CIVIL SUIT NO. __ 114 “ay Cc Division RAPIDES PARISH POLICE JURY 9™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JOSEPH BISHOP VERSUS PARISH OF RAPIDES RAPIDES PARISH POLICE JUROR JAY SCOTT STATE OF LOUISIANA PETITION FOR PERMA‘ 'T INJUNCTION NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes RAPIDES PARISH POLICE JURY PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JOSEPH BISHOP, who respectfully represents that 1 Plaintiff in this proceeding is Joseph Bishop, a resident and domiciliary of Rapides Parish, Louisiana, appearing herein in his official capacity as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Rapides Parish Police Jury (the “Police Jury”), a political subdivision of the State of Louisiana. 2 Made defendant is Rapides Parish Police Juror Jay Scott (“Scott”), a resident and domiciliary of Rapides Parish, Louisiana; Scott took his Oath of Office as a member of the Police Jury in December 2021, and is named defendant herein in his individual capacity. 3 The Police Jury is a legislative and administrative body; its legislative functions include the enactment of ordinances/resolutions; the establishment of programs; and the setting of policies for the benefit of Rapides Parish and its residents. As an administrative body, the Police Jury inter alia prepares its budget; hires personnel; spends funds for public works/public projects; and directs activities over which it has supervisory authority. 4 ‘The Police Jury is also an employer of individuals acting as administrative employees. and employees of various boards and commissions under the supervision of the Police Jury. (Hereafter referenced as “Police Jury employces” or “Parish employees”) \\5. As President and Chief Executive Officer of the Police Jury, plaintiff oversees Police Jury opcrations, and is fully cognizant of his official duty to maintain a workplace free from threats of any sort, harassment, racial undertones and permeated with vulgar, vituperative language spewed repeatedly and loudly in the presence of Police Jury employees, Police Jury members and the public. 6 As described below, and as will be shown at trial, defendant Scott's improper harassment, veiled threats, repeated references to his criminal past, as well as his repeated, continuing vulear, obscene and intolerable language — in violation of socictal norms, Police Jury policy, and in contravention of required workplace conditions protected by Louisiana and Federal law have necessitated this Petition for Permanent Injunction. 1 Through his improper conduct, Scott has repeatedly violated Police Jury employees" and Police Jury members’ right to be free from an atmosphere steeped in threats, harassment, intimidating behavior and vulgar, indecent language 8 Defendant Scott has personally — and through text messages — expressed indecent, repugnant vulgarisms to Police Jurors (in public) and made veiled threats to other Police Jury members which include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Ata public Police Jury Meeting, in the presence of female parish employees, Police Jurors and the members of the public, Scott made the following unprovoked statements to African-American minority Police Juror Ollie Overton: “E#*k you Ollie” “Taint got no f**king use for you. / started to take vour f**king ass out when you were running. You **ing around there and voting with them mother F**king white boys. I aint got no P*king use for you.” (See Ex. 1, emphasis added) (2) To Police Juror Sean McGlothlin [Text Messge Vulgarisms/Veiled Threat}: “Scan this the second damn time u have came at Me with some f**k sh*t That’s not wht the Pek I said, I try to be cool but I not that cool. Don't never agin in wr life try to.ask or tell me what the f**k nobody said I say.” (See Ex. 2, emphasis added) (3) Toplaimtiff [Text Message] “So joc what kind of games yall playing, ... Believe me I’m paying attention to yall bull-sh"t.” (Ex. 3, emphasis added)9. Scott's vulgar text messages to Police Juror Sean MeGlothilin prompted a vulgar response from Juror MeGlothlin; Scott’s improper, threatening language and repeated vulgarisms have created needless, disruptive rancor between Scott and other Police Jury members 10. African-American minority Police Juror Ollie Overton documented his complaint regarding Scott’s above quoted language at the Police Jury Mecting (see Ex. 1), which concluded with minority Juror Overton’s statement that “Mr. Scott then went down the Police Jury office hallway steadily cursing out loud and the office ladies were right there.” (/d., emphasis added), 1 Female parish employces also complained to a female supervising employee regarding Scott's behavior at the Police Jury Mecting; her report to plaintiff of the female employees’ complaints - which addressed some, but not all of Scott’s improper behavior and blatant, unapologetic vulgarisms ~ stated, in part “Thad a couple employees come to me this morning about the incident after the Committee Meeting yesterday. The situation and atmosphere it created made them very uncomfortable and worried that it may escalate to a more serious altercation. They found the severe curse words and racial undertones used by Mr. Jay Scott offensive and unprofessional, It is part job... to ensure my employees a safe and positive work environment.” (Emphasis added), 12. AL the conclusion of the March 11, 2024 Police Jury Meeting, plaintiff asked all Police Jurors to please deal with cach other in a professional, respectful and polite manner, free from curse words, disrespectful conduct or harsh words, (See Ex. 4, Meeting Minutes Excerpts, p. 2) 13. Immediately after plaintiff's March | 1.2024 plea for respectful behavior and civil language, Scott requested, and was granted, a meeting with plaintiff in the Police Jury President’s office. 14, ‘There, with the office door open, and in the presence of African-American minority Police Juror Emest Nelson, Scott began a loud, vulgar tirade, repeatedly using the words “f**k” and “sh*t,” as well as referencing “playing games with my ass,” and contemptuously bragging of “telling Ollic’s ass off” (in reference to African-American minority Police Juror Ollie Overton).Is. When African-American minority Police Juror Emest Nelson asked Scott to watch his language “because the door was open” and female administrative employees were outside, Scott replied “they can’t hear s**t.” Rapides Parish Deputy Sheriff Joseph Franklin then stepped into the doorway and attempted to have Scott cease his cursing; plaintiff then told Scott the meeting was over. (See Ex. 5, plaintif("s correspondence summary to Scott). 16, Following Jay Scott’s outburst in the President's office, female parish Police Jury employees reported the following to plaintiff: 1) Prior to Mr. Scott entering the President’s office for the meeting, Mr. Scott was standing in the office lobby by female Police Jury employees when he said out loud: ... these bitch ass motherf**ckers”; 2) That they could hear all of the audible offensive vulgarisms used by Mr. Scott during the Mecting in the President’s office directed at plaintiff and/or African-American minority Police Juror Emest Nelson. 7, Also on March 12, 2024, a female Police Jury employee complained to the Police Jury regarding defendant Scott’s encounter with her at an Alexandria business establishment, during the employee’s lunch break; the employee’ reported Scott, inter alia, sought to discuss the March 2024 Police Jury Meeting, and referred to “a piece of paper” which purportedly stated Scott 1 “was a threat” to the office; that two Police Jury employces were “afraid” of Scott; and that Scott was “saying racial comments” to African-American minority Police Juror Ollie Overton. 18, The female employee further reported that during the March _12, 2024 encounter, Scott sought to defend against the “racial” comments accusation, stating his “white boys” reference while confronting minority Police Juror Overton did not include the word “crackers,” and said any reference to Scott as “black” would simply describe “what he is,” although calling him a “n***a” would be racist. 19, During the March 12, 2024 encounter, Scott also referenced his arrest record, and advised the female employee (as described by her), “we haven seen hostile and that we need to read his records;* that he “was not afraid of his past;” that “he used to be crazy” and is “not like that now;” further stating “that if it was back in the old days he would have already cleared the courthouse,”and that “they didn't want to play with him.” (Emphasis added). 20. Itwas further reported by the female parish employee that Scott told her “he had something to show me and that ifit leaked out that he know where it came from.” Scott then showed the female employee “text messages,” as well as lewd and suggestive “photos and videos” of another female parish employee with whom Scott appeared to have be intimately involved 21 Apart from the above described encounter with a female employee, Scott has also referenced his voluminous arrest record to other Police Jury employees, clearly intending to intimidate the employees; create fear of Scott among the employees; and cement Scotts status as a dangerous person. 2 Because Scott has repeatedly referenced his arrest record, and, as earlier noted, specifically told a female parish employee: “that we haven’t seen hostile and that we nced to read his records ... that if it was back in the_old days he would have already cleared the courthouse... that they didn’t want to play with_him” plaintiff obtained and read Scott’s above referenced records (on file at the Office of the Rapides Parish Clerk of Cour), which reveal multiple offenses, including: 1) Attempted Distribution/Manufacturing Controlled Dangerous Substance II; 2) Disturbing the Peace by the use of Offensive Language; 3) Contributing to the Delinquency of a Juvenile; 4) Entering Upon Premises/ Remaining After Forbidden; Contempt of Court; 5) Flight from an Officer; 6) Simple Burglary; and 7) Theft 23. There can be no purpose in Scott’s repeated references to his arrest record (reflecting Scott's violent acts and complete disregard for the rights of others) except to frighten, and/or to intimidate, and/or to create anxiety in any Police Jury employee or Police Jury member who hears Scott’s arrest references, or actually reads Scott's extensive record of arrests.24. ‘Also, plaintiff has become aware that, in Scott’s capacity as a Committee Chairman for one of the Parish Departments, Scott made inappropriate statements to one of the Parish employees; sent inappropriate text messages to the employee; followed the employee after working hours; and created concems for the employee's _personal safety. Scott’s conduct has been described by the ‘employee as “workplace harassment,” “interruption of job performance,” and “duress.” 25 Scott has also repeatedly appeared at the Police Jury Administrative Offices where he has (1) made profanity-laden derogatory comment regarding other Police Jury members, including use ofthe phrase “white privilege”; (2) improperly and with no authority whatsoever, attempted to direct Police Jury employees in the performance of their job duties; and (3) demanded that various individuals be hired, as if the spoils system were alive and well and operated by Scott. 26 Despite completing three (3) training sessions in Sexual Harassment Prevention during 2022 and 2023 (see Ex. 6, Training Certificates), Scott has engaged in inappropriate behavior towards female parish employees. 27. Scott has been unwilling to cease his improper bhavior; therefore, Scott’s conduct must be restrained through injunctive relief. 28 Unless @ permanent injunction is issued in the form and substance set forth below, plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury in his official capacity as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Rapides Parish Police Jury, in that plaintiff will be unable to prevent Scott's continued harassment of Police Jury employees and Police Jury members; plaintiff also will be unable to end Scott’s creation of harassing, abusive and intolerable working conditions for Police Jury employees as well as Police Jury members; nor will plaintiff be able to quell Police Jury employees" and Police Jury members’ fears for their safety arising from Scott's conduct and language, as set forth above. Moreover (as further addressed below), plaintiff will be unable to stop Scott’s non-consensual disclosure of private images and/or photographs and/or videos of one female Police Jury employce to any other Police Jury employee, or other members of the public.29. Additionally, Scott’s improper behavior implicates sex and/or racial discrimination in violation of Louisiana and Federal law, and is prohibited by, inter alia. L 3:303, ef sec including specifically La, R.S. 23:332, as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000¢, et sec. (“Title Vil"), Also, Scott’s above-referenced improper, non-consensual disclosure of private images/photos of one female parish employce to another female parish employee - and the expectation he will continue such reprehensible conduct ~ also violates privacy rights. protected by Louisiana law, including, specifically, the provisions of La. Const. Art. 1,§ 5. (“Every person shall be sccure in his person ... communications ... or invasions of privacy. ...” A permanent Injunction is needed to prevent Scott from engaging in these activities. 30. Further, Scott’s improper actions violate the Oath of Office taken by all Louisiana clected officials; when taking his Oath of Office as a member of the Rapides Parish Police Jury, Scott specifically swore “to uphold the constitution and laws of the United States and the constitution and Jaws of this state,” (See Ex. 7, Oath of Office Form for Louisiana Elected Officials). 31 For purposes of issuing a Permanent Injunction, a showing of “irreparable injury” is not required to enjoin acts which violate the law. As stated in Louisiana Associated General Contractors, Inc. v. Calcasieu Parish School Bd., 572 So.2d 623 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1990): “ILis well settled that it is unnecessary for a party secking an injunction to allege or prove irreparable injury if threatened action is a violation of prohibitory law. Smith v. City of Alexandria, 420 $0.24 1329 (La. App. 3d Cir. 1982); Budd Construction Co., Inc. v. City of Alexandria. 40\ So.2d 1070 (La. App. 3° Cir.), writ denied, 404 So.2d 1262 (La. 1981) (d,, at 628, emphasis added). 32 Although plaintiff has attached numerous Exhibits to this Petition, plaintiff has withheld documents showing statements and reports of individual Police Jury employees; these documents have been sealed as confidential (to protect the identity of cach employee and/or to protect against any possible verbal abuse or other retaliation by Scott). The referenced documents will be produced in discovery, subject 1o a Protective Order which will hereafter be sought by plaintiff. WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS:A. For the issuance of a Permanent Injunction prohibiting defendant Jay Scott from engaging in the following improper acts: (1) Making threats of any nature to any Police Jury employee and/or to any member of the Rapides Parish Police Jury, including plaintiff Joseph Bishop; (2) Making vile, crude references to feces, sexual intercourse, human genitalia, and using any form or combination of the words “f**k,” “motherf**ker,” “sh*t,” “bitch,” “ass,” or using any other vulgar-anatomically-oriented or scatological language, as well as making racial slurs (as to African-Americans, Caucasians, or members of any other race) to Police Jury employees and/or to Police Jury members via telephone, text messages, email, in- person and/or through any other form of communication whatsoever, and specifically: a) at Public Meetings of the Police Jury; b) in the Police Jury Mecting Room and/or within the Police Jury Administrative Offices and/or at any other place where Police Jury employees and/or Police Jury members may be found; b) at any premises (or lands) in Rapides Parish where employces of the Police Jury engage in work activities and/or at any facility owned and/or operated by the Police Jury; (3) Cursing and/or using threatening and/or abusive and/or harassing and/or derogatory and/or retaliatory language directed to any Police Jury employee and/or any Police Jury member via telephone, text messages, email, in-person and/or through any other form of communication whatsoever, and specifically. 4) at Public Meetings of the Police Jury: b) in the Police Jury Mecting Room and/or within the Police Jury Administrative Offices and/or at any other place where Police Jury employees and/or Police Jury members may be found; ©) at any premises (or lands) in Rapides Parish where employees of the Police Jury engage in work activities and/or at any facility owned and/or operated by the Police Jury. B, Plaine further prays for the issuance of a Permanent Injunction prohibiting defendant Jay Scott: (1) From entering the Police Jury Administration Offices for the Office of Economic and . Workforce Development (“OEWD”) for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of Judgment herein, unless: a) Jay Scott has previously sent (via email or telephone contact to Rapides Parish Police Jury President and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Bishop) a formal request tocnter the Administrative Offices for the OEWD to conduct legitimate Police Jury work and/or to perform Police Jury related. services for his constituents, which formal request must (1) state the time and date of requested entry; (2) specify the Purpose of the requested entry; (3) identify the Police Jury employee or employees, Jay Scott proposes to meet with at the OEWD; (4) identify any other person or persons, if any, who will accompany Jay Scott to the Police Jury Administrative Office for the OEWD; and (5) state the approximate time Jay Scott proposes to be on the OEWD premises; and, b) Jay Scott’s formal request to enter the Administrative Offices for the OEWD has been granted by Police Jury President and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Bishop;and further: (2) Prohibiting Jay Scott from non-consentual disclosure of private images and/or photographs and/or videos of one Police Jury employee to any other Police Jury employee. andior to any other person whatsoever; C. Plaintiff further prays: (1) For all equitable and/or other relief proper in the premises, and (2) That all costs of this proceeding be assessed to defendant Jay Scott, Respectfully submitted. GOLD, WEEMS, BRUSER, SYES & RUNDELL By: LV Steven M. Oxchhandler (#28405) Michael J. O’Shee (#10268) Joshua J. Dara, Jr. (#35739) [Special Counsel for the Rapides Parish District Attorney's Office] 2001 MacArthur Drive/P.O. Box 6118 Alexandria, LA 713-7-6118 Tel: (318( 445-647 1/ Fax: (318) 445-6476 Email:[email protected] Email: [email protected] Email:[email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, RAPIDES PARISH POLICE JURY PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JOSEPH BISHOP Please Serve Jay Scott at either of the below addresses: 2006 Thornton Court Alexandria, Louisiana or 5810 Sabrina Drive Alexandria, Louisiana