Former Gadsden County Administrator Files Civil Rights Lawsuit

Case 4:21-cv-00157-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 04/09/21 Page 1 of 16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
DERRICK ELIAS,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.:
GADSDEN COUNTY BOARD OF

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, and
BRENDA HOLT, in her official
capacity as CHAIRPERSON of the
GADSDEN COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff, DERRICK ELIAS, hereby sues Defendants, GADSDEN COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, and BRENDA HOLT, in her official
capacity as CHAIRPERSON of the GADSDEN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, and alleges:
JURISDICTION
1. This is an action involving the violation of Plaintiff’s federal civil rights
under the Constitution of the United States. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 (federal question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. §1343
(civil rights claim jurisdiction).
2. This is an action for damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand
Dollars ($75,000) exclusive of costs and interests.
3. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff, DERRICK ELIAS, was a citizen
of the United States and entitled to all protections and liberties provided by the
United States Constitution and the laws of the State of Florida.
4. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant, GADSDEN COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, was the governing body of Gadsden
County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida.
5. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant, BRENDA HOLT, served as a
member and/or the Chairperson of the GADSDEN COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, and acted as a policymaker for the County in her
official capacity as a member and/or the Chairperson.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
6. Plaintiff applied for the position of County Administrator with
Defendant Gadsden County Board of County Commissioners (“GCBCC”) in or
around May 2020. At the time Plaintiff applied, the position was held by an interim
County Administrator, Henry Grant.
2
7. On September 15, 2020, after advertising the position for multiple
months, Defendant Holt made a motion to hire Edward Dixon as the County
Administrator despite him not having applied for the position. That motion died for
lack of a second.
8. The following two days, Defendant GCBCC interviewed candidates for
the position at properly noticed board meetings. On September 17, 2020, Plaintiff
was interviewed by Defendant GCBCC for the position of County Administrator.
9. On September 17, 2020, after Plaintiff’s interview and a discussion on
the candidates, Defendant GCBCC voted to appoint Plaintiff as the new County
Administrator in a 4-1 vote, with Defendant Holt being the only “no” vote for his
appointment.
10. Following his appointment, the Human Resources Director for
Defendant GCBCC, Lonyell Fields, contacted Plaintiff and set up fingerprinting and
a urinalysis in connection with his appointment. During this discussion, Plaintiff
requested Ms. Fields to discuss scheduling a meeting with the County Attorney in
order to begin contract negotiations.
11. Ms. Fields emailed Plaintiff following this request and informed him
that Defendant GCBCC would present him with a contract before a board meeting
on October 16th so it could be reviewed by Plaintiff and the County Attorney prior
to this meeting.
3
12. Ms. Fields followed back up with Plaintiff and informed him that
Defendant GCBCC was refusing to authorize a meeting for Plaintiff in order to
negotiate his contract as County Administrator. Ms. Fields, however, did forward
the contracts of the two previous County Administrators and informed Plaintiff that
Defendant GCBCC had budgeted $127,500.00 for the salary of the new County
Administrator.
13. At the end of September 2020, after Defendant GCBCC failed to
contact Plaintiff about his contract as County Administrator, he submitted a proposal
that he personally drafted in order to keep the process moving forward.
14. An Agenda Request was submitted on October 6, 2020, by the interim
County Administrator and the County Attorney that falsely alleged that Defendant
GCBCC had negotiated a contract with Plaintiff for their review. The only contract
seen by any of the parties in this action was a proposed contract drafted by Plaintiff
himself, with no action on the part of Defendant GCBCC or its agents.
15. On October 13, 2020, while Defendant GCBCC continued to refrain
from contacting Plaintiff concerning his contract as County Administrator, Plaintiff
accepted an invitation to meet with Defendant Holt that evening.
16. At this meeting, Defendant Holt expressed her displeasure that Plaintiff
was appointed County Administrator and requested he hire her first choice, and
personal friend, Edward Dixon, as assistant County Administrator. Defendant Holt
4
then identified various, current department heads for the County as individuals who
needed to be terminated by Plaintiff as County Administrator.
17. Plaintiff informed Defendant Holt that he would make those decisions,
as he was the one empowered to do so, and that he would hire the best-suited
candidate as his assistant and would not make the decision at the direction of a board
member.
18. Defendant Holt became increasingly frustrated and responded that she
needed Mr. Dixon as part of the County Administrator team because “[he] has to be
up here to get things done.” She expanded on this statement by telling Plaintiff that
“we need to take this County back” and that “these crackers have to go.” Plaintiff
took this statement to mean Defendant Holt wanted to remove Caucasian employees
from the County and that Mr. Dixon would assist with this goal.
19. Plaintiff again refused Defendant Holt’s requests to hire Mr. Dixon, to
terminate the department heads she identified, and to make personnel decisions as
County Administrator in a racially motivated way. Defendant Holt responded that
Plaintiff “may not get a contract” based on these refusals.
20. Plaintiff was contacted by the County Attorney on October 15, 2020
and informed that he had not been given authority to negotiate Plaintiff’s contract,
but that he anticipated Defendant GCBCC would discuss it at the next scheduled
board meeting on October 20, 2020.
5
21. Plaintiff attended the October 20, 2020, board meeting but was not
permitted to speak when Defendant GCBCC discussed the details of the contract for
County Administrator. Rather, Defendant Holt made stigmatizing and negative
comments about Plaintiff and stated that he may not want the job after all, despite
there being no basis for this comment. These public statements were made in order
to further her agenda of removing Plaintiff from the County Administrator position
and have her friend, Mr. Dixon, appointed.
22. Despite Defendant Holt’s comments, Defendant GCBCC, for the first
time, gave authority to the County Attorney to begin contract negotiations with
Plaintiff, on a 4-1, with Defendant Holt being the only “No.” Defendant GCBCC,
however, did not authorize the County Attorney or any other agent to present
Plaintiff with a contract for him to review.
23. On October 22, 2020, Plaintiff submitted four different drafts of
proposed contracts for Defendant GCBCC to consider at their next meeting.
Defendant GCBCC did not review the proposed contracts, nor did they present
Plaintiff with a proposed contract. Rather, Defendant Holt had held closed door
meetings with various individuals involved in the process and persuaded them to go
a different direction than Mr. Elias.
24. On November 17, 2020, Defendant Holt assumed the position of
chairperson for Defendant GCBCC. At this meeting, and in her first day as
6
chairperson, Defendant Holt made a motion to offer the County Administrator
position to her close friend, Mr. Dixon. The motion died for a lack of second as
Plaintiff had already been appointed County Administrator, but Defendant GCBCC,
at the direction of Defendant Holt, refused to present him with a contract.
25. The following day, an agenda request was submitted for the next board
meeting on November 19, 2020. The agenda request concerned establishing
procedures for the hiring process of County Administrators and recommended an
annual salary of $127,500.
26. On November 19, 2020, prior to the board meeting, Plaintiff emailed
the County Attorney and all of the Commissioners requesting the status of a
proposed contract, as he had still not been presented with one. Plaintiff received no
response to this email.
27. At the board meeting later that day, Defendant GCBCC voted to
remove Plaintiff as County Administrator. There was no notice made by Defendant
GCBCC prior to this board meeting to alert Plaintiff or the general public that
Defendant GCBCC would be voting on this issue.
28. Only a few minutes after Defendant GCBCC voted to remove Plaintiff
as County Administrator, Defendant Holt made a motion to hire Mr. Dixon as
County Administrator. This vote passed.
7
29. Less than a week later, Defendant GCBCC had presented Mr. Dixon
with a contract for the County Administrator position and permitted him to discuss
those details at the November 23, 2020, board meeting with the entire board.
Although details of the contract still needed to be worked out, Defendant GCBCC
nonetheless moved forward with him as the new County Administrator.
COUNT I – DUE PROCESS VIOLATION

(PROCEDURAL - PROPERTY INTEREST)
30. Paragraphs 1-29 are hereby re-alleged and incorporated by reference
as if fully set forth herein.
31. Defendants deprived Plaintiff of a property interest when they removed
him from the position of County Administrator without providing him with notice
and hearing, as required by §125.73, Florida Statutes.
32. Defendants are persons under the laws applicable to this action.
Defendants are liable, both jointly and severally with each other for their conduct,
individually and in concert, to violate Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process
rights.
33. The laws of the state of Florida provide no adequate remedy available
to cure the procedural deprivation committed by Defendants, as the actions of
Defendants were made without a proper hearing, resulting in no record for the courts
of the State of Florida to review.
8
34. Defendant GCBCC also failed to implement adequate hiring, training,
staffing and supervisory procedures for the commissioners, and directly resulted in
violating Plaintiff’s due process rights. At all times referenced herein, Defendant
GCBCC acted under color of state law.
35. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions set forth
herein, Plaintiffs have been injured and have suffered lost wages and other tangible
damages, emotional distress, mental pain and suffering, past and future pecuniary
losses, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-
pecuniary losses, along with other intangible damages. These damages have
occurred in the past, and are permanent and continuing.
COUNT II – DUE PROCESS VIOLATION

(PROCEDURAL – LIBERTY INTEREST)
36. Paragraphs 1-29 are hereby re-alleged and incorporated by reference as
if fully set forth herein.
37. Defendants made stigmatizing statements concerning Plaintiff and his
willingness to serve as the County Administrator without providing him with notice
and hearing, as required by §125.73, Florida Statutes, prior to removing him from
the position of County Administrator.
38. Defendants stigmatizing statements were made public at a board
meeting, by Defendant Holt, and Defendant GCBCC failed to provide Plaintiff with
9
a meaningful opportunity to clear his name after the statements were made prior to
him being removed from the position of County Administrator.
39. Defendant Holt, in her official capacity, made stigmatizing statements
which prevented Plaintiff from serving as County Administrator.
individually and in concert, to violate Plaintiff’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment
due process rights.
41. Defendant GCBCC also failed to implement adequate hiring, training,
staffing and supervisory procedures for the commissioners, and directly resulted in
violating Plaintiff’s due process rights. At all times referenced herein, Defendant
GCBCC acted under color of state law.
occurred in the past and are permanent and continuing.
10
COUNT III – DUE PROCESS VIOLATION

(SUBSTANTIVE)
44. Plaintiff was removed from his position, with notice or hearing, and
following the improper actions of Defendant Holt.
45. Plaintiff was deprived of his property interest in his position and his
interest in defending himself in a noticed hearing where Plaintiff may speak to
protect his interests.
46. Defendant GCBCC’s actions were arbitrary and capricious and without
any rational basis and were the result of acting pursuant to Defendant Holt’s
improper motives. Defendant GCBCC ratified Defendant Holt’s improper motives
when removing Plaintiff from his position as County Administrator.
individually and in concert, to violate Plaintiff’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment
due process rights.
11
COUNT IV – FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION
49. Paragraphs 1-29 are hereby re-alleged and incorporated by reference as
if fully set forth herein.
50. Defendant GCBCC have deprived Plaintiff of his right to freedom of
speech and association as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of
the United States.
51. The conduct and actions of Defendant GCBCC and Defendant Holt
were willful, wanton, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
52. Defendants are a person under the laws applicable to this action.
Defendant is liable for their conduct to violate the civil rights of Plaintiff under the
First Amendments to the United States Constitution.
53. Defendant Holt, in her official capacity, misused her power, possessed
by virtue of state law and made possible only because she was clothed with the
authority of state law. The violation of Plaintiffs’ rights, as described above,
occurred under color of state law and is actionable under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
54. Defendant Holt participated in the decision to take adverse action
against Plaintiff in violation of his First Amendment rights. She is liable in his
12
supervisory capacity and/or as the decisionmaker in the actions taken against
Plaintiff that are complained of herein.
55. Defendant Holt, as chairperson of the Gadsden County Board of County
Commissioners, holds an elected county official position with policy-making
authority. She exercised that authority and power in a way that resulted in the
violation of the Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. At all times referred to herein,
the Defendants acted under color of state law.
56. Defendant GCBCC, after Holt moved to remove Plaintiff from his
appointed position, officially ratified her actions and were aware of her improper
motives based on previous conversations, or, in the alternative, failed to investigate
or determine the basis for her unconstitutional actions.
57. Removing Plaintiff as County Administrator was therefore the official
policy of the Defendant GCBCC in retaliation for the exercise of Plaintiff’s rights
under the First Amendment. Defendant GCBCC was also the final decision-maker
in the actions taken against Plaintiffs that are complained of herein.
58. Defendant GCBCC also failed to implement adequate procedures or
comply with the state’s Sunshine laws, a direct result of which Plaintiffs’ First
Amendment rights were violated.
59. Defendant GCBCC is responsible for hiring, following proper
procedures in commission meetings, and when necessary, for investigating alleged
13
wrongdoing by persons like Defendant Holt. At all times referred to herein, this
Defendants acted under color of state law.
herein, Plaintiff has been injured and have suffered lost wages and other tangible
COUNT V – CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE

CIVIL RIGHTS PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. §1985
62. This claim is made pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1985, for conspiracy to
violate civil rights.
63. Defendant Holt, in her role with Defendant GCBCC, conspired to
deprive persons from equal privileges under the law, as more fully discussed above.
64. Defendant Holt acted in furtherance of this conspiracy and deprived
Plaintiff of his constitutional rights as a citizen of the United States as a result of her
conspiracy.
herein, Plaintiff has been injured and have suffered lost wages and other tangible
14
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
(a) that process issue and this Court take jurisdiction over this case;
(b) that this Court grant equitable relief against Defendants under the
applicable counts set forth above, mandating Defendants’
obedience to the laws enumerated herein and providing other
equitable relief to Plaintiff including reinstatement;
(c) enter judgment against Defendants and for Plaintiff awarding
damages to Plaintiff from Defendants for Defendants’ violations
of law enumerated herein;
(d) enter judgment against Defendants and for Plaintiff permanently
enjoining Defendants from future violations of law enumerated herein
and placing Plaintiff into his rightful position within Defendant,
Gadsden County Board of County Commissioners;
(e) enter judgment against Defendants and for Plaintiff awarding
Plaintiffs’ attorney's fees and costs; and
15
(f) grant such other further relief as being just and proper under the
circumstances.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues set forth herein which are
so triable.
Dated this 9th day of April 2021.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Matthew D. MacNamara

Matthew D. MacNamara (#113002)
Robert M. Scott (#57149)
J. Clint Wallace (#59590)
SCOTT & WALLACE, LLP
209 E. Brevard Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Telephone: (850) 222-7777
Facsimile: (850) 222-7778
matt@scottandwallacelaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
16
Case 4:21-cv-00157-RH-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 04/09/21 Page 1 of 1
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

for the
__________ District of __________
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address)
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are:
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
Case 4:21-cv-00157-RH-MAF Document 1-2 Filed 04/09/21 Page 1 of 1
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

for the
__________ District of __________
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address)
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are:
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Former Gadsden County Administrator Files Civil Rights Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Former Gadsden County Administrator Files Civil Rights Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 4:21-cv-00157-RH-MAF Document 1 Filed 04/09/21 Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

GADSDEN COUNTY BOARD OF

COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, DERRICK ELIAS, hereby sues Defendants, GADSDEN COUNTY

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, and BRENDA HOLT, in her official

capacity as CHAIRPERSON of the GADSDEN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS, and alleges:

1. This is an action involving the violation of Plaintiff’s federal civil rights

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 (federal question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. §1343

(civil rights claim jurisdiction).

2. This is an action for damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand

Dollars ($75,000) exclusive of costs and interests.

3. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff, DERRICK ELIAS, was a citizen

United States Constitution and the laws of the State of Florida.

4. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant, GADSDEN COUNTY

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, was the governing body of Gadsden

County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida.

5. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant, BRENDA HOLT, served as a

member and/or the Chairperson of the GADSDEN COUNTY BOARD OF

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, and acted as a policymaker for the County in her

official capacity as a member and/or the Chairperson.

6. Plaintiff applied for the position of County Administrator with

Defendant Gadsden County Board of County Commissioners (“GCBCC”) in or

County Administrator, Henry Grant.

7. On September 15, 2020, after advertising the position for multiple

8. The following two days, Defendant GCBCC interviewed candidates for

was interviewed by Defendant GCBCC for the position of County Administrator.

9. On September 17, 2020, after Plaintiff’s interview and a discussion on

10. Following his appointment, the Human Resources Director for

a urinalysis in connection with his appointment. During this discussion, Plaintiff

order to begin contract negotiations.

Defendant GCBCC was refusing to authorize a meeting for Plaintiff in order to

13. At the end of September 2020, after Defendant GCBCC failed to

contact Plaintiff about his contract as County Administrator, he submitted a proposal

that he personally drafted in order to keep the process moving forward.

14. An Agenda Request was submitted on October 6, 2020, by the interim

himself, with no action on the part of Defendant GCBCC or its agents.

15. On October 13, 2020, while Defendant GCBCC continued to refrain

from contacting Plaintiff concerning his contract as County Administrator, Plaintiff

accepted an invitation to meet with Defendant Holt that evening.

personal friend, Edward Dixon, as assistant County Administrator. Defendant Holt

needed to be terminated by Plaintiff as County Administrator.

County Administrator in a racially motivated way. Defendant Holt responded that

Plaintiff “may not get a contract” based on these refusals.

board meeting on October 20, 2020.

County Administrator. Rather, Defendant Holt made stigmatizing and negative

and have her friend, Mr. Dixon, appointed.

Plaintiff with a contract for him to review.

23. On October 22, 2020, Plaintiff submitted four different drafts of

proposed contracts for Defendant GCBCC to consider at their next meeting.

a different direction than Mr. Elias.

24. On November 17, 2020, Defendant Holt assumed the position of

chairperson, Defendant Holt made a motion to offer the County Administrator

at the direction of Defendant Holt, refused to present him with a contract.

meeting on November 19, 2020. The agenda request concerned establishing

procedures for the hiring process of County Administrators and recommended an

annual salary of $127,500.

response to this email.

remove Plaintiff as County Administrator. There was no notice made by Defendant

Defendant GCBCC would be voting on this issue.

as County Administrator, Defendant Holt made a motion to hire Mr. Dixon as

County Administrator. This vote passed.