As Filed Complaint
As Filed Complaint
MARVIN HENRY,
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
1. On January 25, 2020, four white officers of the Needham Police Department
(“NPD”) conspired to wrongfully accost, arrest, detain, publicly embarrass, and defame Marvin
Henry, a law-abiding father of four young children who was simply trying to buy an iced tea and
cough drops at CVS on his way to work to earn a paycheck for his family. The officers had no
legitimate reason for their conduct. While NPD had received a call about possible shoplifting at
the CVS by a male and female, the description of the male suspect did not remotely match Mr.
Henry, who was unaccompanied by a female. They shared only one feature: they were both
Black men.
1
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 2 of 31
2. Sadly, that was enough to motivate the officers’ conduct. Quite literally, Mr.
Henry’s only “crime” was being Black while shopping in a white neighborhood, patrolled by
white police officers. And for that crime, Mr. Henry was forced to endure unlawful arrest and
ongoing public embarrassment not only at the scene, but in the days and weeks that followed, as
the Defendants published false allegations against Mr. Henry and “investigated” absurd possible
crimes in the hope of justifying their misconduct. To this day, over a year and a half after the
incident, none of the officers involved have apologized, much less offered to make Mr. Henry
whole. So, Mr. Henry is left with no choice but to seek justice—justice to compensate him
fairly, and to ensure that no other citizen experiences racial animus from NPD.
3. The evidence will show that when the Defendant officers confronted Mr. Henry,
they forcibly shoved him against his vehicle; roughly handcuffed him in full view of passersby
within blocks of his workplace; refused to loosen his restraints despite Mr. Henry’s repeated
attempts to tell them the handcuffs were hurting him; and ignored Mr. Henry’s attempts to show
a receipt for his purchases that would have immediately demonstrated he was a store customer,
not a shoplifter. They presumed him guilty because he was Black. White people do not get
4. As the Defendant officers deprived Mr. Henry of his freedom, they also deprived
him of his dignity. One officer openly mocked Mr. Henry; another refused to give Mr. Henry his
badge number. Despite his unjust treatment, Mr. Henry remained compliant. He was not armed;
he did not pose any threat to the officers. Nevertheless, Mr. Henry knew all too well what could
happen to him, a Black man, if he resisted arrest or gave the white officers any opportunity to
2
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 3 of 31
5. The Defendant officers searched Mr. Henry; the contents of Mr. Henry’s vehicle,
including Mr. Henry’s backpack; and ran his license plate. They were determined to find
evidence of his criminality, but they found nothing. Only after detaining Mr. Henry for nearly
half an hour and illegally searching his car did the officers release him, promising that Mr. Henry
would hear from them once they pressed charges. Physically hurt and traumatized by the event,
Mr. Henry asked for the police report. When NPD finally released the report, it was filled with
blatant lies. NPD alleged that he was a serial shoplifter and had successfully robbed the CVS by
his workplace at least twice. The NPD officers had no evidence for these accusations. In fact,
they had decided that Mr. Henry had to be guilty of something and the officers concocted an
6. Once Mr. Henry shared his story, the public cried out, pressuring the Town of
addition to NPD’s own internal affairs investigation. Throughout these investigations, the same
officers lied in an effort to cover up their illegal targeting and demeaning treatment of Mr.
Henry. Predictably, the NPD internal investigation yielded no reforms—proving that the
Department believes it acted rightfully and will not change without outside intervention.
7. Having been deprived of his rights under state and federal law, Mr. Henry seeks
to recover damages for the harm the Defendant officers and Town inflicted, as well as the
removal of all defamatory materials published on the Town of Needham website and injunctive
relief to address the bias-based policing of NPD through training and policy reviews. In this
moment of racial reckoning, Mr. Henry prays that this Court holds the Town of Needham and
NPD accountable for perpetuating race-based policing and colluding to protect white officers
3
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 4 of 31
who violate the rule of law. Without accountability, the Defendant officers and the Town of
Needham continue to pose a threat to Black people living and working in Needham.
8. By this civil action, Plaintiff Marvin Henry seeks redress for violations of his
rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983; for civil rights conspiracy pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3);
for Mr. Henry’s detention and subsequent mistreatment by Defendants pursuant to M.G.L. ch.
9. Mr. Henry alleges all facts in this complaint on his personal knowledge or on
10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 over
the federal claims concerning violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and 42
U.S.C. § 1985(3). This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the
11. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because the
events giving rise to this civil action occurred in this judicial district.
12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Town of Needham, a
municipality within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and over all individual Defendants
because they reside in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and they are employed by the Town
PARTIES
13. Plaintiff Marvin Henry is a Black man who works as a licensed massage therapist
4
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 5 of 31
14. Defendant Town of Needham is a municipality duly organized and existing under
15. Defendant John Schlittler is an employee of the Town of Needham, serves as the
Chief of Police of the Needham Police Department (“NPD”), and supervises all NPD employees,
including Defendants Andrew Cray, Colin Fitzpatrick, Nicole McMahon, and Leo Schlittler.
John Schlittler acted in a supervisory capacity and as an agent, servant, and employee of the
Town of Needham. This action asserts claims against John Schlittler in his supervisory, official,
16. Defendant Andrew Cray is an employee of the Town of Needham and serves as
an NPD police officer. Cray is a Sergeant in NPD and acted in a supervisory capacity and as an
agent, servant, and employee of the Town of Needham at all relevant times. This action asserts
17. Defendant Colin Fitzpatrick is an employee of the Town of Needham and serves
as an NPD police officer. At all relevant times, Fitzpatrick acted as an agent, servant, and
employee of the Town of Needham. This action asserts claims against Fitzpatrick in his official
18. Defendant Nicole McMahon is an employee of the Town of Needham and serves
as an NPD police officer. At all relevant times, McMahon acted as an agent, servant, and
employee of the Town of Needham. This action asserts claims against McMahon in her official
19. Defendant Leo Schlittler is an employee of the Town of Needham and serves as
an NPD police officer. At all relevant times, Leo Schlittler acted as an agent, servant, and
5
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 6 of 31
employee of the Town of Needham. This action asserts claims against Leo Schlittler in his
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
20. On the afternoon of January 25, 2020, Mr. Henry drove into Needham for a shift
at Elements Massage from his home in Hyde Park, Massachusetts, in a light blue Honda Odyssey
21. Mr. Henry wore a black hoodless jacket over a crewneck sweater, light-colored
22. Mr. Henry parked the minivan in front of the Starbucks located at 910 Highland
Avenue, in Needham, Massachusetts. Mr. Henry proceeded to order lunch from the Town House
of Pizza at 892 Highland Avenue, as was his routine on his way to work, and then walked to
CVS store # 2128 (the “CVS”) located at 936 Highland Avenue. Elements Massage is located at
855 Highland Avenue in Needham and is approximately 0.1 miles from the CVS.
23. Mr. Henry entered CVS at approximately 3:01 p.m. through the Highland Avenue
door. Mr. Henry selected cough drops and an iced tea and completed his purchase of those items
with a cashier whom he recognized from prior visits. He received his receipt by email on his cell
24. Mr. Henry exited the CVS at about 3:05 p.m. and walked to the Town House of
Pizza, where he picked up his lunch order, and then returned to his minivan.
The CVS Operations Manager Provided Descriptions of Two Suspects, Neither of Whom
Matched Mr. Henry’s Description, in a 911 Call to NPD.
25. Another Black man (“John Doe”) entered the CVS before Mr. Henry, at about
2:53 p.m. John Doe wore a dark hooded jacket, a light grey hooded sweatshirt, black pants, and
6
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 7 of 31
a dark baseball cap. A Black woman (“Jane Doe”) entered the CVS shortly after John Doe.
26. The CVS Operations Manager told the CVS General Manager that he thought he
recognized John Doe and Jane Doe from two previous shoplifting incidents in that CVS.
27. The CVS Operations Manager called NPD at about 3:04 p.m. to report the
suspected shoplifting and described the two subjects to the 911 operator.
28. The Operations Manager spoke with Officer William Kelleher, the 911 operator
29. As to the first subject, the Operations Manager described a big male, Black, who
was wearing a hoodie or hat which was brown, red, or grey. As to the second subject, the
30. Officer Kelleher radioed to responding officers that the subjects were a very large
Black male with a grey hoodie and a female wearing dark clothes.
31. John Doe exited the CVS shortly after Mr. Henry.
32. John Doe did not make any purchases in the CVS on January 25, 2020.
33. The CVS did not find that any items had been stolen from the store after Mr.
Henry, John Doe, and Jane Doe left on January 25, 2020.
Needham Police Falsely Identified Mr. Henry as the Male Shoplifting Suspect, Even
Though He Did Not Match the Description of John Doe.
34. In response to the 911 call, at approximately 3:07 p.m. on January 25, 2020,
35. Defendant Leo Schlittler responded in a marked police vehicle to the intersection
7
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 8 of 31
36. Defendant Fitzpatrick exited the CVS and began walking down Highland Avenue.
Defendant Fitzpatrick radioed Defendant Leo Schlittler, falsely indicating that Mr. Henry was
37. After placing his purchased items on the front passenger seat of his minivan, Mr.
Henry walked around to the driver’s side of the car and heard a police officer, Defendant Leo
38. The only way in which Mr. Henry matched the description of the suspect was his
skin color, but Defendant Leo Schlittler—without valid legal basis to do so—accosted Mr. Henry
39. Defendant Fitzpatrick and Defendant Leo Schlittler profiled and confronted Mr.
40. Immediately upon approaching Mr. Henry, Defendant Leo Schlittler pushed Mr.
Henry against his minivan, simultaneously grabbing Mr. Henry’s right hand and arm.
41. Defendant Leo Schlittler handcuffed Mr. Henry forcibly behind his back, not
42. At no point did Mr. Henry resist Defendant Leo Schlittler. Nor did Mr. Henry
43. Mr. Henry was unarmed and had nothing in his hands.
44. Defendant Leo Schlittler searched Mr. Henry’s pants pockets and outer clothing
8
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 9 of 31
45. Defendant Fitzpatrick did not attempt to confirm whether Mr. Henry was the
individual identified by the CVS Operations Manager or if he matched the description given by
46. Defendant McMahon called in the license plate number of the minivan Mr. Henry
47. Defendant Cray thereafter joined Defendants Fitzpatrick and Leo Schlittler at the
scene.
48. Defendant Cray stated his support for the decision to continue to detain Mr.
49. Mr. Henry repeatedly told Defendants Leo Schlittler, Fitzpatrick, and Cray that
his metal handcuffs were too tight and asked for them to be adjusted, but the officers ignored
him. At no point did any of the Defendant officers check the tightness of the handcuffs or
50. Defendant Cray went inside the CVS and spoke to Defendant McMahon and the
CVS Operations Manager and Store Manager who confirmed that they had not seen John Doe
and Jane Doe steal anything from the store that day.
51. Throughout his detention, Mr. Henry asked the Defendant officers why they were
detaining and restraining him. The Defendant officers refused to answer Mr. Henry for half an
hour, when Defendant Cray left the CVS and told Mr. Henry that he was suspected of
shoplifting, even though Defendant Cray had learned that no shoplifting took place that day.
52. Mr. Henry offered to show a copy of the receipt for his CVS purchases, which
was on his phone. Defendants did not immediately accept this offer, which would have dispelled
any suspicion, and instead continued to detain him, ignoring the proof of Mr. Henry’s innocence.
9
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 10 of 31
and Leo Schlittler—confronted Mr. Henry. None of them told Mr. Henry why he was detained
or restrained for about 30 minutes; none of them read him his Miranda rights; none of them let
54. Instead, Mr. Henry was held in the vicinity of his workplace, without explanation
and without basis, even though Mr. Henry did not match the description of the suspect, was not
accompanied by a woman, and even after CVS could not substantiate that any shoplifting
whatsoever had occurred. Mr. Henry was humiliated, and he was concerned that his public
detention—in full view of a busy Starbucks and the people of Needham—would affect his ability
to get clients as a massage therapist by undermining his clients’ trust in him. Mr. Henry would
55. Compounding the harm to Mr. Henry, Defendant Fitzpatrick cruelly told Mr.
Henry that Defendant Fitzpatrick would apologize if Mr. Henry was not on the CVS surveillance
footage. Defendant Fitzpatrick knew that Mr. Henry had already said that he had been in the
CVS that day. And Defendant Fitzpatrick knew that this was a hollow, condescending statement
because simply being on the video had nothing to do with whether Mr. Henry was a shoplifter.
56. Defendant Cray ultimately made the decision to release Mr. Henry after his arrest.
57. When Mr. Henry asked for the Defendant officers’ information, Defendant Cray,
a Sergeant in NPD, walked away without giving Mr. Henry his badge number.
59. Mr. Henry was held for approximately 30 minutes, handcuffed in public view,
and arrested without justification, by Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo
10
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 11 of 31
60. After Defendant Leo Schlittler confronted Mr. Henry, shouted at him, grabbed
him, shoved him against the vehicle, and forced his hands behind his back, Defendant Leo
Schlittler continued to detain and restrain Mr. Henry without adjusting the handcuffs. Defendants
Leo Schlittler and Fitzpatrick also searched Mr. Henry’s person, car, and backpack.
61. Mr. Henry was in a coercive situation, surrounded by armed police officers and in
handcuffs. He was not armed, and there was no reason for the Defendant officers to believe he
was armed. Mr. Henry did not pose any threat to the Defendant officers. But the Defendant
officers unlawfully searched his person, his car, and his backpack inside his car anyway.
Defendants McMahon and Cray Failed to Consider Evidence During Mr. Henry’s
Detention.
62. Defendants McMahon and Cray also had an opportunity to review CVS footage
showing John Doe and Jane Doe with shopping carts inside the CVS and that there had been two
Black males in the store, confirming Mr. Henry’s innocence, during his detention. Defendants
McMahon and Cray did not do so. Instead, as evidence of Mr. Henry’s innocence mounted, they
ignored it.
63. Defendants McMahon and Cray failed to investigate or consider evidence that
64. The CVS Operations Manager and Store Manager both conveyed that Defendants
Cray and McMahon did not review the CVS footage from January 25, 2020 during Mr. Henry’s
detention.
11
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 12 of 31
NPD Denied Mr. Henry’s Request for Details Pertaining to His Arrest.
65. Mr. Henry submitted a public records request for details as to his arrest on
January 25, 2020, but NPD denied his request on January 27, 2020 without satisfactory
explanation.
Defendants McMahon and Cray Invented a False Theory of Mr. Henry’s Criminality.
66. Determined to find Mr. Henry guilty of some offense, Defendants Cray and
McMahon conspired to pursue a follow-up investigation of Mr. Henry subsequent to his release.
Defendant McMahon, with, at the direction of, and under the supervision of Defendant Cray,
McMahon reviewed the footage of CVS shoplifting incidents from months prior, specifically
footage from August 4, 2019 and October 19, 2019, the dates that the CVS Operations Manager
had provided for the prior incidents. Defendant McMahon falsely summarized her findings in
the police report—that Mr. Henry was the male perpetrator of both 2019 shoplifting incidents
and that he was assisted by Jane Doe in all three incidents. In fact, as NPD would later admit,
Mr. Henry did not appear in the video footage reviewed by Defendant McMahon at all.
68. Defendant Cray told Defendant McMahon to investigate whether Mr. Henry was
both embezzling from his workplace and regularly shoplifting from the CVS. Defendant Cray
instructed Defendant McMahon to ask Mr. Henry’s manager at Elements Massage if Mr. Henry
was given money to buy products for the business, “which he then pockets and steals the
product.” In or around February 2020, Defendant McMahon spoke to the manager at Elements
12
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 13 of 31
69. Without any evidence supporting the idea that Mr. Henry had stolen anything at
all—from the CVS or from his employer—Defendant Cray fabricated a theory under which Mr.
70. This theory was not based on any facts. The CVS video footage clearly
contradicted Defendants Cray and McMahon’s theory. Nevertheless, Defendants Cray and
McMahon continued to pursue Mr. Henry for crimes that he did not commit.
Defendants McMahon and Cray Investigated Mr. Henry’s Wife as a Potential Suspect with
No Evidence to Support this Theory.
71. Defendant McMahon concluded that Jane Doe appeared in the CVS footage from
August 4, 2019 and October 19, 2019. Defendant McMahon wrongly identified Jane Doe as Mr.
Henry’s wife, the woman to whom Mr. Henry’s minivan was registered and who is also
72. Defendant McMahon then pursued a false line of investigation based on a theory
that Mr. Henry’s wife was the perpetrator for all the shoplifting incidents, together with Mr.
Henry. There was no basis for this theory other than Defendant McMahon’s racial bias against
Mr. Henry. Her investigation was nothing more than a smear campaign against Mr. Henry and
his family, wrongly presuming that a Black man must be a criminal and because there was a
Black woman in the vicinity, the woman had to be his wife and she must be his accomplice.
73. Neither Mr. Henry nor his wife appeared in the footage showing alleged
74. Mr. Henry and his wife are both employed at Elements Massage, but they do not
drive into Needham together for their work shifts because one parent stays home to take care of
13
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 14 of 31
75. Defendant McMahon showed a still from the CVS footage to the manager at
Elements Massage, who confirmed it was not Mr. Henry’s wife, again undermining Defendants
76. The Defendant officers’ investigation into Mr. Henry’s wife, based solely on her
connection to him and their race, has further exacerbated Mr. Henry’s distress from his initial
arrest.
Defendants McMahon and Cray Published False and Malicious Libel Of and Concerning
Mr. Henry.
77. Defendant McMahon reported her observations from the events of January 25,
78. Defendant McMahon modified her report in or around January 30, 2020 -
February 3, 2020 to include her notes and false theories about who appeared in the 2019 CVS
footage and again on February 7, 2020 to include her notes from her meeting with the manager at
Elements Massage.
79. Defendant Cray approved the police report on February 22, 2020.
80. Defendants McMahon and Cray’s police report contained false and malicious
libel.
81. The false, defamatory, and slanderous statements made by Defendants McMahon
and Cray concerning Mr. Henry include, but are not limited to, the following:
14
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 15 of 31
f. “Henry had the first cart, which included the following items: 2
Listerine bottles, 2 Heals Soften lotion, 4 Palmer Cocoa Butter, 5 Dove
body wash bottles…Estimated value $112.87.”
82. Defendants McMahon and Cray falsely identified Mr. Henry as the male
shoplifting suspect entering the CVS at 2:53 p.m. when Mr. Henry did not enter the store until
3:01 p.m.
83. Defendants McMahon and Cray further attached photos to the report, which they
recklessly identified as photos of Mr. Henry. The photos were captured from the CVS video
footage and did not show Mr. Henry, but rather John Doe.
15
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 16 of 31
84. Regarding the 2019 shoplifting incidents, Defendants McMahon and Cray
continued to falsely and misleadingly refer to the male shoplifting suspect, John Doe, as
“Henry,” falsely reporting defamatory statements including, but not limited to:
a. “Henry enters (CVS Highland Ave door) while talking on the phone” at
4:50 p.m. on Sunday, August 4, 2019.
c. “Henry enters (CVS Highland Ave door) with gray hoodie, dark pants and
hat while on the phone.”
d. “Henry puts items in [redacted in original] cart and both parties interact.”
85. Defendants McMahon and Cray failed to investigate who was responsible for the
prior shoplifting crimes that they falsely attributed to Mr. Henry. Had they done so, they would
86. On or about July 22, 2020, Defendants McMahon and Cray caused to be
published the police report on the Town of Needham website with a statement that, “[i]n the
interest of transparency,” the Town was releasing an incident report detailing “facts of an
incident involving Mr. Henry on January 25, 2020” as well as “the subsequent investigation” and
several photos under the subheading “Incident Report Photos Involving Marvin Henry.”
87. The Defendants McMahon and Cray published the defamatory statements and
pictures with reckless disregard for their truth, ignoring that several of the pictures were
timestamped from 2019 and were unrelated to the January 25, 2020 incident. They also ignored
16
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 17 of 31
that nothing had been stolen on January 25, 2020 and therefore the pictures of full shopping carts
held no significance.
88. As of the filing of this complaint, these defamatory statements and pictures
Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler Conspired to Deprive Mr.
Henry of his Civil Rights and Sought to Cover Up their Targeting of Mr. Henry.
89. Defendants Cray, Leo Schlittler, McMahon, and Fitzpatrick made conflicting
statements to internal affairs and the independent investigators as to several key facts.
90. These facts included where Defendants were located at various stages of Mr.
Henry’s detainment and what aspects of it they each observed; how much time passed between
Mr. Henry’s initial stop and his handcuffing; whether Mr. Henry alerted the Defendants to the
pain from the handcuffs; whether Mr. Henry’s person was searched; whether Mr. Henry’s license
plate was run; whether the CVS Operations Manager positively identified Mr. Henry as the
suspect before a decision was made to handcuff Mr. Henry; and whether the CVS Operations
91. As one example, Defendant McMahon told the internal affairs investigators that
she did review video footage at CVS during the incident on January 25 but subsequently told the
independent investigators that she could not recall if she did so.
92. These inconsistencies and episodes of unreliable reporting reflect the Defendants’
intent to cover up the true circumstances of Mr. Henry’s unlawful search, false arrest, and the
93. As described above, Defendant Cray also directed Defendant McMahon to pursue
a fabricated theory of criminality for Mr. Henry based on no evidence that he had committed any
crime whatsoever, much less the scheme that Defendant Cray invented.
17
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 18 of 31
94. This subsequent investigation by Defendants Cray and McMahon was an attempt
to cover up Defendants Fitzpatrick, Leo Schlittler, and McMahon’s targeting and racial profiling
of Mr. Henry by conducting a fishing expedition for evidence that he had committed some crime
95. Defendant Cray told investigators that he did not have Defendants Leo Schlittler
and Fitzpatrick complete an incident report because he did not think one was warranted. This
96. This violation of policy was recognized by NPD’s internal affairs investigation.
97. This violation of policy also indicates the Defendants’ intent to conceal their
targeting of Mr. Henry by withholding facts and refusing to create a record of the Defendant
officers’ misconduct.
98. The Town of Needham, through NPD, also failed to explain why they denied Mr.
Henry’s public records request. The internal affairs investigators recognized that NPD’s
response to Mr. Henry’s request failed to uphold the guidelines promulgated by the Secretary of
99. This violation of policy also shows that Defendants intended and sought to
Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler Failed to Follow Several
Department Policies, Showing the Town of Needham and Defendant John Schlittler’s
Failure to Train and Resulting in Bias-Based Policing.
100. Defendants failed to follow several of their own policies, as recognized by the
internal affairs investigation and independent investigation reports. These failures include, but
18
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 19 of 31
101. Defendant Cray did not have Defendants Leo Schlittler and Fitzpatrick complete
an incident report, which violated NPD policy to document all arrests made.
102. Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler failed to follow
103. Defendant McMahon’s follow-up investigation did not follow internal policy.
Defendant McMahon identified Mr. Henry’s wife as Jane Doe and used CVS surveillance
footage during a visit to his wife’s employer to ask the employer to confirm the woman’s
identity. Defendant McMahon did not have any reason to believe that Mr. Henry’s wife was
involved except that she co-owned the van with Mr. Henry and it was titled in her name, and
Defendant McMahon suspected Mr. Henry. This conduct violated NPD policy on follow-up
104. Defendants Leo Schlittler and Fitzpatrick violated NPD policy to treat the public
with courtesy and respect. Defendant Leo Schlittler handcuffed Mr. Henry immediately upon
approach, without any conversation or discussion. Defendant Fitzpatrick taunted and derided
Mr. Henry. Neither Defendant Leo Schlittler nor Defendant Fitzpatrick loosened Mr. Henry’s
105. Defendant Cray violated NPD’s policy to provide officer identification upon
request.
106. Defendants Town of Needham and John Schlittler have acted with deliberate
indifference to the rights of Mr. Henry, including by failing to train NPD officers.
107. Defendants Town of Needham and John Schlittler failed to train Defendants Cray,
19
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 20 of 31
108. Defendants Town of Needham and John Schlittler also failed to train Defendants
Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler on the law of searches and seizures and equal
protection, causing Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler to violate Mr.
Henry’s rights.
109. The failure to train is particularly problematic because of the pattern of biased
Needham community to have any visibility into NPD’s activities. A local organization,
concerned about the lack of transparency and public metrics about NPD’s work in the
community, therefore made a public records request in September 2020 for data on NPD’s
110. The organization’s report, which it released in February 2021 based on the
records it received from NPD, makes clear that there is a pattern of bias-based policing by NPD
in Needham. 1 Black, Indigenous, and People of Color are only 16% of Needham’s population,
and Needham has a Black and Hispanic population of at most 7%. But Black, Indigenous, and
People of Color accounted for 35% of all handcuffings, 35% of all arrests, and 45% of all
offenses with criminal charges sought between September 2019 and August 2020. The statistics
111. According to the draft independent investigation report, NPD officers minimized
their mistreatment of Mr. Henry, implying that because he was never charged with any crime, he
1
See generally Equal Justice in Needham Public Safety Working Group, Race and Policing in Needham: An
Analysis of Public Records Request Data (2021), https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qtqE2P7my_-
kOJf2DBBGvjYlz6SkmUkU/view.
20
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 21 of 31
112. This attitude fails to recognize the hardship that Mr. Henry experienced during
and after his detention and the danger that police encounters pose to people of color, particularly
Black men. As stated by the independent investigators in their draft report, “[m]ore than once
during our interviews of NPD officers, we heard words to the effect of, ‘Mr. Henry wasn’t
charged, so…,’ as if to infer that his release from arrest without further law enforcement
involvement was essentially no harm, no foul.” This statement did not appear in the final version
of the report.
114. As a result of Mr. Henry’s traumatic and painful detention, he is still deeply
shaken and upset. He had to miss his shifts at Elements Massage on January 25 and the
subsequent weekend of work as a result of the humiliation, pain, and fear Defendants caused
him.
115. Mr. Henry was initially too traumatized to speak about Defendants’ actions. With
the support of his community, he is seeking accountability for the harm that Defendants inflicted
on him.
116. That harm continues to this day, and it will have long-term ramifications for Mr.
Henry’s life. Mr. Henry cannot return to the CVS, which he used to visit routinely, because he is
worried that he will once again be racially profiled by NPD. Mr. Henry is fearful every time he
is in Needham, where he continues to work, because of NPD’s treatment of him, and his
knowledge of the danger of race-based policing. And Mr. Henry continues to struggle with
21
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 22 of 31
CAUSES OF ACTION
117. Mr. Henry realleges and incorporates each and every allegation contained in the
preceding paragraphs.
118. At all relevant times, Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler
were employed by the Town of Needham and acted “under color of state law” within the
119. The Defendants arrested Mr. Henry. The Defendants did not have probable cause
120. By falsely arresting Mr. Henry, Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo
Schlittler deprived Mr. Henry of his clearly established rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth
121. As a direct and proximate cause of such acts, Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick,
McMahon, and Leo Schlittler deprived Mr. Henry of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment
122. Mr. Henry realleges and incorporates each and every allegation contained in the
preceding paragraphs.
123. Mr. Henry was falsely arrested, which acted as a threat, intimidation, or coercion
and forced him to give up his fundamental right to be free of unreasonable seizure.
124. By the acts and omissions described above, Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick,
McMahon, and Leo Schlittler deprived Mr. Henry of his clearly established right to be free of
22
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 23 of 31
unreasonable seizure as guaranteed under federal and state law in violation of the Massachusetts
125. Mr. Henry realleges and incorporates each and every allegation contained in the
preceding paragraphs.
126. At all relevant times, Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler
were employed by the Town of Needham and acted “under color of state law” within the
127. In detaining Mr. Henry, Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo
Schlittler jointly and in concert used excessive and unreasonable force against him.
128. By using excessive and unreasonable force against Mr. Henry, Defendants Cray,
Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler deprived Mr. Henry of his clearly established rights
under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to be free from excessive and unreasonable force.
129. As a result of the excessive and unreasonable force that Defendants Cray,
Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler used, Mr. Henry suffered damages.
130. Mr. Henry realleges and incorporates each and every allegation contained in the
preceding paragraphs.
131. Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler used excessive force
against Mr. Henry, which acted as a threat, intimidation, or coercion and forced him to give up
23
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 24 of 31
132. By the acts and omissions described above, Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick,
McMahon, and Leo Schlittler deprived Mr. Henry of his right to be free of unreasonable seizure
as guaranteed under federal and state law in violation of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act.
133. Mr. Henry realleges and incorporates each and every allegation contained in the
preceding paragraphs.
134. By using excessive and unjustified force against Mr. Henry, Defendants Cray,
Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler, jointly and in concert, intentionally and without
136. Mr. Henry realleges and incorporates each and every allegation contained in the
preceding paragraphs.
137. At all relevant times, Defendants Leo Schlittler and Fitzpatrick were employed by
the Town of Needham and acted “under color of state law” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §
1983.
138. Defendant Leo Schlittler deprived Mr. Henry of his right to be free from illegal
search, without any probable cause of criminality or reasonable suspicion that Mr. Henry was
139. Defendant Fitzpatrick deprived Mr. Henry of his right to be free from illegal
search by searching his vehicle and his backpack within the vehicle.
24
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 25 of 31
140. As a direct and proximate cause of such acts, Defendants Leo Schlittler and
Fitzpatrick deprived Mr. Henry of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, in violation of
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
141. Mr. Henry realleges and incorporates each and every allegation contained in the
preceding paragraphs.
142. At all relevant times, Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler
were employed by the Town of Needham and acted “under color of state law” within the
143. Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler detained, falsely
arrested, and unjustly treated Mr. Henry on account of his race. If he had been white, the officers
would not have treated him in the manner in which they did, or with the disrespect or force with
144. Defendants Cray and McMahon developed and pursued an invented theory of Mr.
145. The history of bias-based policing in Needham and across America supports the
claim that the officers acted intentionally and with bias against Mr. Henry.
146. As a direct and proximate cause of such acts, Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick,
McMahon, and Leo Schlittler violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by violating his Fourteenth Amendment
25
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 26 of 31
147. Mr. Henry realleges and incorporates each and every allegation contained in the
preceding paragraphs.
149. Defendant Leo Schlittler therefore coerced and intimidated Mr. Henry and
150. By the acts and omissions described above, Defendant Leo Schlittler violated Mr.
Henry’s right to equal protection under the laws in violation of the Massachusetts Civil Rights
Act.
151. Mr. Henry realleges and incorporates each and every allegation contained in the
preceding paragraphs.
152. At all relevant times, Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler
were employed by the Town of Needham and acted “under color of state law” within the
153. Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler acted in concert to
conspire to falsely arrest and use excessive force against Mr. Henry, inflicting a wrong against
him.
154. Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler took overt acts to
carry out their conspiracy by arresting Mr. Henry without probable cause and treating him
26
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 27 of 31
155. Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler’s accounts to Internal
Affairs and to the independent investigators demonstrate that they were attempting to cover up
156. Defendant McMahon and Defendant Cray’s fixation on proving Mr. Henry’s
nonexistent criminality, despite all evidence to the contrary, further demonstrates the existence of
the conspiracy.
157. As a direct and proximate cause of such acts, Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick,
McMahon, and Leo Schlittler violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by conspiring to harm Mr. Henry.
158. Mr. Henry realleges and incorporates each and every allegation contained in the
preceding paragraphs.
159. Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler conspired to deprive
Mr. Henry of his equal protection of the laws by falsely arresting him and using excessive force
against him.
160. Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler detained, falsely
arrested, and unjustly treated Mr. Henry on account of his race. If he had been white, the officers
would not have treated him in the manner in which they did, including by acting with force
161. The history of bias-based policing in Needham supports the claim that the officers
162. As a direct and proximate cause of such acts, Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick,
27
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 28 of 31
163. Mr. Henry realleges and incorporates each and every allegation contained in the
preceding paragraphs.
164. Mr. Henry is a private figure under the laws of defamation and libel.
165. The false statements made by Defendants Cray and McMahon in the police report
and Town of Needham website were of and concerning Mr. Henry, defamatory, and made with
166. The defamatory statements made by Defendants Cray and McMahon were
published to third parties with the knowledge that such publication would harm the reputation,
167. The statements made by Defendants Cray and McMahon allege that Mr. Henry
engaged in criminal conduct, and such allegations, which are false, are per se defamatory.
168. The statements made by Defendants Cray and McMahon prejudiced Mr. Henry’s
profession and business and such allegations, which are false, are per se defamatory.
169. As a proximate cause of the publishing of the false and malicious libel on the
Town of Needham website, Mr. Henry’s reputation, both personally and professionally, has been
greatly damaged and he has been subjected to humiliation, scorn and ridicule, and impaired his
170. The defamatory statements resulted in damage to Mr. Henry’s career and
reputation as a massage therapist as well as severe mental anguish and suffering, loss of income,
28
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 29 of 31
171. Mr. Henry realleges and reincorporates each and every allegation contained in the
preceding paragraphs.
172. At all relevant times, Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, John Schlittler,
and Leo Schlittler served as employees of Defendant Town of Needham, and they acted in
173. Despite the need for adequate training for police officers responding to 911 calls
about alleged crimes in process, Defendant Town of Needham has maintained, and continues to
174. At all relevant times, Defendant Town of Needham knew or should have known
and discriminatory, because it results in bias-based policing, civil rights violations, excessive use
training for police officers proximately caused the harms to Mr. Henry in violation of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.
177. Mr. Henry realleges and reincorporates each and every allegation contained in the
prior paragraphs.
178. By unlawfully seizing Mr. Henry, using excessive force against Mr. Henry,
committing equal protection violations against Mr. Henry, and conspiring to violate his civil
29
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 30 of 31
rights, Defendants Cray, Fitzpatrick, McMahon, and Leo Schlittler violated Mr. Henry’s
constitutional rights.
179. At all relevant times, Defendant John Schlittler, as the head of NPD, supervised
181. Defendants John Schlittler and Cray’s deliberate indifference and negligent
failure to provide adequate training to and supervision of their employees was a direct and
182. As a result of Defendants John Schlittler’s and Cray’s deliberate indifference, Mr.
d. Award the cost of this action, including reasonable attorney’s fees; and
e. Award such other relief as this Court may deem necessary and
appropriate.
JURY DEMAND
30
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 31 of 31
Respectfully submitted,
MARVIN HENRY
By his attorneys,
Rieko H. Shepherd*
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
(617) 526-6000
[email protected]
31
Case 1:21-cv-11116 Document 1-1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
1. Title of case (name of first party on each side only) Marvin Henry v. Town of Needham, et al.
Category in which the case belongs based upon the numbered nature of suit code listed on the civil cover sheet. (See local
rule 40.1(a)(1)).
, 40, 41, 4, 535, 830*, 8, 893, R.23, REGARDLESS OF NATURE OF SUIT.
II. 130, 190, 196, 370, 37, 440, 442, 443, 445, 446, 448, 820*, 840*, .
III. 120, 150, 151, 152, 153, 195, 210, 220, 24, 310, 315, 330, 340, 345, 350, 355, 360, 36,
367, 368, 37,38,422, 423, 40, 460, 462, 463, 465, 510, 530, 540, 550, 555,
625, 690, 7, 791, 861-865, 80,8,950.
*Also complete AO 120 or AO 121. for patent, trademark or copyright cases.
3. Title and number, if any, of related cases. (See local rule 40.1(g)). If more than one prior related case has been filed in this
district please indicate the title and number of the first filed case in this court.
4. Has a prior action between the same parties and based on the same claim ever been filed in this court?
YES NO
5. Does the complaint in this case question the constitutionality of an act of congress affecting the public interest? (See 28 USC
§2403)
YES NO ■
If so, is the U.S.A. or an officer, agent or employee of the U.S. a party?
YES NO
6. Is this case required to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges pursuant to title 28 USC §2284?
YES NO
7. Do all of the parties in this action, excluding governmental agencies of the United States and the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts (“governmental agencies”), residing in Massachusetts reside in the same division? - (See Local Rule 40.1(d)).
YES NO
A. If yes, in which division do all of the non-governmental parties reside?
YES NO
(PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT)
ATTORNEY'S 253526(
6NAME Timothy J. Perla, Joanna Howard, Rieko Shepherd, Lauren Sampson, Oren Sellstrom
ADDRESS 60 State Street, Boston MA, 02109
TELEPHONE NO. (617) 526-6000
(0$,/$''5(66 [email protected]
(CategoryForm-20.wpd )
JS 44 (Rev. 10/20) CIVIL
Case 1:21-cv-11116 COVER
Document 1-2 SHEET
Filed 07/07/21 Page 1 of 1
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
Marvin Henry Town of Needham; John Schlittler; Andrew Cray; Colin Fitzpatrick; Nicole McMahon; Leo Schlittler
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Suffolk County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Timothy J. Perla, Joanna Howard, Rieko Shepherd Lauren Sampson, Oren Sellstrom
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP Lawyers for Civil Rights
60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, (617) 526-6000 61 Batterymarch Street, Fifth Floor, Boston MA 02110
See Addendum for Additional Counsel (617) 988-0609
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government ✖ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: ✖ Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
July 7, 2021
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY