Sean C. Morgan
A former Sankey Park caretaker is suing the city of Sweet Home for civil rights violations.
Timothy and Esther Piety contend that they were victims of racial harassment and intimidation throughout the length of their employment, Jan. 15, 2009 to Aug. 31, 2010. They allege that police failed to arrive when Timothy Piety called for help, and then despite a positive witness identification, the police brought no charges in one incident.
Ultimately, Piety submitted a written complaint to the Police Department, and three days later, his contract was terminated.
The Pietys contend they were terminated in retaliation for their complaints to the city and the Police Department.
Timothy Piety is African American. His wife is Caucasian.
Piety claimed that two men harassed and threatened him on Nov. 30, 2009, in front of his wife and children, yelling racial epithets. He reported it to the police, according to Pietys’ tort claim. The men left but later followed him to a nearby church, once again yelling racial epithets. He claims the police failed to respond when he called them.
According to a police report, a police officer was unable to locate either Piety or the subjects. The officer responded to another call and then returned to the area and was unable to locate them again.
According to the report, Piety contacted police dispatchers, saying he had last seen the men behind City Hall but didn’t know where they went from there. The officer patrolled the area and was unable to locate the subjects.
Piety contacted the police again on Dec. 2, 2009 reporting graffiti and then, on Dec. 3, 2009, reporting subjects near Weddle Bridge.
A few days later, one of the men from the Nov. 30, 2009 incident, accompanied by another man, attempted to assault Piety, according to his claim.
One of the men jumped toward him, saying “we are going to get you good tonight,” according to Piety’s tort claim notice. One of the men also said, “Let’s get him together.”
They backed off when Piety, who carried a “3D-battery flashlight” as part of his duties, did not retreat and went to a house across the street, according to Piety’s tort claim notice. As they walked away, one of the men suddenly turned and threw liquid on Piety.
The Police Department recorded the call on Dec. 4, 2009.
He claimed that when the police responded, they captured one of the men, but no charges were brought despite witness identification.
The officer noted a wet spot on the road and wet spots on Piety’s hand, according to the police report. The officer located one of the subjects, who admitted to using a racial epithet but denied threatening Piety. He also told police he didn’t know the other subject’s full name.
He told the officer that Piety was constantly harassing him and others even when on the public road or sidewalk in front of the park, according to the police report. He told the officer that Piety often used a camera to photograph him and families playing in their front yards.
He told the officer that he had walked to the road and yelled at Piety to leave three juveniles alone, according to the police report.
Just prior to the incident, Piety had sent three juveniles away from the park, according to the report.
Piety told the police the two males never threatened him directly, but he felt intimidated by the subjects’ posture and the way they spaced themselves to divide his attention, according to the police report.
The police contacted two of the juveniles Piety sent away from the park, according to a report. The youngsters said they did not hear any blatant threats, although initially they thought it sounded like a threat of a fight, they weren’t able to tell the officer what was said regarding threats or words of a fighting nature.
The officer told Piety that due to the fact that the subject questioned by the police did not make any threats of serious physical injury, he could not charge him with intimidation but would refer the case to the city attorney.
According to the report, several neighbors and others complained about Piety’s overzealous and confrontational demeanor while acting as the caretaker for Sankey Park. They were advised to take their complaints to city management.
“Once the offenders realized that the police did not intend to arrest them for their deeds, the racial harassment and intimidation of Mr. Piety and his family escalated,” according to the tort claim notice. It states that individuals screamed racial epithets outside the Pietys’ home. Local teens called Piety insulting names, approaching his vehicle as he drove to and from his home. They refused to move aside and instead continued walking in front of Piety’s vehicle or stood still, blocking the road with their bodies.
Piety began using a video camera to record the events, according to his claim. Instead of supporting him and instructing the police to arrest the perpetrators, the city banned him from using the camera and confiscated his tapes.
After that, Piety claimed, the harassment escalated. Individuals opened his front door and attempted to enter his home. They defaced the park with racist graffiti. Although police identified five individuals responsible for it, they were neither cited nor arrested.
The Pietys repeatedly complained to the city about racial discrimination, harassment and intimidation, but no effective actions were taken to alleviate the problems, they claimed. After a written complaint to the Police Department on Aug. 28, 2010, the city terminated their employment on Aug. 31, 2010.
The complaint to the Police Department outlined numerous offenses against the Pietys, from teenagers creating walking roadblocks and a burglary to two “assault-type events,” to one of which no officer ever arrived. Other listed complaints included teens throwing fruit at the Pietys’ children and BB guns fired at Timothy Piety.
After an incident on Aug. 20, 2010 in which Piety complained about teens running across the street in front of his car, harassing him, he complained that the officer took the word of the teens over his.
Police Chief Bob Burford acknowledged that Piety had frequently contacted the department.
“We had approximately 119 incidents involving Mr. Piety, (in) most of which he was the complainant, during his tenure as caretaker,” Burford said. “In each case, an officer responded or the incident was otherwise documented. In late August to early October (2010), the department also addressed a series of citizen complaints from Mr. Piety regarding our responses to his complaints.”
After Piety filed his complaint with the Police Department, a police sergeant contacted him to seek clarification and learn the date that he said an officer did not responded to his call, so the department could review the phone logs, Burford said in a written response to Piety. The sergeant told Burford that Piety had been subsequently counseled not to cooperate with the inquiry.
“If this is the case, then we will be closing our review at this point,” Burford said. If Piety changed his mind though and provided the date, time and subject matter of the call for service, the department would continue the inquiry.
City Manager Craig Martin said that Piety was an at-will employee but declined to say why his employment was terminated, based on advice from the city’s legal counsel.
Attorneys are reviewing the lawsuit and preparing a response, Martin said. “We do believe the Pietys claims are without merit and we’re prepared to defend against them as such.”
The Pietys filed a lawsuit in federal court on Sept. 27.
They seek injunctive relief, prohibiting the city and its employees from engaging in any harassment or discrimination based on race or for retaliating against any employee opposing unlawful employment practices; economic damages and future losses to be determined at trial; non-economic damages to be determined at trial; punitive damages to be determined at trial; wages to be determined at trial; penalty wages to be determined at trial; attorneys fees; and further relief as the court may deem just and equitable.