Trooper Claims Retaliation Over State Police's Alleged Unauthorized DNA Collection
State Trooper Christopher Burns alleges his superiors retaliated against him stemming from his speaking out against the law enforcement agency's alleged unauthorized collection of officers' DNA.
April 15, 2019 at 01:31 PM
4 minute read
A Connecticut state police trooper has filed a federal lawsuit against eight individuals and the department that oversees the state police, alleging they retaliated by initiating sham investigations against him after he spoke out publicly against alleged unauthorized DNA collections.
The parties resolved Christopher Burns' lawsuit against the Connecticut Department of Public Safety over the alleged unauthorized DNA collections in April 2015. According to news reports, Burns accused his superiors of telling him and other state police detectives that they had to give their own DNA samples, or they might not be allowed at crime scenes. State police wanted the samples so that unknown DNA found at crime scenes could be identified, according to reports.
Burns' latest lawsuit was filed Friday against the state Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, which included the state police.
Dwight Washington, commanding officer for the media relations unit of the state police, told the Connecticut Law Tribune Monday he couldn't comment on the matter because litigation is pending.
In a 17-page lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Burns alleges the state police waged a campaign based on lies and false investigations against him, culminating in him taking time off work for post-traumatic stress disorder.
His superiors, the lawsuit alleges, “initiated false and dubious investigations, and then prolonged them maliciously against plaintiff, in retaliation for his protected speech” and because he took leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
While out on FMLA leave for a sick child, Burns says several superiors arrived unannounced at his home and took his badge, weapons and state police vehicle. Burns was told he was being suspended, but was never told why, according to the lawsuit.
When Burns returned to work in October 2018, he was told he was being transferred, demoted and assigned to the fingerprint unit of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection's Bureau of Identification in Middletown.
Then, the lawsuit says, a superior appeared at Burns' home, unannounced again, this February and told him he was the subject of a criminal investigation, but refused to provide further details. Burns, the lawsuit says, was told to appear two weeks later for a criminal interview. Burns retained Salvatore Bonanno, who asked the state police for the reason for the criminal interview, but was never given one, according to pleadings. Bonanno told Burns' superiors that his client wouldn't appear for the interview unless ordered, the plaintiff claimed. The interview never occurred, but the experience, the lawsuit says, caused Burns undue anxiety.
On Feb. 11, Burns asked for FMLA leave again “to deal with a personal medical condition caused by a hostile work environment as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
“The condition has caused me to feel unsafe at work,” his lawsuit stated.
A later report filed on Burns' behalf said the work environment he caused him to get PTSD. Burns remains on FMLA leave and has still never been told what the investigations aimed at him were all about, according to the lawsuit.
The defendants, the lawsuit says, “knew that their conduct was abusive, and conspired to create a hostile work environment in an attempt to force the plaintiff from his position with process, knowing that it would deny him procedural protections.”
The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys fees. It also seeks injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that the defendants' acts, policies and practices violated Burns rights under both the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Its five counts allege deprivation of rights: First Amendment retaliation; violation of the FMLA; intentional infliction of emotional distress; deprivation of rights: Fourteenth Amendment; and liability under the Connecticut General Statutes.
Representing Burns is Hartford solo practitioner James Brewer, who did not respond to a request for comment Monday.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
State High Court Adopts Modern Standard for Who Keeps $70K Engagement Ring After Breakup
Mass. Judge Declares Mistrial in Talc Trial: 'Court Can't Accommodate This Case'
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250