Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 6 Filed 03/02/17 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

CHERYL MATORY
TOMECA BARNES PLAINTIFFS

VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-989-LG-RH

HINDS COUNTY SHERIFF VICTOR MASON,

IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, AND
HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI DEFENDANTS

SHERIFF VICTOR MASON AND HINDS COUNTY,

MISSISSIPPIS ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Come now, Sheriff Victor Mason and Hinds County, Mississippi, by and through

counsel, and in response to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint would show unto the

Court as follows:

FIRST DEFENSE

Answering defendants specifically assert and invoke all the privileges available

to them as set forth in Federal R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)-(7) for which a good faith, legal and/or

factual basis exists or may exist.

SECOND DEFENSE

Insofar as any alleged cause of action for race, sex or gender discrimination, or

any portion thereof, was not contained in the charge discrimination filed with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission within the time prescribed by 42 U.S.C. 2000e-

5(e), which statute is plead as a defense and as a statute of limitations, the First

Amended Complaint should be dismissed.

 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 6 Filed 03/02/17 Page 2 of 16

THIRD DEFENSE

Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint fails to state facts against the Answering

defendants which would rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation under the laws

of the United States or the Constitution of the United States.

FOURTH DEFENSE

Insofar as any state law claims are concerned, Answering defendants invoke each

and every restriction, limitation, requirement, privilege and immunity of the

Mississippi Tort Claims Act, Miss. Code Ann. 11-46-1, et seq.

FIFTH DEFENSE

All or part of the claims asserted in this action are barred by the applicable

statutes of limitations, including 29 U.S.C. 255-256.

SIXTH DEFENSE

At all relevant times, the Plaintiff was an exempt employee and not entitled to

overtime under all applicable regulations and provisions of the Fair Labor Standards

Act, including without limitation 29 U.S.C. 213(a)(1).

SEVENTH DEFENSE

Further, and in the alternative if necessary, defendants state that part or all of

any time Plaintiffs allege should be paid to them is properly preliminary or

postliminary time under the Portal-to-Portal Pay Act; 29 U.S.C. 254(a), and therefore

not compensable.

EIGHTH DEFENSE

Further, and in the alternative if necessary, any alleged violations are de minimis.

2
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 6 Filed 03/02/17 Page 3 of 16

NINTH DEFENSE

In the alternative if necessary defendants state that their actions with respect to

Plaintiffs were taken in good faith in conformity with and reliance on a written

administrative regulation, order, ruling, approval, interpretation, and/or administrative

practice or policy.

TENTH DEFENSE

Further, and in the alternative if necessary, defendants state that their actions

with respect to Plaintiffs were taken in good faith with reasonable grounds to believe

such conduct comported with the Fair Labor Standards Act or interpretations of the Fair

Labor Standards Act. Therefore, liquidated damages are not appropriate.

ELEVENTH DEFENSE

Defendants state that Plaintiffs have received full payment for all work

performed thereby barring Plaintiffs claims.

TWELFTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the defendants have

acted, at all applicable times, reasonably and in good faith.

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs state law claims are based on an FLSA claim and are, therefore,

preempted.

FOURTEENTH DEFENSE

Defendants are entitled to all setoffs available under the Fair Labor Standards

Act.

3
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 6 Filed 03/02/17 Page 4 of 16

FIFTEENTH DEFENSE

Answering defendants deny that they have been guilty of any actionable

conduct.

SIXTEENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff failed to exhaust internal administrative remedies and, therefore, her

claims are barred.

SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE

Any and all actions taken with respect to Plaintiffs were not based upon any

prohibited factors or upon any unlawful or impermissible reasons, but were taken in

good faith and for legitimate reasons and based upon legitimate factors that included

job performance, level of professional and judgment, level of responsibilities, market

forces, salary history, total years of experience, years of experience as administrator,

years of experience in the job, certification, number of contract days worked, and length

of work day.

EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages.

NINTEENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs suffered no adverse employment action.

TWENTIETH DEFENSE

Answering defendants did not engage in unfavorable or adverse employment

action that gave rise to an inference of discrimination against Plaintiffs on account of

race, sex or gender.

4
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 6 Filed 03/02/17 Page 5 of 16

TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE

Answering defendants did not engage in or take any cognizable adverse

personnel action against Plaintiffs.

TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE

No causal link exists between any protected activity engaged in by Plaintiffs and

any unfavorable or adverse employment action against Plaintiffs.

TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE

Plaintiffs failure to show that they have been treated differently from other

employees in similar situations is fatal to their claim of race, sex or gender

discrimination violative of Title VII and requires dismissal.

TWENTY-FOURTH DEFENSE

ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

And now, without waiving any defense heretofore or hereinafter set forth,

Answering defendants respond to the allegations of Plaintiffs First Amended

Complaint, paragraph by paragraph, as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Answering defendants admit that jurisdiction in this matter is

appropriate. Answering defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 1 of

Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint.

5
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 6 Filed 03/02/17 Page 6 of 16

2. Answering defendants admit that venue in this matter is proper.

Answering defendants deny the remaining allegations of Plaintiffs First Amended

Complaint.

PARTIES

3. Answering defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Complaint.

4. Answering defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Complaint.

5. Answering defendants admit that Victor Mason is the duly elected Sheriff

of Hinds County, Mississippi and that he may be served with process pursuant to the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Answering defendants lack information sufficient to

make a determination as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 5 of

Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint and, as such, deny the same.

6. Answering defendants admit that Hinds County, Mississippi, is a political

subdivision organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of

Mississippi and that it may be served with process pursuant to the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Answering defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 6

of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

7. Answering defendants admit that in 2015, Mason asked, among others,

Matory to assist him in his seeking election as the Sheriff of Hinds County, Mississippi.

6
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 6 Filed 03/02/17 Page 7 of 16

Answering defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs First

Amended Complaint as stated.

8. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Complaint as stated.

9. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Complaint as stated.

10. Answering defendants admit that Victor Mason defeated then Sheriff

Tyrone Lewis in the primary election in 2015. Answering defendants deny the

remaining allegations of paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs First Amended Compliant as stated.

11. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Complaint as stated.

12. Answering defendants admit that Mason attended a victory party and

that photographs were taken, Answering defendants deny the remaining allegations of

paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint.

13. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Complaint as stated.

14. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Complaint as stated.

15. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Complaint as stated.

16. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Complaint as stated.

7
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 6 Filed 03/02/17 Page 8 of 16

17. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Complaint as stated.

18. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Complaint as stated.

19. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Complaint as stated.

20. Answering defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 20 of

Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint as stated.

21. Answering defendants admit that Sheriff Mason was sworn in as the

Sheriff of Hinds County, Mississippi on December 31, 2016. Furthermore, answering

defendants admit that Sheriff Mason subsequently hired Matory as undersheriff and

Barnes as supervisor of the Internal Affairs Division. Answering defendants deny the

remaining allegations of paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint.

22. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Complaint.

23. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Complaint.

24. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Complaint.

25. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Complaint.

8
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 6 Filed 03/02/17 Page 9 of 16

26. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Complaint.

27. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Complaint.

28. Answering defendants admit that Matory and Barnes were both moved to

different positions than those they originally began working in. Answer defendants

deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint.

29. Answering defendants admit that Matory was assigned a crime scene

investigative position. Answer defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph

29 of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint.

30. Answering defendants admit that Matory was directed to appear at the

office of Claire Barker, Counsel for Hinds County Sheriffs Department. Answering

defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs First Amended

Complaint as stated.

31. Answering defendants admit that Matory left her vehicle in the middle of

the street and threw her service weapon on the seat of the same. Answering defendants

deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 31 of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint

as stated.

32. Answering defendants admit that Matory was given correspondence

regarding her termination from Hinds County, Mississippi Sheriffs Department.

Answering defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Complaint.

9
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 6 Filed 03/02/17 Page 10 of 16

33. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 33 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Complaint.

34. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 34 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Complaint.

35. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 35 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Complaint as stated.

36. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 36 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Complaint as stated.

37. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 37 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Complaint as stated.

CAUSE OF ACTIONS

SECUALLY HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

QUID PRO QUO SEXUAL HARASSMENT

38. Answering defendants repeat and incorporate by reference each and

every defense, admission, and denial to paragraphs 1-37 hereinabove as if the same

were specifically set out herein.

39. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 39 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Compliant.

40. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 40 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Compliant.

41. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 41 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Compliant.

10
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 6 Filed 03/02/17 Page 11 of 16

SEX DISCRIMINATION

42. Answering defendants repeat and incorporate by reference each and

every defense, admission, and denial to paragraphs 1-41 hereinabove as if the same

were specifically set out herein.

43. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 43 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Compliant.

44. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 44 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Compliant.

45. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 45 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Compliant.

RACE DISCRIMINATION

46. Answering defendants repeat and incorporate by reference each and

every defense, admission, and denial to paragraphs 1-45 hereinabove as if the same

were specifically set out herein.

47. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 47 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Compliant.

48. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 48 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Compliant.

RETALIATION FIRST AMENDMENT AND TITLE VII

49. Answering defendants repeat and incorporate by reference each and

every defense, admission, and denial to paragraphs 1-48 hereinabove as if the same

were specifically set out herein.

11
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 6 Filed 03/02/17 Page 12 of 16

50. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 50 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Compliant.

51. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 51 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Compliant.

52. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 52 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Compliant.

BREACH OF CONTRACT/DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE

53. Answering defendants repeat and incorporate by reference each and

every defense, admission, and denial to paragraphs 1-52 hereinabove as if the same

were specifically set out herein.

54. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 54 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Compliant.

55. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 55 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Compliant.

56. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 56 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Compliant.

FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

57. Answering defendants repeat and incorporate by reference each and

every defense, admission, and denial to paragraphs 1-56 hereinabove as if the same

were specifically set out herein.

58. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 58 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Compliant.

12
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 6 Filed 03/02/17 Page 13 of 16

59. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 59 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Compliant.

DAMAGES

60. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 60 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Compliant.

61. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 61 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Compliant.

RELIEF

62. Answering defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 62 of Plaintiffs

First Amended Compliant including subparagraphs a-f and would affirmatively aver

that the Plaintiffs are not entitled any relief whatsoever.

As for the unnumbered paragraph, which commences, WHEREFORE

PREMISES CONSIDERED, answering defendants deny each and every allegation

contained therein and would affirmatively aver that Plaintiffs are not entitled to any

relief whatsoever.

TWENTY-FIFTH DEFENSE

Answering defendants is protected by and invokes all the immunities granted by

judicial, common law, and statutory sovereign immunity.

TWENTY-SIXTH DEFENSE

Answering defendants alleges that it met or exceeded the requirements of law

and due care and that it is guilty of no acts or omissions which either caused or

contributed to the incident in question.

13
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 6 Filed 03/02/17 Page 14 of 16

TWENTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE

Answering defendants alleges that Plaintiffs claims are barred by the applicable

statute of limitations, res judicata, collateral estoppel, laches, waiver, contributory

negligence, accord and satisfaction, lack of standing, release, and/or estoppel.

TWENTY-EIGHTH DEFENSE

Answering defendants assert the defense specified in Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524

U.S. 775 (1998), and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) to the extent

applicable.

TWENTY-NINTH DEFENSE

The Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any enhanced, punitive, or exemplary

damages, as provided by Miss. Code Ann. 11-46-15, insofar as any state law claims are

concerned. Additionally, Answering defendants would affirmatively state that the

Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover enhanced, punitive, or exemplary damages, the

same being violative of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of

the Constitution of the United States and Article III, Section 14 of the Constitution of the

State of Mississippi, inclusive of, but not necessarily limited to, the following separate

and several grounds:

(a) The procedures may result in the award of joint and several judgments

against multiple defendants for different alleged acts of wrongdoing.

(b) The procedures fail to provide means for awarding separate judgments

against alleged joint tortfeasors.

14
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 6 Filed 03/02/17 Page 15 of 16

(c) The procedures fail to provide a limit on the amount of the award against

the defendants.

(d) The procedures fail to provide specific standards for the amount of the

award of punitive damages.

(e) The procedures permit award of punitive damages upon satisfaction of a

standard of proof less than that applicable to the imposition of criminal sanctions.

(f) The procedures permit multiple awards of punitive damages for the same

alleged act.

(g) The procedures fail to provide a clear consistent appellant standard of

review of an award for punitive damages.

(h) The procedures may permit the admission of evidence relative to punitive

damages in the same proceedings during which liability and compensatory damages

are determined.

(i) The standard of conduct upon which punitive damages are sought is

vague.

THIRITIETH DEFENSE

Answering defendants reserve the right to add additional defenses as the same

become known during the course of discovery of this cause.

And now, having answered the First Amended Complaint filed against them,

Answering defendants request that the same be dismissed, that it be discharged, and

that costs be assessed against the Plaintiffs.

DATE: March 2, 2017.

15
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 6 Filed 03/02/17 Page 16 of 16

Respectfully submitted,

SHERIFF VICTOR MASION AND

HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

BY: /s/William R. Allen

One of Their Attorneys

WILLIAM R. ALLEN (MSB #100541)

JESSICA S. MALONE (MSB #102826)
Allen, Allen, Breeland & Allen, PLLC
214 Justice Street
P. O. Box 751
Brookhaven, MS 39602
Tel: 601-833-4361
Fax: 601-833-6647
wallen@aabalegal.com
jmalone@aabalegal.com

CERTIFICATE

I, the undersigned of Allen, Allen, Breeland & Allen, PLLC, hereby certify that on

this day, I electronically filed the foregoing Sheriff Victor Mason and Hinds County,

Mississippis Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint with the Clerk of the

Court which gave notice of the same to:

Lisa M. Ross, Esq.

P.O. Box 11264
Jackson, MS 39283-1264
lross@lmrossatlaw.com

The 2nd day of March, 2017.

/s/William R. Allen
OF COUNSEL

16
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 2 Filed 01/20/17 Page 1 of 17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

CHERYL MATORY
TOMECA BARNES PLAINTIFFS

VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16CV 989 LG-RH

HINDS COUNTY SHERIFF VICTOR MASON,

IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, AND
HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI DEFENDANTS

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Jury Trial Demanded)

COME NOW, Plaintiffs Cheryl Matory and Tomeca Barnes, by and through her

attorney, Lisa M. Ross, and file this their Complaint against the Defendants, as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This suit is authorized and instituted pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Right

Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000 et seq.; Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C.

1981, 42 U.S.C. 1983, 29 U.S.C. 201 and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of

the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction of the Court is invoked pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

2000E-5(f), 28 U.S.C. 1343(a)(3) & (4), and 28 U.S.C. 1331.

2. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). A substantial part of the events

or omissions giving rise to these claims acts complained of by Plaintiffs occurred in the

Northern Division of Southern District of Mississippi.

 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 2 Filed 01/20/17 Page 2 of 17

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Cheryl Matory (hereinafter Matory) is an adult African-American

female resident citizen of Hinds County, Mississippi.

4. Plaintiff Tomeca Barnes (hereinafter Barnes) is an adult African-American

female resident citizen of Hinds County, Mississippi.

5. Defendant Victor Mason (hereinafter Mason) is the Sheriff of Hinds County,

Mississippi. At all times material herein, Mason was acting within the course and scope

of his employment as Sheriff of Hinds County, Mississippi. Mason may be served with

process of this Court by service on him at his business address of Hinds County Sheriffs

Office, 407 East Pascagoula Street, Jackson, Mississippi. Victor Mason is sued in his

individual capacity.

6. Defendant Hinds County, Mississippi was and still is a county organized and

existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Mississippi. This defendant may

be served with process of this Court in care of its agent for service, Darrel McQuirter,

President, Hinds County Board of Supervisors, Hinds County Chancery Court Building,

316 South President Street, Jackson, Mississippi.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

7. In 2015 Mason asked Matory, then a Jackson Police Department (hereinafter

JPD) corporal and crime scene investigator, to assist him in recruiting employees to

work for him in anticipation of his election as the Sheriff of Hinds County, Mississippi.

At the time, Matory had more than 20 years of law enforcement experience with JPD and

the Biloxi Police Department. Mason directed Matory to invite Barnes, then a Jackson

Police Department (hereinafter JPD) corporal, to work with them to elect him as

2
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 2 Filed 01/20/17 Page 3 of 17

sheriff. Mason promised Matory he would select her as his undersheriff if he won the

sheriffs election. Mason promised Barnes that he would select her as the head

supervisor of Internal Affairs Division (hereinafter IAD) if he became the sheriff.

8. During the campaign season, Mason began frequently texting Matory about

Barnes. On June 16, 2015, Mason texted Matory and asked Where Temeca Barnes?

Matory replied that Barnes was working. On July 8, 2015 at 2:20 p.m., Mason texted

Matory and asked, Wheres Temeca Barnes? Matory, who also worked part-time at the

Hilton, replied: Not @ the Hilton Bossman. Mason retorted: she and I need to be at

the Hilton. Matory responded: -. Mason texted again and said, where is she?

Matory replied: somewhere praying. Barnes also is a minister. In response, Mason

texted, hopefully to get me. Matory texted Mason and asked are you serious?

Mason did not respond.

9. On July 15, 2015 at 6:12 a.m., Mason sent Matory a video of a male JPD officer

performing a sexual act on another male. On July 26, 2015 at 7:37 a.m., Mason texted

Matory and said Temeca Barns. Matory responded, whats going on Bossman,

Barnes. Mason asked, where is she? Matory told Mason she didnt know. On July

28, 2015, Mason sent Matory a photograph at 2:27 a.m. of Barnes in her Honor Guard

uniform. At 5:28 p.m. that day, Mason texted Matory and asked have you talked with

Temeca Barnes this evening?

10. On August 4, 2015, Mason defeated then Sheriff Tyrone Lewis in the primary

election. Four days after winning the primary as the democrat candidate for sheriff,

Mason texted Matory and asked, wheres Officer Barnes? Matory told Mason, Barnes

was out on leave. In addition to working as a corporal at JPD, Barnes is a member of the

3
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 2 Filed 01/20/17 Page 4 of 17

military. On August 18, 2015, Mason texted Matory and said Hey. Matory

responded: what doing. Mason stated thinking about Barnes. Matory responded

Lol!!!!! Not time. Mason responded ok. On August 19, 2015, Mason texted Matory

and stated Barnes. On August 31, 2015, Mason texted Matory: TB. Matory did not

respond.

11. On September 9, 2015, Mason texted Matory and asked, Wheres TB? Matory

responded: What up Bossman!!!! Mason responded Temeca Barnes. Matory told

Mason, shes busy. Mason asked Matory Will she give me some? Matory

responded, Ahhhhhhh I dont know, What Doing? Mason then stated If she doesnt

you wont get hired. Take a guess. Matory texted Mason and said, Well thats not

my fault cant tell grown folks what to do with personal life. Mason texted back and

said Ok Ill show you. Matory responded and said, If you are a charmer you know

what to do, OK 10/4. Mason stated, Oh I am trust me.

12. On November 3, 2015, Barnes attended Masons victory party at Hal and Mals.

When members of Masons campaign team were taking photographs, Mason positioned

himself so close to Barnes that her right side was pressed against Masons chest and

stomach. Mason sent Barnes an edited copy of the photograph excluding most of the

other campaign team.

13. On November 9, 2015, Mason met with his campaign team to discuss his plans

for the sheriffs department. While at that meeting, Mason called Barnes away from the

group. Mason placed his arm around Barness shoulder and said give me your number,

I dont have it. Barnes gave Mason her telephone number. At that time, Barnes did not

know about Masons chatter with Matory about her.

4
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 2 Filed 01/20/17 Page 5 of 17

14. Within minutes of leaving the meeting, Mason texted Barnes at 9:55 p.m. and

stated: Lt. Tomeca Barnes Office of Special Incestigations (SIC) Hinds County Sheriffs

Dept. Mason texted Barnes and said, Now I have to get you a call sign. Any ideas?

Barnes responded, Lets see! Mason then asked Barnes did I catch you at a bad

time? Barnes responded, No, Im just getting out of roll call. My apologies for the

breaks in the traffic. Mason apologized for texting Barnes and told her that he didnt

know she had to work that night. Barnes responded No problem. Mason texted

Barnes and said We can talk later. Thanks for tonight. That same night, Mason texted

Barnes and said Im very considerate of your time and believe me I dont want to disturb

you. With that being said you can call me or text me anytime you feel you need to. I do

mean that. Barnes responded God bless you Sir and thank you so very much.

15. On November 12, 2015, Mason texted Barnes and said Goodmorning (sic) Lt.

Barnes. She replied: Good Morning Sheriff. Mason responded, You like that dont

you? Barnes texted, Youre the Sheriff. Mason replied: And youre the lieutenant.

In response, Barnes texted, Yes Sheriff.

16. On November 15, 2015, Mason sent Barnes a photograph of a badge to show her

what her Hinds County Sheriffs Department (hereinafter HCSD) badge would look

like. On the same day, Mason texted Barnes and asked, how many years of service do

you have including military? Barnes texted Mason and told him she worked 15 years as

a police officer and served nine years and 10 months in the military. Mason texted

Barnes and said Your monthly salary according to my stats will be $4720.15. Barnes

responded But God.

5
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 2 Filed 01/20/17 Page 6 of 17

17. On November 21, 2015, Mason texted Barnes and asked her if she was sure she

was okay with a salary of $4,720.15. Barnes replied, Yes, Sheriff its great. Mason

texted Barnes and asked Would it bother you if I moved you up? Barnes responded:

Why would you do that Sheriff? Mason replied: Why shouldnt I. Barnes texted:

Im no different from anyone else Sheriff. Mason responded: I have my reasons.

18. Mason told his campaign staff at a meeting on November 24, 2015 that he

planned to take them on an excursion by train to New Orleans. Barnes told Mason that

she might have drill. On the same day, Mason texted Barnes that it bothered him that

you have to work at night and you should be asleep. On November 25, 2015, Mason

texted Barnes a picture of a train and said Im leaving on Thursday going south to

NOLA to meet the cars and the following day ride to Jackson to pick up the rest of the

crew.

19. On November 26, 2015 at 5:05 p.m., Mason texted Barnes and said Happy

Thanksgiving. Later that evening, Mason texted Barnes and stated You need to send

me a selfie so Ill know youre in Tunica. Barnes texted Mason back and said, Just

know that Im here Mason replied, Ok I trust you. At 8:23 p.m., Mason texted

Barnes and said Hello Lt. Barnes?

20. On December 5, 2015, Mason texted Barnes a copy of a menu and stated sorry

youll miss the trip. On December 6, 2015, Mason texted Barnes and stated Roses are

red, Violets are blue, were going on a fabulous train ride, what happend(sic) to you?

Mason texted Barnes the same day and said All Aboard!! Oh but youve got drill that

weekend. On December 8, 2015, Mason texted Barnes and said Goodmorning (sic) Lt.

Barnes, Fire trucks are Red, Police Lights are blue, the train will leave and it will leave

6
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 2 Filed 01/20/17 Page 7 of 17

without you. On December 9, 2015, Mason texted Barnes and said The sun is red The

Sky is blue as we leave from Jackson on the train Well be waving at you.

21. On Thursday, December 31, 2015, Mason was sworned in as sheriff of Hinds

County, Mississippi. On January 4, 2016, Matory was hired as the undersheriff of Hinds

County. Barnes was hired as the head supervisor of HCSDs Internal Affairs Division.

Immediately after joining HCSD, Mason directed Matory to have Barnes to come to his

office. After Matory placed calls to Barnes asking her to come to Masons office,

Mason would direct Matory to leave.

22. Mason would close the door to his office when Barnes arrived. To brief Mason,

Barnes carried copies of reports that he used to brief the sheriff. Sometimes, Barnes

would read directly from the reports. When Barnes looked up from reading the reports,

Mason would be staring at her. Masons stares were so intense that Barnes asked Mason

why are you looking at me like that. Mason did not explain.

23. On January 23, 2016, Barnes was away at drill when Mason texted her and

inquired about her whereabouts. Barnes texted that she was at drill and sent him a

picture showing her dressed in military gear with most of her face covered. At 7:24

a.m., on January 24, 2016, Mason asked Barnes to send him a selfie. At 8:30 a.m.,

Mason sent Barnes a photograph of a person in military gear and told her that she looked

like the person in the photograph. Barnes responded that she did not look like that

person. Mason texted Barnes and said, Yes it does. I had to look twice. You never sent

my picture. Do you have your gear on? Barnes texted Mason and said I sent one

yesterday. Mason replied, That was yesterday.

7
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 2 Filed 01/20/17 Page 8 of 17

24. On January 27, 2016, Mason texted Barnes a copy of the January 24, 2016

photograph of the unidentified person he claimed looked like her. On January 28, 2016,

Mason texted Barnes a copy of the photograph she sent to him on January 23, 2016

showing her dressed in military gear with most of her face covered. On January 29,

2016, Mason texted Barnes the same photographs of the unidentified person he sent her

on January 24, 2016 and January 27, 2016 and asked her When did you take this

picture? Barnes responded by sending Mason two pictures of her dressed in full military

gear. Mason responded: Nice!!!!! and Oh wow look at you. Awesome. Anymore?

Barnes responded No, Im at the gym.

25. After the text message exchange with Mason, Barnes began to spurn Masons

unwanted advances toward her. Barnes was so uncomfortable being left alone with

Mason that she asked him if Matory could remain in his office when she briefed him.

Barnes told Matory that she did not feel comfortable with Mason. Mason told Matory

that she better make sure that Barnes came to his office or else. When Matory asked

Mason what he meant by or else, he told her you think Im playing. Ill show you.

Matory told Mason that she was not going to arrange for him to have sex with Barnes.

Mason became angry and began to distance himself from Matory and Barnes.

26. Before he distanced himself from Matory, Mason asked Matory what would she

do if she came to his office and it smelled like ass. Matory asked Mason are we still

dealing with that, we have work to do. Matory asked Mason not to involve her in his

plans for Barnes and to stop directing her to tell Barnes that he was interested in having

sex with her.

8
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 2 Filed 01/20/17 Page 9 of 17

27. In the Spring of 2016, Mason repeatedly told Matory he was going to make her

kiss an employee he nicknamed Lips. Mason began saying in his office everyone

loves dick. When Matory asked Mason why he was using derogatory language, he said

he was referring to Captain Richard Brown. Matory asked Mason to stop but Mason said

it was not unprofessional and it is true that everybody loves dick.

28. On July 5, 2016, Mason demoted Matory and Barnes. Pete Luke, a white male,

was selected to replace Matory as the undersheriff. Keith Barnett, an African-American

male, was selected to replace Barnes as the head supervisor of IAD. Before demoting

Matory and Barnes, Mason failed to pay them the salary he conveyed to them when he

was recruiting them. Barnes earned less at the HCSD than she earned when she was

with JPD. When Barnes texted Mason about the discrepancy in her pay on January 29,

2016, Mason did not respond.

29. After Matorys demotion, she was given a position as a crime scene investigator

and told that she would be on call 24 hours seven days a week with no schedule to let her

know when she was on call. From July 5, 2016 until her termination on December 28,

2016, Matory worked eight hours every week day and was on call after she left work on

all week days and was on call all day on both weekend days. Upon information and

belief, Matory was not placed in a rotation with other investigators to work crime scenes

and was not compensated for the time she was on call in violation of federal law.

30. On December 27, 2016, Matory was directed to appear at the office of Claire

Barker, counsel for the Hinds County Sheriffs Department. During the meeting in Claire

Barkers office, Barker told Matory that we are all concerned about you. Barker

told Matory that she knew that Matory was angry about something. Barker told Matory

9
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 2 Filed 01/20/17 Page 10 of 17

she was angry about her demotion as undersheriff and asked what they could do to help.

Barker told Matory she needed a note from her physician that she could continue to carry

her service weapon. After the meeting ended, Matory asked if she had permission to

leave. Barker told her yes and she left.

31. Matory walked to her vehicle. As she was pulling out of her parking space,

Captain Richard Brown and Sgt. Trey Brister approached her at her vehicle. Sgt. Trey

Brister demanded Matorys service weapon as well as the truck she was driving. Matory

cleared her service weapon and placed it on the seat of the truck. Matory exited the truck

and asked the deputy sheriff how was she supposed to get home. Sgt. Brister said he

didnt know as he looked at Captain Brown. Matory began walking home.

32. Before Matory reached her home, she received a telephone call from Sgt. Garcia,

who told her that he had an important letter for her. Garcia delivered Matorys

termination letter from Mason, who knew that Matory had filed a charge of

discrimination against him, received a right to sue letter and had less than two months to

file a lawsuit against him. The reasons Mason gave for terminating Matory are pretexts

to cover up his race and sex discrimination and retaliation and an attempt by Mason to

avoid Justice.

33. Mason also demoted Barnes from head supervisor of IAD on July 5, 2016 to third

shift patrol and required her from 10:45 p.m. to 7:20 a.m. months after telling Barnes it

bothered him that you have to work at night and you should be asleep. From January

2016 to July 5, 2016, Barnes was off on weekends. After she was demoted, she was

required to work on weekends, even though Mason was aware that she served as a

10
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 2 Filed 01/20/17 Page 11 of 17

minister and sometimes preached on Sunday mornings and did she performed her

military duties on weekends.

34. Before Barnes joined the sheriffs department, Mason showed her a photograph of

the design for her new badge. Mason also told Barnes he had ordered her a FBI jacket.

Barnes never received her new badge and/or her FBI jacket that Mason claimed he

ordered. All of the deputies working on Barness current shift have new badges. Barnes

does not.

35. On January 10, 2017, Barnes was ordered to turn her patrol car before she leaves

for military duty. Another female deputy, who is in the military, was not required to turn

in her patrol car while she was on military duty. Upon information and belief, that

female has not accused Mason of discrimination or sexual harassment.

36. When Barnes questioned her supervisor about the disparity in treatment, he texted

her and said Deputy Barnes I will not discuss another deputies (sic) affairs with you.

You are taking five days off for military totaling 40 hours. You are being given a direct

order to leave your vehicle and key at the patrol office for the duration of the days that

you have requested for military leave. Any further defiance from you regarding this

matter will be considered insubordination.

37. On January 18, 2017, Barnes called the office to inquire about her patrol vehicle,

the administrative assistant told Barnes she would report her call to the captain and ask

him to call Barnes. Barnes did not hear from the captain. On January 19, 2017, Barnes

called the HCSDs office again about her patrol vehicle. Barnes received a text from a

sheriffs deputy employee informing her that Your car isnt ready yet. But there will be

a spare down bottom and the key should be in the top right desk draw. Prior to January

11
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 2 Filed 01/20/17 Page 12 of 17

2017, Barnes was allowed to drive her patrol car home. Now, Barnes is required to drive

to Raymond to pick up a vehicle before she begins her patrol.

CAUSE OF ACTIONS

SEXUALLY HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

QUID PRO QUO SEXUAL HARASSMENT

38. Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in full.

39. Plaintiffs contend Masons repeated unwanted and unwelcomed demands for

Matory to arrange sexual liaisons with Barnes had the effect of unreasonably interfering

with the Plaintiffs work performance and creating an intimidating, hostile and offensive

working environment for both women.

40. Plaintiffs contend Mason and Hinds County, Mississippi conditioned the terms

and conditions of their continued employment on Matorys willingness to arrange sexual

liaisons between Barnes and Mason and Barness willingness to have unwanted sex with

Mason.

41. As a proximate consequence of the actions of Mason, the Plaintiffs suffered

emotional harm.

SEX DISCRIMINATION

42. Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in full.

43. Plaintiffs contend Mason subjected them to discrimination on account of their sex

by engaging Matory in conversations about whether Barnes would have sex with him and

attempting to coerce Matory to convince Barnes to have sex with him in exchange for

employment and continued employment with the Hinds County Sheriffs Department.

12
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 2 Filed 01/20/17 Page 13 of 17

44. Plaintiffs contend Mason and Hinds County, Mississippi conditioned the terms

and conditions of their continued employment on Matorys acquiescence to arrange

sexual liaisons between Mason and Barnes and Barness willingness to give in to

Masons unwanted sexual advances. In addition, Mason discriminated against Barnes on

the basis of her sex when he replaced her with an African-American male, because she

spurned his sexual advances.

45. As a proximate consequence of the actions of Mason, the Plaintiffs suffered

emotional harm.

RACE DISCRIMINATION

46. Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in full.

47. Plaintiffs contend Mason subjected her to race discrimination when he demoted

her and replaced her with a white male at a time when she was qualified to perform her

duties as undersheriff.

48. As a proximate consequence of the actions of Mason, Matory suffered emotional

harm.

RETALIATION FIRST AMENDMENT AND TITLE VII

49. Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in full.

50. Plaintiffs contend Mason did what he promised Matory he would do if he did not

get the sexual favors he desired. When it became abundantly clear to Mason that Matory

and Barnes were not willing to fulfill his sexual desires, he refused to ensure that they

were paid the salary he promised while recruiting them. Upset that Matory was unwilling

to procure sex for him with Barnes, Mason demoted Barnes and Matory. Mason later

terminated Matory all because when she would not assist him in his efforts to have sex

13
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 2 Filed 01/20/17 Page 14 of 17

with Barnes and chastised him about other sexually derogatory conduct in the workplace.

Mason retained employees who were aware of his indiscretions as well as other deputies

who have engaged in sexual misconduct under Masons supervision. The demotions and

termination had the effect of unreasonably interfering with the Plaintiffs interest in

continual employment with the Hinds County Sheriffs Department.

51. Upon information and belief, Mason was the official policymaker for the Hinds

County Sheriffs Department and any reasonable sheriff would have known in 2016 that

he could not conditioned an employees job on her willingness to arrange and or

participate in sexual encounters for him. In addition, any reasonable sheriff would have

known that public employees have a clearly established right to work in a place free of

sex discrimination and sexual harassment. Any reasonable sheriff also would have

known in 2016 that the Plaintiffs had a right to speak out against sexual harassment in the

workplace especially sexual harassment perpetrated by the countys chief law

enforcement office.

52. As a proximate consequence of the actions of the Defendant, the defendants

suffered damages.

BREACH OF CONTRACT/DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE

53. Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in full.

54. Plaintiffs contend Mason used his apparent authority to cause them not to be paid

at the rate them when he recruited them from JPD. In addition, Mason terminated

Matorys at-will employment contract because she refused to engage in unlawful conduct

of soliciting Barnes for sexual favors for Mason.

14
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 2 Filed 01/20/17 Page 15 of 17

55. Upon information and belief, Defendant knew or should have known that the

Plaintiffs would rely to their detriment on the salaries that he promised them if they left

JPD and joined him at the sheriffs department. Moreover, Mason knew or should have

known that he was breaching Matorys contract and that he could not fire Matory because

she refused to arrange sexual encounters between Mason and Barnes in violation of

Mississippis public policy against solicitation and/or human trafficking.

56. As a proximate consequence of the actions of Defendant, the Plaintiffs suffered

economic harm.

FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

57. Plaintiff realleges all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in full.

58. Plaintiff contend Mason violated the Fair Labor Standards Act when he placed her

in a position and required her to be on call 24 hours seven days a week without

compensating her for her on call work.

59. As a proximate cause of the action of the Defendants, Matory suffered emotional

and economic harm.

DAMAGES

60. As a consequence of the foregoing misconduct of the defendants, Plaintiffs Cheryl

Matory and Tomeca Barnes sustained pain and suffering, physical injury, great mental

distress, depression, insomnia, shock, fright and humiliation.

61. As a consequence of the foregoing misconduct of the Defendants, Plaintiffs

Cheryl Matory and Tomeca Barnes have been damaged in an amount exceeding the

jurisdictional requirements of this Court. Both Plaintiffs exhausted their administrative

15
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 2 Filed 01/20/17 Page 16 of 17

remedies and have timely filed this action. (See, Exhibit A and B, copies of the Right to

Sue letters of Cheryl Matory and Tomeca Barnes, respectively).

RELIEF

62. Plaintiff requests that the Court issue the following relief:

a. Enter declaratory relief declaring that the Defendants engaged in sexually

hostile work place harassment, sex discrimination and race discrimination and

conditioned the Plaintiffs employment on their willingness to tolerate and participate in

sexual harassment.

b. Enter an Order enjoining the Defendants from engaging in such discrimination

and retaliatory practices in the future.

c. Enter temporary and permanent injunctions restraining the Defendants from

discriminating, harassing and retaliating against the Plaintiffs because they engaged in

protected activity;

d. Award the Plaintiffs reinstatement or in the alternative front pay, equitable

back pay, economic damages for their lost pay and fringe benefits, together with

compensatory from Hinds County, Mississippi and compensatory and punitive damages

against Mason for intentional sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation, and

in the amount to be determined by a jury of his peers.

e. Award Plaintiffs attorney fees, costs and expenses of litigation and;

f. Award such other relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled under law.

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs demand judgment

against the Defendants in an amount exceeding the jurisdictional requirements of this

16
 Case 3:16-cv-00989-LG-RHW Document 2 Filed 01/20/17 Page 17 of 17

Court, all together with the costs and disbursement action, including attorneys fees, plus

interest, and for any other relief which this Court deems just and proper.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this, the 20th, of January, 2017.

CHERYL MATORY AND

TOMECA BARNES

By: //s//Lisa M. Ross

Lisa M. Ross (MSB#9755)
Post Office Box 11264
Jackson, MS 39283-1264
(601) 981-7900 (telephone)
(601) 981-7917 (facsimile)

Attorney for Plaintiffs

17