensive and highly inflammatory and to
exemplify a behavior that is malicious, manipulative, inciting fellow employees,
COMPLAINT
15
embarrassing the agency and the community, adversely impacting the efficient operation
of the Sheriffs Department, diminishing the close working relationship, trust and
teamwork necessary in an environment which could place staff in a dangerous position,
undermining the expectations and diminishing the confidence of the public in the
Sheriffs department, the interest of the Sheriff is of negligible weight in any balancing
test.
88. No compelling governmental interest will be or was served by Defendants restriction
of plaintiff.
89. Defendants restriction of Boyds speech is not content-neutral or narrowly tailored to
serve any significant government interest.
90. Defendants restriction of plaintiffs speech does not leave open ample alternative
channels of communication.
91. The restriction imposed by Defendants is imposed because of disagreement with the
message and was viewpoint discrimination.
92. Defendants acted in contravention of clearly established principles that speech like
that of Plaintiffs is constitutionally and otherwise protected by the laws of the United
States and does not lose its protection simply because Defendants believe that the speech
is critical, bluntly worded or directed at governmental officials.
93. Defendants actions towards plaintiffs constituted selective enforcement of asserted
rules by Defendants, and were based upon content and discriminated against plaintiffs
viewpoint.
94. The restrictions imposed upon plaintiffs were not reasonable time, place and manner
restrictions.
COMPLAINT
16
Policy and/or Custom

95. The Collin County Sheriffs Office has an official policy and/or custom of content
discrimination, reflected in the Countys Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual.
96. The Collin County Sheriffs office also has an informal policy that is so permanent
and well settled as to constitute a custom or usage with the force of law in Collin County,
of discriminating against transgendered and homosexual applicants, employees, inmates,
and persons in general, and retaliating against persons who complain against such
discrimination by issuing gag orders, described below.
97. Some of the many policies and/or custom which infringes, chills or otherwise
restrains constitutionally protected speech is reflected, inter alia, in Collin County
Sheriffs Office Detention Bureau Policy 110.020, Paragraph Three of Administrative
Warning Defendants required Plaintiff to endorse, and informal policies as to the
detention placement of inmates.
98. The actions of the named officials herein are those having final authority to establish
the policy of the Collin County due to their high rank, authority and practice within the
County.
99. The named officials herein are of such high rank as to be free from close review by
higher authorities.
100. The constitutional injuries of Plaintiffs resulted from the official policy and/or
custom of Collin County Sheriffs Office.
101. The Sheriffs Office had actual knowledge that the named officials were engaged in
conduct that posed a "pervasive and unreasonable risk" of constitutional injury to citizens
like the plaintiffs, that the Sheriffs Offices response to that knowledge was so
COMPLAINT
17
inadequate as to show deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of the alleged

offensive practices, and there is an affirmative causal link between the Sheriffs Office
and the particular constitutional injuries suffered by Officer Boyd.
102. Defendants continue to take actions against Plaintiffs in retaliation for his exercise
of free speech during the course and scope of his employment, and other obvious
requirements that he not disclose his sexual orientation, even while not acting in the
course and scope of his employment.
103. As a result of Defendants extreme and outrageous actions, Officer Boyd has
suffered lost income in the form of benefits and privileges of employment and has
suffered emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish.
104. The acts of Defendants complained of herein violated the rights of Boyd to freedom
of speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, by without
limitation, chilling plaintiffs speech, engaging in viewpoint discrimination, and
restricting his speech based upon content.
Count Five
42 U.S.C. 1983 Action for Violations of First Amendment to the United States
Constitution-Petition Government
105. The preceding averments and allegations of this Complaint are incorporated herein
by this reference.
106. Boyds First Amendment rights were violated when Officer Boyds written incident
reports regarding discrimination, harassment, and retaliation were deliberately ignored by
Perepiczka, and not passed on or investigated further.
COMPLAINT
18
107. These rights were further violated when Perepiczka opened an internal affairs report
based on allegations that Boyd pursued his legal rights with a person outside of the chain
of command.
108. Officer Boyd made numerous written requests to meet with Sheriff Terry Box.
109. On one attempt, Sheriff Box agreed to meet with Boyd, but cancelled before the
appointment. All further requests were denied or ignored.
110. An Internal Affairs investigator agreed when Officer Boyd pointed out that racial
discrimination claims are taken seriously and would be handled differently.
111. The acts of Defendants complained of herein violated Officer Boyds right to
petition the government for a redress of grievances under the First Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States, by without limitation, chilling plaintiffs petitioning,
engaging in viewpoint discrimination, and restricting his petition based specifically upon
content.
Count Six
Constitution-Association
by this reference.
113. Plaintiff was restricted in association and communication with his peer group by
defendants.
114. As a result of the explicit requirements of his employment policy, the enforcement
of such policy, and the addition requirement for Boyd to sign the Administrative
Warning, Officer Boyd was so restricted is his association outside of work that he
COMPLAINT
19
deleted social media and dating sites and became reclusive with respect to his personal
affairs and mental health.
115. The acts of Defendants complained of herein violated the rights of the plaintiffs to
assemble under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, by without
limitation, restricting Officer Boyds freedom to associate himself in a romantic
relationship with members of the same sex.
Count Seven
Invasion of Privacy
by this reference.
117. Defendants publicly disclosed facts regarding the most intimate details of Boyds
private including details relating to his romantic partners, sexual orientation, sexual
preferences, and/or sexuality.
118. These statements created a direct threat to Boyds safety with regard to the alreadyaggressive environment of a detention center, and especially with regard to the frequency
of sexual harassment and assault stemming from long-term celibacy mandated by the
detention environment.
119. Defendants statements clearly identified by Plaintiff by name when published to
third parties, and they deprived Plaintiff of a protected liberty interest without due
process of law.
COMPLAINT
20
120. Defendants statements constitute invasion of privacy and violation of Officer

Boyds 14th Amendment Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process rights under the
United States Constitution.2
Count Eight
Defamation
by this reference.
122. Defendants Perepiczka, Nurse D, and Nurse Shondra maliciously published false
statements by oral communication, written communication, and/or conduct asserting as
fact that Plaintiff was not forthcoming in his investigation, that Plaintiff abandoned his
position, that Plaintiff was untruthful, insubordinate, and other statements not yet known
to Plaintiff.
123. Defendants statements were not only false but calculated to damage Boyds career
while constructively and/or actively terminating his employment.
124. Defendants statements clearly identified by Plaintiff by name when published to
third parties, and they deprived Plaintiff of a protected liberty interest without due
process of law.
125. Defendants statements injured Plaintiff in Plaintiffs profession.
126. Defendants are therefore liable for defamation as a deprivation of Officer Boyds
liberty interests.
Count Nine
Violation of the Texas Whistleblower Act
Constitutional privacy rights include the individuals right to make personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation,
contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education and an individuals interest in avoiding disclosure of personal
matters. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003)
COMPLAINT
21
by this reference.
128. Officer Boyd made a complaint in good faith to Head Nurses and Lt. Perepiczkaon
April 16, 2016 and April 17, 2017 alleging violations of the law.
129. Collin County Sheriffs Office took adverse actions against Officer Boyd as a result
of these complaints, including but not limiting to filing violations and complaints against
Officer Boyd, subjecting him to a hostile work environment and humiliation, publicly
disclosing facts regarding details of his intimate affairs, and requiring him to take a
polygraph examination.
130. The acts of Defendants therefore violated the Texas Whistleblower Act.
Count Ten
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
by this reference.
132. Defendants acted and continues to act intentionally or recklessly in all actions
towards officer Boyd.
133. The conduct of defendants was and continues to be extreme and outrageous, causing
Officer Boyd to suffer severe emotional distress.
DAMAGES
The actions of Defendants set forth above have in addition to causing his adverse
treatment, stigmatized the career of Plaintiff, causing him to be the object of scorn and
ridicule, and thereby violating Plaintiffs liberty interest in his good name in violation of
the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
COMPLAINT
22
Defendants actions were taken with malice and in bad faith, entitling plaintiff to an
award of exemplary damages. Officer Boyd suffered and continues to suffer emotional
distress, humiliation, embarrassment, humiliation, intimidation, and mental anguish.
As a consequence of the foregoing facts and the willful and malicious nature of the
wrongs committed against the Plaintiff, which damaged his reputation, Officer Boyd is
entitled to exemplary damages against each individual defendant, as permitted by law to
punish them for their respective violations of the United States Constitution and to deter
others public officials from similar, unlawful activity.
Officer Boyd seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, exemplary
damages, costs of this action, attorneys fees, declaratory relief, and any other relief as
the Court deems fair and appropriate under the circumstances.
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
Plaintiff specifically reserves the right to bring additional causes of action against
all Defendants and to amend this Petition as necessary.
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff, Officer Derek Boyd, respectfully
requests that this Court:
a. Issue a declaratory judgment that the Defendants acts, policies, practices and
procedures complained of herein violated the plaintiffs civil rights as secured by
42 U.S.C. 1983, and 2000e et. seq; and the First and Fourteenth Amendments
of the United States Constitution;
b. Issue a declaratory judgment that Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender persons
constitute a protected class entitled to constitutional protections on the basis of
sex/sexual orientation and gender/gender expression and identity;
c. Order defendants to assign Officer Boyd to a new position of DEPUTY LGBT
LIASON with full benefits customarily associated with this position;
COMPLAINT
23
d. Enjoin and permanently restrain further discrimination and retaliation by the

defendants and restrictions and violations of plaintiffs First Amendment rights;
e. Grant attorney's fees, costs and other disbursements; and
f. Direct defendants to pay plaintiff actual economic and compensatory, punitive,
and exemplary damages, awarding plaintiff pre-judgment interest on the amounts
owed at the maximum rate allowed by law;
g. Order statutory penalties in an amount to be determined at trial; and
h. Grant Plaintiff all other relief the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
KRUMMEL LAW
By: /s/ Kasey Krummel
Kasey Krummel
State Bar No. 24097957
kkrummel@lawdallastexas.com
306 E. Randol Mill Rd.
Suite 160
Arlington, TX 76022
Phone No.
214.564.9387
Fax No.
469.533.5864
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
COMPLAINT
24
VERIFICATION
I, Derek Michael Boyd, declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the foregoing
Complaint in this ation and that the allegations it contains are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge, information, and belief.
Executed May 31, 2016
_____________________________
Derek Michael Boyd
Detention Officer
Collin County Sheriffs Office
COMPLAINT
25

Boyd Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Boyd Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 4:16-cv-00361 Document 1 Filed 05/31/16 Page 1 of 25 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CASE NO. 4:16-cv-361

Case 4:16-cv-00361 Document 1 Filed 05/31/16 Page 2 of 25 PageID #: 2

Case 4:16-cv-00361 Document 1 Filed 05/31/16 Page 3 of 25 PageID #: 3

Case 4:16-cv-00361 Document 1 Filed 05/31/16 Page 4 of 25 PageID #: 4

Case 4:16-cv-00361 Document 1 Filed 05/31/16 Page 5 of 25 PageID #: 5

Case 4:16-cv-00361 Document 1 Filed 05/31/16 Page 6 of 25 PageID #: 6

Case 4:16-cv-00361 Document 1 Filed 05/31/16 Page 7 of 25 PageID #: 7

Case 4:16-cv-00361 Document 1 Filed 05/31/16 Page 8 of 25 PageID #: 8

Violation of Collin County Sheriffs Office Detention Bureau Policy 110.020

Case 4:16-cv-00361 Document 1 Filed 05/31/16 Page 9 of 25 PageID #: 9

Case 4:16-cv-00361 Document 1 Filed 05/31/16 Page 10 of 25 PageID #: 10

Case 4:16-cv-00361 Document 1 Filed 05/31/16 Page 11 of 25 PageID #: 11

Case 4:16-cv-00361 Document 1 Filed 05/31/16 Page 12 of 25 PageID #: 12

Case 4:16-cv-00361 Document 1 Filed 05/31/16 Page 13 of 25 PageID #: 13

Case 4:16-cv-00361 Document 1 Filed 05/31/16 Page 14 of 25 PageID #: 14

Case 4:16-cv-00361 Document 1 Filed 05/31/16 Page 15 of 25 PageID #: 15

Case 4:16-cv-00361 Document 1 Filed 05/31/16 Page 16 of 25 PageID #: 16

Case 4:16-cv-00361 Document 1 Filed 05/31/16 Page 17 of 25 PageID #: 17

Policy and/or Custom

Case 4:16-cv-00361 Document 1 Filed 05/31/16 Page 18 of 25 PageID #: 18

inadequate as to show deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of the alleged

Case 4:16-cv-00361 Document 1 Filed 05/31/16 Page 19 of 25 PageID #: 19

Case 4:16-cv-00361 Document 1 Filed 05/31/16 Page 20 of 25 PageID #: 20

Case 4:16-cv-00361 Document 1 Filed 05/31/16 Page 21 of 25 PageID #: 21

120. Defendants statements constitute invasion of privacy and violation of Officer

Case 4:16-cv-00361 Document 1 Filed 05/31/16 Page 22 of 25 PageID #: 22

Case 4:16-cv-00361 Document 1 Filed 05/31/16 Page 23 of 25 PageID #: 23

Case 4:16-cv-00361 Document 1 Filed 05/31/16 Page 24 of 25 PageID #: 24

d. Enjoin and permanently restrain further discrimination and retaliation by the

Case 4:16-cv-00361 Document 1 Filed 05/31/16 Page 25 of 25 PageID #: 25

You might also like