Ernest Finley Complaint Against Steven Reed, City of Montgomery

Case 2:23-cv-00146-KFP Document 1 Filed 03/16/23 Page 1 of 26
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
ERNEST N. FINLEY, JR., )

)
Plaintiff, )
) CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:
v. )
)
CITY OF MONTGOMERY and, ) PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A
MAYOR STEVEN L. REED, ) TRIAL BY STRUCK JURY
)
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Ernest N. Finley, Jr. files his Complaint for legal and equitable relief
to address unlawful employment practices and violations of Federal and State law
by Defendants, City of Montgomery and Mayor Steven L. Reed (collectively
referred to as “Defendants”).
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. All the events, transactions, or occurrences which gave rise to
Plaintiff’s claims took place in this Judicial District. Therefore, venue is proper in
this District and this Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).
2. This action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, et seq.; the Civil Rights Acts
of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights
Act of 1991; the United States Constitution, Amendment I; the United States
Constitution, Amendment XIV; and the laws of the State of Alabama.
3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
1337, and 1343(4); Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3); and Title I of the Civil
Rights Act of 1991, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, et seq.
PARTIES
4. Plaintiff Ernest N. Finley, Jr. is a Black male and at all relevant times a
resident of Montgomery County, Alabama. Finley was employed for six years with
the City of Montgomery Police Department as Chief of Police.
5. Defendant City of Montgomery is a local agency of the State of
Alabama. At all times relevant hereto, the City of Montgomery has engaged in
business in Montgomery, Alabama and has been an employer within the meaning of
42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a), Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1991 amendments
thereto. At all times relevant to this action, the City of Montgomery has maintained
and operated a business in Alabama and has fifteen (15) or more employees and is
considered an employer for Title VII purposes and the 1991 amendments thereto.
6. Defendant Mayor Steven L. Reed is the Mayor of the City of
Montgomery. Mayor Reed is an adult individual citizen of the United States and of
the State of Alabama. He is a resident of this Judicial District and Division.
7. Finley seeks all relief to which he is entitled, including reinstatement,
2
back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, and
attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the bringing of this action. Finley requests a
jury to hear this matter.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
8. On January 31, 2022, Finley filed a Charge of Discrimination with the
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), alleging
discrimination and retaliation. A copy of his Charge is attached as Exhibit A.
9. On December 16, 2022, the EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue,
which was received on December 28, 2022. (See Exhibit B.)
10. On January 28, 2022, Finley filed a Notice of Claim for Damages with
the City of Montgomery, pursuant to the provisions of §§ 11-47-23 and 11-47-192
of the Code of Alabama, 1975. (See Exhibit C).
11. There are no conditions precedent for Finley to bring this action under
42 U.S.C. § 1981.
FACTUAL AVERMENTS
12. Ernest N. Finley, Jr. (“Finley” or “Plaintiff”), a Black male over the age
of 40, was hired by the City of Montgomery in 2015 to serve as the Chief of Police
at the Montgomery Police Department.
3
13. At the time of his hiring, Finley was a 29-year veteran of the police
force, having begun his career with the Atlanta Police Department in 1986, first as a
patrol officer, then as Deputy Chief of Field Operations.
14. Finley served as Chief of Police until he was forced to resign by Mayor
Steven L. Reed (“Reed”) in June 2021.
15. Finley was responsible for supervising the entire Montgomery Police
Department, which consisted at the time of approximately 200 police officers. Finley
reported to Mayor Reed.
16. On or about April 6, 2021, the Mayor conspired with certain City agents
and police officers to file false complaints against Finley that he engaged in bullying,
retaliation, race-based decision making, and ethical violations that he used his
position as Police Chief for financial gains. These allegations and false claims were
part of a conspiracy to force Finley to terminate his position with the City for
discipline of Black police officers for violating police policies, for promotion
decisions where a White police officer was promoted, and for speaking out on
matters of public concern.
17. Beginning in October 2020, Finley and Deputy Chief of Operations
Jennifer Reaves (“Reaves”) were tasked with the investigation of approximately 12
police officers for policy violations, ethics violations, fraud and theft involving
second jobs the officers were working.
4
18. The results of Finley and Reaves’ investigation were forwarded to the
Investigator for the City.
19. All 12 officers were found guilty of violations of varying degrees.
20. Five officers reporting to Reaves were found guilty of ethics violations.
21. The remaining officers reported to Deputy Chief of Staff Zedrick Dean
(“Dean”), a Black male. The remaining officers under Dean were either not guilty
of ethics violations or the violations were considered minor.
22. The five officers reporting to Reaves should have been terminated
because of the totality of all the evidence discovered supporting the various ethical
and departmental violations. Finley reviewed the findings and recommendations but
forwarded the results to the Mayor. The Mayor’s office decided the final discipline.
23. Mayor Reed encouraged the Montgomery Police Department officers
to complain about Finley to the City Council.
24. After completing the investigation of the officers, Finley was targeted
by agents and employees of the City for regular and ongoing hostility, harassment,
discrimination, and intentional insubordination, including employees and managers
of the Montgomery Police Department with whom Finley worked on a daily basis.
25. Because Chief Finley had promoted Reaves to the position of Deputy
Chief of Operations, he was also met with opposition for promoting a White police
officer.
5
26. In the face of the false allegations, the Mayor told Finley he could not
defend himself or even speak during meetings. The Mayor told Finley he had to
remain silent even during the City Council meetings.
27. The City, its agents, employees, and the Mayor forwarded false and
fraudulent complaints against Finley and Reaves to the State of Alabama Ethics
Commission (“Ethics Commission” or “Commission”).
28. Finley and Reaves were then subjected to a full investigation, wherein
selected officers submitted anonymous complaints and statements to the ethics
investigator, Byron Butler (“Butler”), a former police officer with the City of
Montgomery that had reported to Reaves previously.
29. Butler and the City conspired to manipulate evidence to intentionally
find Finley and Reaves guilty of ethics violations.
30. Officers were being recruited to file complaints and give statements and
submit false evidence to the Ethics Commission against Finley and Reaves,
including, but not limited to, Zedrick Dean, Antavione Ferguson, Marcus Webster,
John Mackey, Earl Ware, Jr., and Jeremy Harrison.
31. Officer Tomekia Armstead told Peer Support for the City that she was
being recruited to file complaints against Finley and Reaves. Armstead gave Finley
permission to send the information to the City Investigator but the City ignored
Finley’s complaint.
6
32. Finley was subsequently told by the Ethics Commission General
Counsel Cynthia Raulston (“Raulston”) that he would be found guilty of ethic
violations and he could accept the administrative resolution or be charged as a felon.
Finley was not told of what he had violated. Finley later learned exculpatory
evidence had been withheld from him and his lawyers that cleared his name and
showed the complaints were falsified.
33. Fearing he would be charged with a felony, Finley agreed to the
administrative resolution after pressure by Raulston.
34. Once the complaints were filed against Finley and Reaves, the City and
the Mayor forced Finley to resign his employment with the City. The Mayor
presented Finley with a resignation letter to sign or he would be terminated because
of the complaints brought against him.
35. Finley opposed the forced resignation and did not want to leave his
employment as he had done nothing to be removed from his position as Chief of
Police. Mayor Reed told Finley he was being removed and it could be easy or
difficult, meaning he was either resigning or Reed was terminating him.
36. Mayor Reed prepared the resignation document for Finley to sign.
37. The City of Montgomery and the Mayor wanted Finley removed from
his position as Chief of Police because they did not approve that Finley enforced
Civil Rights laws of the United States and hired, promoted and disciplined
7
employees equitably, regardless of race or gender. Reed disfavored following anti-
discrimination laws and wanted Black officers promoted and provided better terms
and conditions because of their race.
38. On August 4, 2021, based on false and fabricated evidence created by
the City, the State found that Finley had committed an unspecified “minor violation”
of the Alabama Ethics Act.
39. The Mayor issued an immediate press release that was circulated to the
media including social media to intentionally disparage and defame Finley and his
personal and professional reputation.
40. On September 1, 2021, the City issued a press release entitled, “Interim
Montgomery police chief: Department morale is ‘coming back around.’” Finley’s
photograph and name were published, stating he had committed a “minor violation”
of the Alabama Ethics Act.
41. The City’s press release intentionally disparaged and defamed Finley
personally, professionally, and called into question his ethics so as to shame and
embarrass him with the community, his peers, and potential employers.
42. In November 2021, the Alabama Attorney General’s office exonerated
and cleared Finley and Reaves of all wrongdoing.
43. The Attorney General’s separate investigation of Reaves and Finley
concluded that the Ethics Commission conspired with the City and its agents in
8
unethical and illegal acts to present false evidence to the Ethics Commission
regarding Finley and Reaves. Further investigation revealed exculpatory evidence
was withheld in violation of the law, and other evidence was continued and
incorrectly reported to the Commission in order for Raulston and Butler to secure
votes of the Commission to convict Finley and Reaves of ethical violations.
44. The City did not issue any type of press or media release that Finley
was cleared of a violation of the Alabama Ethics Act; nor did the Ethics Commission
acknowledge the findings of the Attorney General’s office.
45. The City and the Mayor’s office have remained silent and did not
attempt to rectify the professional and reputational harm it caused to Finley. The
City did not reinstate Finley to his former position or restore his pay. Rather, the
City and the Mayor hired a permanent replacement for Finley and displacing the
Interim Police Chief, Ramona Harris (“Harris”).
46. When Harris later decided to retire, the City recognized Harris with a
retirement ceremony, thanking her for her years of service to the citizens of
Montgomery, attended by the Mayor and other City officials. Finley and Reaves
were denied recognition of their years of service and forced out of their positions.
The City refused to acknowledge their tenure, positions or service, allowing Finley
and Reaves to have their offices packed up in boxes and delivered later to them.
9
47. Defendants wrongfully interfered with Plaintiff’s civil rights, including
his First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Defendants’ ongoing
discrimination, harassment and retaliation of Finley caused him reputational harm
and damaged his reputation in the community, the City, the Police Department, and
with the State of Alabama. Finley was intentionally targeted by Defendants to force
him to resign. Defendants created ethics charges against Finley so as to terminate
him with shame, ridicule and embarrassment by tarnishing his name and reputation.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
42 U.S.C. § 1981 and TITLE VII
RACE DISCRIMINATION and RETALIATION
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
48. Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 12-47 as if fully recited herein.
49. The City of Montgomery forced Finley to resign because he disciplined
Black police officers and promoted a White police officer.
50. The City forced Finley to resign because of his race, Black, and in
retaliation for his objection to intentional race discrimination by the Mayor and the
City.
51. The City forced Finely to resign in retaliation for enforcing Civil Rights
laws of the United States and hiring, promoting and disciplining employees
equitably, regardless of race or gender.
52. Finley’s race was a motivating factor that prompted the City of
10
Montgomery to force his resignation. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m); Quigg v. Thomas
County School Dist., 814 F.3d 1227, 1237-38 (11th Cir. 2016).
53. Finley was told by the Mayor that he was being removed and it could
be easy or difficult. Finley considered the Mayor’s comments and actions
threatening and had no choice but to sign the resignation prepared by the Mayor.
54. Finley’s resignation began immediately and without notice.
55. As a proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful discrimination and
retaliation, Plaintiff suffered financial loss, loss of dignity, loss of career
opportunity, embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress, and physical pain and
suffering.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff demands the
following relief:
a) That he be placed in the position in which he would have

worked absent Defendants’ retaliatory treatment, or, in the
alternative, front pay;
b) Back pay from the date of his retaliatory removal and for the
raises he should have received;
c) Punitive damages, to deter such conduct in the future;
d) Injunctive relief;
e) Interest;
f) Attorneys’ fees;
g) Costs; and
h) Such other legal or equitable relief to which Plaintiff may be
entitled.
11
COUNT II
42 U.S.C. § 1981 and TITLE VII
HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT and RETALIATION
57. The City of Montgomery, though its agents and employees, harassed
Finley because he is a Black male.
58. The City harassed Finley because he disciplined Black police officers
and promoted a White police officer.
59. The Mayor became hostile and adversarial to Finley in retaliation
because Finley would not engage in the Mayor’s race-based decision-making.
60. The City harassed Finley because of his objection to intentional race
discrimination proposed and condoned by the Mayor and the City. The City
subjected Finley to adverse terms and treatment.
61. On or about April 6 2021, the City, its agents, employees, and the
Mayor caused false complaints to be made against Finley before the Montgomery
City Council and subsequently the State of Alabama Ethics Commission.
62. Finley suffered damages because of the hostile work environment and
retaliation.
63. As a proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful harassment and
retaliation, Finley suffered financial loss, loss of dignity, loss of career opportunity,
embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress, and physical pain and suffering.

12
following relief:

e) Interest;
g) Costs; and
entitled.
COUNT III
FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION
PURSUANT TO § 1983
65. In taking the above-described actions, Defendants intentionally and
willfully retaliated against Plaintiff for his constitutionally-protected speech under
the First Amendment, to include removing him from his position as Chief of Police
of the Montgomery Police Department and stripping him of all pay and benefits of
his position.
66. Plaintiff’s constitutionally-protected speech regarded matters of public
concern, specifically, abuses in the Police and Mayor’s Departments, as set out in
articles participated in or generated by Plaintiff and numerous statements or
13
presentations before the City, its officers, and community reports.
67. Said speech played a substantial part in Defendants’ decision to
discharge Plaintiff as Chief of Police.
68. As a proximate consequence of Defendants’ violation of the First
Amendment, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damage to his
professional life, reputation, and future career opportunities, future pecuniary losses,
emotional pain, embarrassment, humiliation, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of
enjoyment of life, and non-pecuniary damages.
69. Each Defendant committed acts to further the conspiracy.
following relief:

e) Interest;
g) Costs; and
entitled.
14
COUNT IV
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
AGAINST DEFENDANT CITY OF MONTGOMERY
71. By and through its conduct, as alleged herein, and acting under color of
law, the City of Montgomery is liable for violations of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth
Amendment substantive due process rights.
72. On or about April 6, 2021, the Mayor conspired with certain City agents
and police officers to bring false complaints against Finley to the City Council.
73. Mayor Reed told Finley that neither he nor anyone representing him
could speak to defend the Police Department, Finley, or Reaves at the same meeting.
74. The City, its agents, employees, and the Mayor then forwarded the false
and fraudulent complaints against Finley and Reaves to the State of Alabama.
75. Once the complaints were filed against Finley and Reaves, the City
forced Finley to resign his employment with the City.
76. Finely opposed the forced resignation and did not want to leave his
employment as he had done nothing to be removed from his position as Chief of
Police. Mayor Reed told Finely he was being removed and it could be easy or
difficult, meaning he was either resigning or Reed was terminating him.
77. Mayor Reed prepared the resignation document for Finley to sign.
78. Mayor Reed and the City made the decision to terminate Plaintiff
15
without review of any of the evidence and based their decision on arbitrary and
capricious factors. Mayor Reed and the City terminated Plaintiff in violation of
clearly established law regarding municipal employees.
79. The actions of the Defendant of unlawfully terminating Plaintiff have
caused Plaintiff financial loss, severe emotional distress, and a contracted quality of
life.
80. Defendant has a habit and/or practice of allowing and condoning
discrimination based on race, age and retaliation.
81. Plaintiff has suffered embarrassment, humiliation, shame, damage to
reputation, mental distress, emotional distress, emotional and physical pain and
anguish, and lost wages as a consequence of Defendant’s unlawful conduct.
following relief:

e) Interest;
g) Costs; and
entitled.
16
COUNT V
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL RIGHTS
(42 U.S.C. § 1985)
83. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conspired to violate his civil rights in
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985. In taking the above-described actions, Defendants
intentionally and willfully conspired against Plaintiff to deprive him of his
constitutionally-protected speech under the First Amendment, to include stripping
him of his position as Chief of Police.
84. Plaintiff’s constitutionally-protected speech regarded matters of public
concern, specifically, abuses in the Police and Mayor’s Departments, as set out in
articles participated in or generated by Plaintiff and numerous statements or
presentations before the City, its officers, and community reports.
85. Said speech played a substantial part in Defendants’ decision to
discharge Plaintiff as Chief of Police.
86. As a proximate consequence of Defendants’ violation of the First
Amendment, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damage to his
professional life, reputation, and future career opportunities, future pecuniary losses,
emotional pain, embarrassment, humiliation, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of
enjoyment of life, and non-pecuniary damages.
87. Each Defendant committed acts to further the conspiracy.

17
following relief:

e) Interest;
g) Costs; and
entitled.
COUNT VI
CIVIL CONSPIRACY UNDER ALABAMA LAW
89. A civil conspiracy under Alabama law requires a combination of two
or more individuals to accomplish an unlawful purpose or to accomplish a lawful
purpose by unlawful means.
90. Plaintiff’s claim of civil conspiracy is brought against the Defendants
named in their individual capacities.
91. Finley was Chief of Police of the Montgomery Police Department. He
held a property interest in that position. Defendants conspired to illegally deprive
him of that property interest by engaging in the violation of his rights under the First
18
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
92. Defendants conspired to illegally retaliate against Finley for engaging
in federally-protected speech and exercising his federally-protected right to speak
out on matters of public concern.
93. Defendants conspired to deprive Finley of his civil rights.
94. Defendants conspired to damage Finley’s reputation and name by
removing him from his visible and prestigious position as Chief of Police, which
diminished his standing and reputation in the community, and by limiting his income
to inadequate or nonexistent amounts.
95. Defendants conspired among themselves and each Defendant
committed acts to further the conspiracy.
following relief:

e) Interest;
g) Costs; and
entitled.
19
COUNT VII
DEFAMATION – INTENTIONAL SLANDER AND LIBEL PER SE
97. On or about August 4, 2021, the City said or caused to be published the
following false statement about Finley: “The Alabama Ethics Commission found
Montgomery Police Department Chief of Operations Jennifer Reaves and
former Police Chief Ernest Finley each committed a minor violation of the
Alabama Ethics Act.”
98. On or about September 2, 2021, the City said or caused to be published
the following false statement about Finley: “ Also, shortly after she assumed the
role, the Alabama Ethics Commission found that Finley and Montgomery
Police Department Chief of Operations Jennifer Reaves each committed a
minor violation of the Alabama Ethics Act.”
99. These statements are defamatory per se.
100. The City published or caused the statements to be published on WFSA
12 News and wfsa.com.
101. The defamatory statements to WFSA communicated to Montgomery
community that Finley had committed an ethics violation.
102. The City knew or should have known that the statements it made to
WFSA were false.
20
103. WFSA published these false and defamatory statements to WFSA with
malice or intent to harm Finley, his professional reputation, and his reputation within
the community.
104. Alternatively, the false and defamatory statement to WFSA was made
with reckless disregard of the consequences of the City’s false and defamatory
statement.
105. As a direct and proximate result of the City’s intentional and malicious
publication of false and defamatory statements, Finley has been and will continue to
be damaged and injured in his character and reputation.
106. As a direct and proximate result of the City’s intentional and malicious
publication of false and defamatory statements, Finley has been and will continue to
be damaged in his profession and his business.
following relief:

e) Interest;
g) Costs; and
entitled.
21
COUNT VIII
DEFAMATION – NEGLIGENT LIBEL AND SLANDER
108. On or about August 4, 2021, the City said or caused to be published the
following false statement about Finley: “The Alabama Ethics Commission found
Montgomery Police Department Chief of Operations Jennifer Reaves and
former Police Chief Ernest Finley each committed a minor violation of the
Alabama Ethics Act.”
109. On or about September 2, 2021, the City said or caused to be published
the following false statement about Finley: “Also, shortly after she assumed the
role, the Alabama Ethics Commission found that Finley and Montgomery
Police Department Chief of Operations Jennifer Reaves each committed a
minor violation of the Alabama Ethics Act.”
110. These statements are defamatory per se.
111. The City published or caused the statements to be published on WFSA
12 News and wfsa.com.
112. The defamatory statements to WFSA communicated to Montgomery
community that Finley had committed an ethics violation.
113. The City knew or should have known that the statements it made to
WFSA were false.

22
114. Upon information and belief, the City communicated directly with
WSFA about Finley.
115. Upon information and belief, in its direct communications with WFSA,
the City made defamatory statements to WFSA to the effect that Finley had
committed an ethics violation.
116. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s false and defamatory
statements to WFSA, Finley has been and will continue to be damaged and injured
in his character and reputation.
117. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s false and defamatory
statements to WFSA, Finley has been and will continue to be damaged in his
profession and his business.
following relief:

e) Interest;
g) Costs; and
entitled.
23
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court:
A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers,
successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from
engaging further in discriminatory treatment on the basis of race and age, and
retaliation based on protected activity;
B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and
programs that provide equal provisions and employment opportunities for all
employees, and which eradicate the efforts of past and present unlawful employment
practices, including implementing a policy against race and age discrimination and
against retaliation for engaging in protected activities;
C. Order retraining of the City and the Police Department on EEO policies;
D. Order Defendant to make Plaintiff whole by providing back pay, front
pay, reinstatement, interest, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the
effects of its unlawful employment practices, including, but not limited to,
compensatory, punitive, and liquidated damages;
E. Award Plaintiff reinstatement to his former position with back pay,
raises and bonuses, compensatory, punitive and liquidated damages;
F. Award Plaintiff monetary damages for his discharge;
G. Award Plaintiff costs and expenses herein, including reasonable
attorneys’ fees; and
24
PLEASE SERVE DEFENDANTS VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
City of Montgomery
103 North Perry Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Mayor Steven L. Reed

103 North Perry Street
PLAINTIFF’S ADDRESS
Ernest Finley, Jr.

c/o Alicia K. Haynes
HAYNES & HAYNES, P.C.
1600 Woodmere Drive
Birmingham, AL 35226
26
Case 2:23-cv-00146-KFP Document 1-1 Filed 03/16/23 Page 1 of 1
MD AL MODIFIED AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
Middle District
__________ District of
of Alabama
__________
)
Plaintiff )
v. ) Civil Action No.
)
Defendant )
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) — or 90 days in a Social Security action — 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.
DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
MD AL MODIFIED AO 440 (Rev. 02/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(1))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .
I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or
I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ; or
I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

MD AL MODIFIED AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
Middle District
__________ District of
of Alabama
__________
)
Plaintiff )
v. ) Civil Action No.
)
Defendant )
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) — or 90 days in a Social Security action — 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.
DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
MD AL MODIFIED AO 440 (Rev. 02/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(1))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .
I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or
I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ; or
I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

EXHIBIT A
Received 01-31-2022
420-2022-01040
Ernest N. Finley, Jr.

EEOC Charge of Discrimination Exhibit A
Page 1 of 2
My name is Ernest N. Finley, Jr. I am a 60-year-old Black male. I began my career with
the Atlanta Police Department in 1986, first as a patrol officer, and then as Deputy Chief of Field
Operations. In January 2015, I was hired by the Montgomery Police Department as Chief of Police,
and I served the City of Montgomery in this capacity until I was forced to resign by the Mayor in
June 2021.
On or about April 2021, the City of Montgomery, its agents, employees, and the Mayor for
the City caused false complaints to be made against me for the purpose of forwarding those
complaints to the Alabama Ethics Commission and specifically to investigator Byron Butler of the
Ethics Commission. Butler previously worked for the Montgomery Police Department and is a
personal friend of several police officers. Butler was previously supervised by Jennifer Reaves,
Deputy Chief, and should have been conflicted from investigating Deputy Chief Reaves or me by
the Ethics Commission.
In 2020 and 2021, Deputy Chief Reaves and I had investigated several police officers for
policy violations, fraud and theft. Our attempts to follow the disciplinary policies and discipline
those officers were met with opposition by the Mayor and certain police officers. The Mayor
encouraged the officers to complain to the Council for the City of Montgomery. However, I was
told by the Mayor that neither I nor anyone reporting to me could speak to defend the Police
Department or ourselves at the same meeting.
The City, the Mayor, and agents of the City conspired with Butler and Cynthia Raulston,
General Counsel for the Ethics Commission, in order to bring and investigate false ethical
complaints against me. Three weeks after Butler notified me in writing of the ethical complaints
against me, the City, specifically Mayor Reed, forced me to resign my employment with the City.
Ernest N. Finley, Jr.

EEOC Charge of Discrimination Exhibit A
Page 2 of 2
I did not want to leave my employment and had done nothing to be removed from my position,
but the Mayor told me I was being removed and it could be easy or difficult. I considered the
Mayor’s comments and actions threatening and I had no choice but to sign the resignation he
handed me. The Mayor had prepared the resignation document.
It is my belief the Mayor wanted me removed from my position because he did not approve
that I was enforcing Civil Rights laws of the United States and hired, promoted and disciplined
employees equitably, regardless of race or gender. Based on false and fabricated evidence created
by the City, the Mayor, Butler, and Raulston, the Ethics Commission found that I and Deputy
Chief Reaves had each committed a “minor violation” of the Alabama Ethics Act. The Mayor
issued an immediate press release that was circulated to the media including social media to
intentionally disparage me and my professional reputation. These actions caused me personal and
professional harm.
In November 2021, the Alabama Attorney General exonerated and cleared me of all
wrongdoing. The Attorney General’s independent investigation found that Raulston and Butler
had engaged in unethical and illegal acts to present false evidence to the Alabama Ethics
Commission. Neither the Mayor nor the City issued any type of press or media release that I or
Deputy Chief Reaves had been cleared of a violation of the Alabama Ethics Act. Rather, the City
and the Mayor have remained silent, refusing to rectify the professional and reputational harm it
caused me or taking any action to reinstate me to my position.
I believe I have been discriminated on the basis of my race and age. Further, I believe I
have been subjected to retaliation based on my objection to intentional race discrimination by the
Mayor and the City of Montgomery.

EXHIBIT B
EEOC Form 161-B (01/2022) U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE (ISSUED ON REQUEST)
To: Earnest N. Finley Jr. From: Birmingham District Office
1130 22nd Street South, Suite 2000
Montgomery, AL 36117 Birmingham, AL 35205
EEOC Charge No. EEOC Representative Telephone No.

420-2022-01038 IRAN CRUZ, 2056517029
Investigator
(See also the additional information enclosed with this form.)
NOTICE TO THE PERSON AGGRIEVED:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination
Act (GINA): This is your Notice of Right to Sue, issued under Title VII, the ADA or GINA based on the above-numbered charge. It has
been issued at your request. Your lawsuit under Title VII, the ADA or GINA must be filed in a federal or state court WITHIN 90 DAYS
of your receipt of this notice; or your right to sue based on this charge will be lost. (The time limit for filing suit based on a claim under
state law may be different.)
More than 180 days have passed since the filing of this charge.
The EEOC is terminating its processing of this charge.
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA): You may sue under the ADEA at any time from 60 days after the charge was filed until 90
days after you receive notice that we have completed action on the charge. In this regard, the EEOC is closing your case. The refore, your
lawsuit under the ADEA must be filed in federal or state court WITHIN 90 DAYS *of your receipt of this Notice.* Otherwise, your right to
sue based on the above-numbered charge will be lost.
Equal Pay Act (EPA): You already have the right to sue under the EPA (filing an EEOC charge is not required.) EPA suits must be brought
in federal or state court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment. This means that backpay due for
any violations that occurred more than 2 years (3 years) before you file suit may not be collectible.
If you file suit, based on this charge, please send a copy of your court complaint to this office.
On behalf of the Commission
December 16, 2022

Enclosures(s) /for Bradley A. Anderson
District Director
cc: Brandy Morgan

103 N PERRY ST STE 200
Stacey Bellinger
City of Montgomery
103 N. Perry Street, Suite 200
Alicia K Haynes
Haynes & Haynes
1600 Woodmere Drive
Lauren Branham
Haynes & Haynes
1600 Woodmere Drive
Enclosure with EEOC
Form 161-B (01/2022)
INFORMATION RELATED TO FILING SUIT

UNDER THE LAWS ENFORCED BY THE EEOC
(This information relates to filing suit in Federal or State court under Federal law.
If you also plan to sue claiming violations of State law, please be aware that time limits and other
provisions of State law may be shorter or more limited than those described below.)
PRIVATE SUIT RIGHTS -- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), or the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (ADEA):
In order to pursue this matter further, you must file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) named in the charge within 90 days of
the date you receive this Notice. Therefore, you should keep a record of this date. Once this 90-day period is over, your right
to sue based on the charge referred to in this Notice will be lost. If you intend to consult an attorney, you should do so promptly.
Give your attorney a copy of this Notice, and its envelope, and tell him or her the date you received it. Furthermore, in order to
avoid any question that you did not act in a timely manner, it is prudent that your suit be filed within 90 days of the date this
Notice was mailed to you (as indicated where the Notice is signed) or the date of the postmark, if later.
Your lawsuit may be filed in U.S. District Court or a State court of competent jurisdiction. (Usually, the appropriate State court
is the general civil trial court.) Whether you file in Federal or State court is a matter for you to decide after talking to your
attorney. Filing this Notice is not enough. You must file a "complaint" that contains a short statement of the facts of your case
which shows that you are entitled to relief. Your suit may include any matter alleged in the charge or, to the extent permitted
by court decisions, matters like or related to the matters alleged in the charge. Generally, suits are brought in the State where
the alleged unlawful practice occurred, but in some cases can be brought where relevant employment records are kept, where
the employment would have been, or where the respondent has its main office. If you have simple questions, you usually can
get answers from the office of the clerk of the court where you are bringing suit, but do not expect that office to write your
complaint or make legal strategy decisions for you.
PRIVATE SUIT RIGHTS -- Equal Pay Act (EPA):
EPA suits must be filed in court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment: back pay due
for violations that occurred more than 2 years (3 years) before you file suit may not be collectible. For example, if you were
underpaid under the EPA for work performed from 7/1/08 to 12/1/08, you should file suit before 7/1/10 – not 12/1/10 -- in order
to recover unpaid wages due for July 2008. This time limit for filing an EPA suit is separate from the 90-day filing period under
Title VII, the ADA, GINA or the ADEA referred to above. Therefore, if you also plan to sue under Title VII, the ADA, GINA
or the ADEA, in addition to suing on the EPA claim, suit must be filed within 90 days of this Notice and within the 2- or 3-year
EPA back pay recovery period.
ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION -- Title VII, the ADA or GINA:
If you cannot afford or have been unable to obtain a lawyer to represent you, the U.S. District Court having jurisdiction in your case
may, in limited circumstances, assist you in obtaining a lawyer. Requests for such assistance must be made to the U.S. District Court
in the form and manner it requires (you should be prepared to explain in detail your efforts to retain an attorney). Requests should
be made well before the end of the 90-day period mentioned above, because such requests do not relieve you of the requirement to
bring suit within 90 days.
ATTORNEY REFERRAL AND EEOC ASSISTANCE -- All Statutes:
You may contact the EEOC representative shown on your Notice if you need help in finding a lawyer or if you have any questions
about your legal rights, including advice on which U.S. District Court can hear your case. If you need to inspect or obtain a copy of
information in EEOC's file on the charge, please request it promptly in writing and provide your charge number (as shown on your
Notice). While EEOC destroys charge files after a certain time, all charge files are kept for at least 6 months after our last action on
the case. Therefore, if you file suit and want to review the charge file, please make your review request within 6 months of this
Notice. (Before filing suit, any request should be made within the next 90 days.)
IF YOU FILE SUIT, PLEASE SEND A COPY OF YOUR COURT COMPLAINT TO THIS OFFICE .
EEOC Form 161-B (01/2022) U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE (ISSUED ON REQUEST)
To: Earnest N. Finley Jr. From: Birmingham District Office
1130 22nd Street South, Suite 2000
Montgomery, AL 36117 Birmingham, AL 35205
EEOC Charge No. EEOC Representative Telephone No.

420-2022-01040 IRAN CRUZ, (205) 651-7029
iran.cruz@eeoc.gov
(See also the additional information enclosed with this form.)
NOTICE TO THE PERSON AGGRIEVED:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination
Act (GINA): This is your Notice of Right to Sue, issued under Title VII, the ADA or GINA based on the above-numbered charge. It has
been issued at your request. Your lawsuit under Title VII, the ADA or GINA must be filed in a federal or state court WITHIN 90 DAYS
of your receipt of this notice; or your right to sue based on this charge will be lost. (The time limit for filing suit based on a claim under
state law may be different.)
More than 180 days have passed since the filing of this charge.
The EEOC is terminating its processing of this charge.
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA): You may sue under the ADEA at any time from 60 days after the charge was filed until 90
days after you receive notice that we have completed action on the charge. In this regard, the EEOC is closing your case. The refore, your
lawsuit under the ADEA must be filed in federal or state court WITHIN 90 DAYS *of your receipt of this Notice.* Otherwise, your right to
sue based on the above-numbered charge will be lost.
Equal Pay Act (EPA): You already have the right to sue under the EPA (filing an EEOC charge is not required.) EPA suits must be brought
in federal or state court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment. This means that backpay due for
any violations that occurred more than 2 years (3 years) before you file suit may not be collectible.
If you file suit, based on this charge, please send a copy of your court complaint to this office.
On behalf of the Commission
For Bradley A. Anderson

District Director
Enclosures(s)
Enclosure with EEOC
Form 161-B (01/2022)
INFORMATION RELATED TO FILING SUIT

UNDER THE LAWS ENFORCED BY THE EEOC
(This information relates to filing suit in Federal or State court under Federal law.
If you also plan to sue claiming violations of State law, please be aware that time limits and other
provisions of State law may be shorter or more limited than those described below.)
PRIVATE SUIT RIGHTS -- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), or the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (ADEA):
In order to pursue this matter further, you must file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) named in the charge within 90 days of
the date you receive this Notice. Therefore, you should keep a record of this date. Once this 90-day period is over, your right
to sue based on the charge referred to in this Notice will be lost. If you intend to consult an attorney, you should do so promptly.
Give your attorney a copy of this Notice, and its envelope, and tell him or her the date you received it. Furthermore, in order to
avoid any question that you did not act in a timely manner, it is prudent that your suit be filed within 90 days of the date this
Notice was mailed to you (as indicated where the Notice is signed) or the date of the postmark, if later.
Your lawsuit may be filed in U.S. District Court or a State court of competent jurisdiction. (Usually, the appropriate State court
is the general civil trial court.) Whether you file in Federal or State court is a matter for you to decide after talking to your
attorney. Filing this Notice is not enough. You must file a "complaint" that contains a short statement of the facts of your case
which shows that you are entitled to relief. Your suit may include any matter alleged in the charge or, to the extent permitted
by court decisions, matters like or related to the matters alleged in the charge. Generally, suits are brought in the State where
the alleged unlawful practice occurred, but in some cases can be brought where relevant employment records are kept, where
the employment would have been, or where the respondent has its main office. If you have simple questions, you usually can
get answers from the office of the clerk of the court where you are bringing suit, but do not expect that office to write your
complaint or make legal strategy decisions for you.
PRIVATE SUIT RIGHTS -- Equal Pay Act (EPA):
EPA suits must be filed in court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment: back pay due
for violations that occurred more than 2 years (3 years) before you file suit may not be collectible. For example, if you were
underpaid under the EPA for work performed from 7/1/08 to 12/1/08, you should file suit before 7/1/10 – not 12/1/10 -- in order
to recover unpaid wages due for July 2008. This time limit for filing an EPA suit is separate from the 90-day filing period under
Title VII, the ADA, GINA or the ADEA referred to above. Therefore, if you also plan to sue under Title VII, the ADA, GINA
or the ADEA, in addition to suing on the EPA claim, suit must be filed within 90 days of this Notice and within the 2- or 3-year
EPA back pay recovery period.
ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION -- Title VII, the ADA or GINA:
If you cannot afford or have been unable to obtain a lawyer to represent you, the U.S. District Court having jurisdiction in your case
may, in limited circumstances, assist you in obtaining a lawyer. Requests for such assistance must be made to the U.S. District Court
in the form and manner it requires (you should be prepared to explain in detail your efforts to retain an attorney). Requests should
be made well before the end of the 90-day period mentioned above, because such requests do not relieve you of the requirement to
bring suit within 90 days.
ATTORNEY REFERRAL AND EEOC ASSISTANCE -- All Statutes:
You may contact the EEOC representative shown on your Notice if you need help in finding a lawyer or if you have any questions
about your legal rights, including advice on which U.S. District Court can hear your case. If you need to inspect or obtain a copy of
information in EEOC's file on the charge, please request it promptly in writing and provide your charge number (as shown on your
Notice). While EEOC destroys charge files after a certain time, all charge files are kept for at least 6 months after our last action on
the case. Therefore, if you file suit and want to review the charge file, please make your review request within 6 months of this
Notice. (Before filing suit, any request should be made within the next 90 days.)
IF YOU FILE SUIT, PLEASE SEND A COPY OF YOUR COURT COMPLAINT TO THIS OFFICE .
EXHIBIT C

Ernest Finley Complaint Against Steven Reed, City of Montgomery

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

Ernest Finley Complaint Against Steven Reed, City of Montgomery

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:23-cv-00146-KFP Document 1 Filed 03/16/23 Page 1 of 26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ERNEST N. FINLEY, JR., )

by Defendants, City of Montgomery and Mayor Steven L. Reed (collectively

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. All the events, transactions, or occurrences which gave rise to

this District and this Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

Constitution, Amendment XIV; and the laws of the State of Alabama.

3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,

Rights Act of 1991, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, et seq.

the City of Montgomery Police Department as Chief of Police.

5. Defendant City of Montgomery is a local agency of the State of

6. Defendant Mayor Steven L. Reed is the Mayor of the City of

the State of Alabama. He is a resident of this Judicial District and Division.

7. Finley seeks all relief to which he is entitled, including reinstatement,

jury to hear this matter.

8. On January 31, 2022, Finley filed a Charge of Discrimination with the

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), alleging

discrimination and retaliation. A copy of his Charge is attached as Exhibit A.

9. On December 16, 2022, the EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue,

which was received on December 28, 2022. (See Exhibit B.)

the City of Montgomery, pursuant to the provisions of §§ 11-47-23 and 11-47-192

of the Code of Alabama, 1975. (See Exhibit C).

at the Montgomery Police Department.

patrol officer, then as Deputy Chief of Field Operations.

Steven L. Reed (“Reed”) in June 2021.

reported to Mayor Reed.

matters of public concern.

17. Beginning in October 2020, Finley and Deputy Chief of Operations

Jennifer Reaves (“Reaves”) were tasked with the investigation of approximately 12

second jobs the officers were working.

Investigator for the City.

19. All 12 officers were found guilty of violations of varying degrees.

of ethics violations or the violations were considered minor.

23. Mayor Reed encouraged the Montgomery Police Department officers

to complain about Finley to the City Council.

discrimination, and intentional insubordination, including employees and managers

remain silent even during the City Council meetings.

Commission (“Ethics Commission” or “Commission”).

selected officers submitted anonymous complaints and statements to the ethics

Montgomery that had reported to Reaves previously.

29. Butler and the City conspired to manipulate evidence to intentionally

find Finley and Reaves guilty of ethics violations.

John Mackey, Earl Ware, Jr., and Jeremy Harrison.

32. Finley was subsequently told by the Ethics Commission General

Counsel Cynthia Raulston (“Raulston”) that he would be found guilty of ethic

violations and he could accept the administrative resolution or be charged as a felon.

showed the complaints were falsified.

33. Fearing he would be charged with a felony, Finley agreed to the

administrative resolution after pressure by Raulston.

presented Finley with a resignation letter to sign or he would be terminated because

of the complaints brought against him.

employment as he had done nothing to be removed from his position as Chief of

difficult, meaning he was either resigning or Reed was terminating him.

employees equitably, regardless of race or gender. Reed disfavored following anti-

and conditions because of their race.

38. On August 4, 2021, based on false and fabricated evidence created by

of the Alabama Ethics Act.

personal and professional reputation.

Montgomery police chief: Department morale is ‘coming back around.’” Finley’s

of the Alabama Ethics Act.

42. In November 2021, the Alabama Attorney General’s office exonerated

and cleared Finley and Reaves of all wrongdoing.

43. The Attorney General’s separate investigation of Reaves and Finley