Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Collier Clerk of Courts Lawsuit
Collier Clerk of Courts Lawsuit
Plaintiffs, Judge:
v. Mag. Judge:
Defendant.
“PLAINTIFFS”), by and through undersigned counsel, and state the following for
their Complaint:
CAUSES OF ACTION
of their First Amendment right to engage or not engage in political activity without
1
Case 2:21-cv-00020-JLB-NPM Document 1 Filed 01/07/21 Page 2 of 10 PageID 2
PARTIES
currently resides, and at all material times resided, in Lee County, Florida. He was
employed by the Defendant from July 5, 2017 to September 1, 2020 and was
employed as a Auditor.
currently resides, and at all material times resided, in Collier County, Florida. She
was employed by the Defendant from 2006-2008 and 2015 to September 1, 2020
currently resides, and at all material times resided, in Collier County, Florida. She
was employed by the Defendant from October 2002 to September 1, 2020 and was
currently resides, and at all material times resided, in Collier County, Florida. He
was employed by the Defendant from June 2002 to September 1, 2020 and was
currently resides, and at all material times resided, in Collier County, Florida. He
was employed by the Defendant from 2014 to May 12, 2020 and was employed as
the Manager of Internal Audit and subsequently promoted to Sr. Legal Counsel.
2
Case 2:21-cv-00020-JLB-NPM Document 1 Filed 01/07/21 Page 3 of 10 PageID 3
of the Circuit Court and Comptroller, an elected position she has held since 2018
when she was appointed to the position following the death of then-Clerk, Dwight
Brock. Prior thereto, KINZEL joined the Office of the Collier County Clerk of
Courts, serving as the Director of Finance until 2016 when Clerk Dwight Brock
named her his Chief Deputy. KINZEL’s primary roles are to serve as the
accountant and guardian of county taxpayer money, which was forecast to be $1.4
billion as of 2020, serve as clerk to the board of commissioners and maintain court
Plaintiffs’ employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §1983 and each Plaintiff is a
10. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida because the Plaintiffs reside in either Lee or Collier County, and
the Defendant conducts business in, and some or all of the events giving rise to
Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in Collier County, Florida, which is within the Middle
District of Florida. Venue is proper in the Fort Myers Division under Local Rule
3
Case 2:21-cv-00020-JLB-NPM Document 1 Filed 01/07/21 Page 4 of 10 PageID 4
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
who began working for the clerk’s office in 2014 as manager of internal audits.
was terminating MOLENAAR as a direct result of him having exercised his First
election.
“officer” as that term is defined by F.S. §99.012(1) and he was simply a regular
employee.
16. After being fired and during his candidacy, MOLENAAR was critical
scam that cost the office $184,000 as one of the reasons to improve audit and
professional manner and were very well qualified for their respective positions.
18. Each of the Plaintiffs met all necessary performance standards and
4
Case 2:21-cv-00020-JLB-NPM Document 1 Filed 01/07/21 Page 5 of 10 PageID 5
respective job duties. Moreover, none of the Plaintiffs were policy-makers or alter-
egos of KINZEL.
20. None of the Plaintiffs had the same duties and powers as KINZEL
under state or local law. Indeed, none of the Plaintiffs possessed any signing
authority in KINZEL’s absence, nor did KINZEL ever grant them the same.
Supervisor of Elections, each of the Plaintiffs supported his campaign, and did so
donations on his behalf. However, they never engaged in public support for
MOLENAAR in the workplace, nor did they engage in any conduct that could be
18, 2020, KINZEL turned her attention to those that had supported her opponent,
2020.
statement to each Plaintiff stating that she (KINZEL) “no longer had trust and
5
Case 2:21-cv-00020-JLB-NPM Document 1 Filed 01/07/21 Page 6 of 10 PageID 6
confidence in your abilities necessary to carry out the duties and functions” of the
specifics, except for responding to PASEK’s question as to why he was being fired
that “if you think long and hard about it, you'll know exactly why.”
comment to the news media that stated the Plaintiffs were terminated because
26. However, the only positions that were being “eliminated” were those
held by the Plaintiffs who were known to KINZEL to support her political rival
and never were the Plaintiffs informed their positions were supposedly being
27. At no time were the Plaintiffs ever even informed their position could
be subject to elimination, nor was there a realistic possibility of the same given that
their positions had all been fully budgeted and the Clerk’s Office was operating at
a surplus.
campaign and the Plaintiffs’ support therefore, KINZEL terminated the Plaintiffs.
6
Case 2:21-cv-00020-JLB-NPM Document 1 Filed 01/07/21 Page 7 of 10 PageID 7
Supreme Court in Elrod v. Burns and Branti v. Finkel, brought pursuant to 42 USC
§1983.
32. At all material times, the Plaintiffs were employees and KINZEL was
33. None of the Plaintiffs’ positions were positions for which political
performance of the public office or the execution of the duties of the positions and
loyalties.
7
Case 2:21-cv-00020-JLB-NPM Document 1 Filed 01/07/21 Page 8 of 10 PageID 8
36. The conduct complained of was taken under color of the laws of the
State of Florida.
usage. The person who engaged in the conduct complained of – KINZEL as Clerk
38. As the direct result of KINZEL’s conduct, the Plaintiffs have been
First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and
39. As a direct and proximate result of the violations referenced and cited
herein, the Plaintiffs have lost all of the benefits and privileges of their
employment and have been substantially and significantly injured in their career
path.
40. As a direct and proximate result of the violations referenced and cited
herein, and as a direct and proximate result of the prohibited acts perpetrated
against them, the Plaintiffs are entitled to all relief necessary to make them whole
have suffered damages, including but not limited to, a loss of employment
opportunities, loss of past and future employment income and fringe benefits,
8
Case 2:21-cv-00020-JLB-NPM Document 1 Filed 01/07/21 Page 9 of 10 PageID 9
emotional distress.
right, and:
i. Injunctive relief directing this Defendant to cease and desist from all
ii. Back pay and all other benefits, perquisites and other compensation
iii. Front pay, including raises, benefits, insurance costs, benefits costs,
9
Case 2:21-cv-00020-JLB-NPM Document 1 Filed 01/07/21 Page 10 of 10 PageID 10
and demand a jury trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38 on all issues
Respectfully submitted,
10