Shelton McElroy Lawsuit Against Cordish, LMPD

NO.
__________________
JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT

DIVISION __________
SHELTON MCELROY
PLAINTIFF
v.
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
CORDISH COMPANIES, INC.,
Service by Secretary of State to:
601 East Pratt Street
6th Floor
Baltimore MD 21202
and
LOUISVILLE IRISH, LLC
Serve: S&H Frankfort, LLC
421 West Main Street,
Frankfort, KY 40601
and
ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTING INTERNATIONAL, LLC
Service by Secretary of State to:
601 East Pratt Street
6th Floor
Baltimore MD 21202
and
CORDISH OPERATING VENTURES, LLC
Serve: Corporation Service Company
d/b/a CSC Lawyers Incorporating Service Co.
421 Main Street
Frankfort, KY 40601
and
LOUISVILLE GALLERIA, LLC
Serve: CSC Lawyers Incorporating Service Company
421 West Main Street
Frankfort, KY 40601
and
DEFENDANTS
LOUISVILLE JEFFERSON COUNTY

METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT
d/b/a LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Serve: Greg Fischer, Mayor
Louisville Metro Hall
527 West Jefferson Street
Louisville, KY 40202
and
OFFICER CHRISTOPHER M. WHITE
in his official and individual capacities
Serve: Christopher M. White
Louisville Metro Division of Police
633 West Jefferson St.
and
UNKNOWN LOUISVILLE METRO
POLICE OFFICERS
In his or her official and individual capacities
Serve: Unknown Officers
Louisville Metro Division of Police
633 West Jefferson St.
and
UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS (JOHN DOES)
***** ***** *****
Comes now the Plaintiff, Shelton McElroy, by and through counsel, and for his
Complaint against Defendants, The Cordish Companies, Inc., Louisville Irish, LLC,
Louisville Galleria LLC, Entertainment Consulting International LLC, and Louisville
Metro Police, and defendants currently unknown, states the following:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is a cause of action for violations of Plaintiffs rights under the Kentucky
Constitution, Kentucky statutory and common law, for the unlawful search and seizure
and malicious prosecution of, excessive force applied to, assault and battery,
discrimination, and other counts as alleged below against Defendants.
PARTIES
1.
Plaintiff, Shelton McElroy, (hereafter as Plaintiff) is a resident of
Louisville, Jefferson County, Kentucky, and has so resided in excess of six months prior
to the date upon which the subject cause of action arose.
2.
Plaintiff is of African American descent.
3.
Defendant, THE CORDISH COMPANIES INC. (hereafter Cordish Inc.),
is a Maryland corporation which, by and through its officers, owners/shareholder(s)

and/or affiliates or subsidiary companies, developed and today operates an
entertainment district known as Fourth Street Live! in downtown Louisville, Kentucky.
4.
Defendant LOUISVILLE IRISH LLC is a Kentucky limited liability company
which does business under the name of Sullys Restaurant and Saloon within Fourth
Street Live! at the location of 424 S. 4th Street, both presently and at the time of the
subject incident. LOUISVILLE IRISH will hereafter be referred to as Sullys.
5.
Upon information and belief, SULLYS is owned and/or operated by
officers, owners/shareholder(s)/members of one or more of Cordish-related Defendants

named in this lawsuit, and one or more unnamed Cordish-related or affiliated entities.
6.
Upon
information
and
belief,
ENTERTAINMENT
CONSULTING
INTERNATIONAL LLC (hereafter ECI) is party to a management contract with

SULLYS under which ECI provides all upper management for SULLYS, including but
not limited to, the food, style, genre of entertainment and music, desired clientele,
operating policies and procedures, and more.
7.
Upon information and belief, CORDISH OPERATING VENTURES, LLC
(hereafter CORDISH OPERATING) is a foreign Limited Liability Company currently

listed on the Kentucky Secretary of States website as being in Bad standing in the
Commonwealth of Kentucky; its authority to do business in the Commonwealth of
Kentucky was revoked on November 2, 2010 by the Kentucky Secretary of States
Office; upon information and belief, CORDISH OPERATING is involved in, or exerts
influence upon, the ownership and/or management of one or more of the Defendants
named herein.
8.
Upon information and belief, LOUISVILLE GALLERIA LLC (hereafter 4TH
STREET LIVE LANDLORD) owns the real property upon which SULLYS conducts
business, and upon which the 4TH STREET LIVE area is located.
9.
Upon
information
and
belief,
LOUISVILLE-JEFFERSON
COUNTY
METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT (hereafter LOUISVILLE METRO) is the successor

government to the merged governments of the former city of Louisville and former
Jefferson County pursuant to KRS 67C.101.
This entity is authorized to conduct
governmental business on behalf of the citizenry of the merged city and county, is sui
generis, and is real party in interest to each of its included agencies, including the
named LOUISVILLE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT (hereafter LMPD).
10.
Upon information and belief, Officer Christopher M. White (herafter
White), was at all times relevant to this action a police officer employed by LMPD.
11.
In addition, there may be additional unknown LMPD Officers (Unknown
Louisville Metro Police Officers) and unknown defendants (i.e., John Does) whose
identity and/or responsibility for the unlawful acts set forth below may be ascertained
during the course of this litigation.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12.
This cause of action arose in the Commonwealth of Kentucky in and
around SULLYS, in 4th Street Live.

13.
This cause of action is brought pursuant Kentucky common law and to
Kentucky Revised Statutes (hereafter KRS) 344, the civil rights statutes which
Plaintiff believes were violated in the incident described below; KRS 344 mandates
the proper forum for this claim is the Circuit Court in which the cause of action arose.
14.
This cause of action is also being brought pursuant to KRS 15A.195.
15.
The damages suffered by plaintiff are in excess of the minimum
requirements of the Jefferson Circuit Court and therefore the statutory jurisdictional
requirements have been met.
16.
This cause of action arose on or about October 26, 2014.
17.
Subject matter jurisdiction over this action exists under Section 112 of the
Kentucky Constitution because the amount in controversy, excluding interest, costs and
attorneys fees, exceeds the jurisdictional prerequisites of this Court.
18.
Venue is proper in the Jefferson Circuit Court because the Plaintiff resides
in Jefferson County, the Defendants reside, conduct business in, and/or performed their
official duties in Jefferson County, and the injuries sustained in the case occurred in
Jefferson County.
FACTS
19.
Plaintiff is a responsible citizen and resident of the City of Louisville,
employed as a full-time College Instructor at Jefferson Community Technical College,

teaching and specializing in Leadership Development.
20.
Prior to October 26, 2014, Plaintiff also was employed as a part-time
substance-abuse counselor for recently released parolees.

21.
Plaintiff, today a 38 year old male of African descent, grew up in multiple
foster homes, was homeless from 16 to 18 years of age, and incarcerated from age 18
to 25 for trafficking marijuana.
22.
Since approximately age 27, Plaintiff has worked tirelessly to raise himself
from his past, and devote himself to education, serving and bettering his community,
and other worthy and noble causes.
23.
In particular, Plaintiff has devoted much of his adult life to coaching and
counseling young people who face the same early life challenges that he faced and
overcame.
24.
On or about October 26, 2014, Plaintiff went to Fourth Street Live, dressed
neatly in a polo shirt, new cargo khakis, jacket, and suede boots.
25.
The owners of businesses located in 4th STREET LIVE have a reputation
in the community for using dress code as a pretext to discriminate against black patrons
in or around 4th Street Live such that they encourage and/or require their employees,
agents, security firms, and the local police to target, harass, and discriminate against
blacks who try to patronize 4th Street Live.
26.
After initial admission at the entry gates, Plaintiff walked to the entry of
Sullys Restaurant and Saloon (hereafter Sullys), where he was met by the manager,
a hostess, and a bouncer.
27.
The manager checked Plaintiffs ID and approved his attire.
28.
Plaintiff then observed the manager make a head movement in the
direction of the Plaintiff, while looking at the bouncer.

29.
The managers head movement appeared to Plaintiff as some type of
signal to the bouncer.

30.
The hostess collected a $10 cover charge from Plaintiff.
31.
Plaintiff walked through Sullys, looking to see if any of his friends or
acquaintances were in the establishment.

32.
Hip hop music was playing during this time.
33.
About the time Plaintiff reached the back wall of the bar, the music
abruptly switched to country.

34.
Seeing no one he knew, Plaintiff turned around and headed toward the
dance floor, hoping to hear the music change back to hip hop.
35.
About the time Plaintiff reached the dance floor, the bouncer who had
admitted Plaintiff at the door intercepted him and instructed him to walk back to the front
door.
36.
Plaintiff obediently followed the bouncers instructions, not knowing what
was happening. When Plaintiff and the bouncer reached the front door, Plaintiff asked
the bouncer what was going on.
37.
The bouncer told Plaintiff that he had to leave Sullys because he was not
in compliance with the dress code.

38.
Plaintiff calmly pointed out that there were two white males dancing on top
of the bar wearing no shirts, and the DJ was also shirtless.

39.
Plaintiff began video-taping the incident on his phone.
40.
The bouncer told Plaintiff he had to leave because his pants were
sagging.
41.
Plaintiff lifted his shirt to show that his pants were neatly fitted around his
waist, and that no part of them was sagging, as they were size 32 waist with 31
inseam.
42.
The bouncers demeanor remained forceful and menacing throughout the
exchange.
43.
Observing the bouncers demeanor, Plaintiff stated he would leave, but
wished to have his $10 cover charge returned.

44.
When the bouncer refused his request, Plaintiff calmly turned and looked
over his shoulder for the manager, finding him within an arms length of Plaintiffs back.
45.
The manager was positioned so he could enforce the bouncers ejection of
Plaintiff.
46.
The manager raised his arm and waived to a LMPD officer outside the
door, gesturing that the officer should come, enter and give help.
47.
The bouncer roughly grabbed at Plaintiffs phone to try and block the
videotaping, simultaneously shoving Plaintiff toward the doorway with his other hand.
48.
At that moment, an LMPD officer arrived and forcefully grabbed Plaintiffs
arm, ordering him to step outside of Sullys.

49.
This LMPD officer said, Come with me or Ill arrest you.
50.
Plaintiff, surprised, asked, Arrest me for what?
51.
Plaintiff observed another LMPD officer aggressively striding toward him.
52.
By that time, one or both officers and the bouncer had shoved Plaintiff
several feet outside the door.

53.
Fearing what might happen next, due to the history of treatment of blacks
in and around 4th Street Live, Plaintiff laid down, put his hands behind his hands over
his head to show he was not resisting arrest, and stated, What am I being arrested
for?
54.
One of the police officers then cuffed Plaintiff, pulling Plaintiffs phone out
of his hand so the officer could turn off the video.

55.
Plaintiff stated, You cant have my phone.
56.
The officer then thrust the phone into Plaintiffs pocket, and said, Youre
about to be charged with resisting arrest.

57.
The police officers took Plaintiff to the alley behind Sullys, ordered him to
spread against the squad car there, and patted him down.
58.
A man wearing a 4th Street Live polo shirt and headphones came over,
pulled out his clipboard and asked the officers, Whats he going down for.
59.
Amongst other things, Plaintiff heard one of the officers say, He laid down
on the ground, so he wanted to get arrested anyway.

60.
The man wearing the polo and headphones took notes on his clipboard.
61.
LMPD took Plaintiff to jail in the squad car and charged him with second
degree criminal trespassing and disorderly conduct.

62.
No bail option was given Plaintiff.
63.
Plaintiff was detained for the night in jail with the general jail population.
64.
Among the inmates present in his cell was a parolee who had been
Plaintiffs counselee who Plaintiff had been required to report for flunking a drug
urinalysis test in violation of his parole a few months earlier.
65.
Because he was in jail, Plaintiff was unable to pick up his ten-year-old
daughter as planned the following morning at 8 a.m.

66.
Plaintiff was arraigned on the charges.
67.
Plaintiff was released in late morning.
68.
Under a legal obligation to report the charges to his employers, Plaintiff
made such report, and was immediately fired from his position as part-time substance
abuse counselor for parolees.
69.
On November 10, 2014 a new issue of Crime Times was published,
listing Plaintiffs name under his mug shot, along with his name in large letters, on the
page for Disorderly Conduct.
70.
Listed right next to Plaintiffs name and mug shot, in bold and large print,
were the words and phrases listed below:

ASSAULT-4TH DEGREEDOMESTIC VIOLENCE
KIDNAPPING-ADULT
POSSESSIONCONTROLLED
SUBSTANCE-COCAINE
10
TRAFFICKINGCONTROLLED
SUBSTANCE-COCAINE
POSSESSION MARIJUANA
PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER II
71.
Plaintiff was forced to retain an attorney and defend himself in court.
72.
Following an arraignment and multiple hearings over several months, the
charges were dismissed for lack of any evidence.

73.
Plaintiff still suffers the damages caused by the conduct described herein.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
74.
Plaintiff files this as a class action on behalf of all other persons who are of
African American descent and who suffered discrimination on the basis of their race in
and around 4th Street Live.
75.
This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class
action pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated with the Class defined as below:
All individuals of African American descent who currently live in and/or
around the Louisville metro area, who have not been allowed to enter, or who
have been ejected from, the area known as 4th Street Live in Louisville,
Kentucky, including each of the bars, restaurants and venues located within
same, since the date of April 24, 2011, on the ground that their attire did not meet
dress code when, in fact, their attire met dress code,
76.
Members of the Class are so numerous that their individual joinder is
impracticable. The proposed Class includes hundreds of current and former members.
The precise number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiffs, but upon information
and belief, it is in excess of several hundred. The true number of Class members is
11
likely predictable based upon the average number of annual visitors to 4th Street Live,
multiplied by the proportion of local population of African American descent, adjusted for
the applicable time period.
77.
There is a well-defined community of interest among members of the
Class. The discrimination claim of the representative Plaintiff is typical of the claims of
the Class in that the representative Plaintiff and all Class members are persons of
African American descent who have been turned away or ejected from 4th Street Live
based on the pretext that their clothing did not meet dress code. The factual basis of
the Defendants conduct is common to all Class members and has resulted in injury to
all class members.
78.
The questions of law and fact in this case are common to all Plaintiffs and
Class members and include the following:

a. Do Defendants engage in patterns, practices, and policies of turning African
Americans away from 4th Street Live on the basis of race?
b. Did Defendants turn away each Plaintiff on the basis of race, using dress
code as a pretext?
c. At the time, was each Plaintiff dressed in accordance with the dress code?
79.
Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class.
Plaintiff has retained Counsel with extensive experience in representing the underrepresented, and with extensive experience in Jefferson County Courts, and with a
career dedicated to serving interests such as this.
Plaintiff and his counsel are
committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the Class they represent
12
and have the financial resources to do so. Neither Plaintiffs nor counsel have any
interest adverse to those of the Class.
80.
Plaintiff and members of the Class have suffered and will continue to
suffer harm and damage as a result of Defendants conduct. A class action is superior
to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.
Absent a class action, the vast majority of the Class members would likely find the cost
of litigating their claims prohibitive and would have no effective remedy at law.
81.
Treatment of common questions of law and fact is superior to multiple
individual actions or piecemeal litigation in that class treatment will conserve the
resources of the courts and litigants and promote consistency and efficiency of
adjudication.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to:
a. Certify the Plaintiffs Class, appoint Plaintiff as Class Representative and
appoint the undersigned as counsel for the Class;
b. Grant trial by jury;
c. Award compensatory damages;
d. Award liquidated damages;
e. Award punitive damages;
f. Award attorneys fees; and
g. Grant any and all other relief the Court determines appropriate, for Counts 1
and 2 below.
COUNT 1 DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST SULLYS, ECI, LOUISVILLE GALLERIA, LLC,
CORDISH INC., CORDISH OPERATING
13
82.
Under KRS 344, it is illegal for any business that provides goods and/or
services to the public to discriminate against any person on the basis of race.
83.
SULLYS is a business within Jefferson County that supplies goods and/or
services within the meaning of KRS 344.120.

84.
The SULLYS employees noted above targeted and ejected Plaintiff from
SULLYS on the basis of race, using dress code as a pretext, even though his clothing
conformed to the dress code in every way.
85.
SULLYS employees further made false accusations against Plaintiff to
Metro police.
86.
LMPD targeted and discriminated against Plaintiff, based on his race.
87.
Each of the other named Defendants herein discriminated against Plaintiff
based on his race by creating, implementing, enforcing, and/or participating in practices,

patterns, and policies to exclude African Americans from patronizing 4th Street Live and
the bars, restaurants, and venues located there.
88.
As a result of the discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and
continues to suffer damages including, but not limited to, embarrassment, humiliation,
indignity, suffering, multiple fears, emotional distress and trauma, anxiety, harm to
reputation, discouragement, damage to self-esteem, helplessness, hopelessness,
shamefulness, shame upon his family and daughter, loss of job, loss of earnings,
expenditure of legal fees, costs, expenses, and more.
COUNT 2 DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LMPD, OFFICER WHITE,
AND UNKNOWN OFFICER
89.
Under Kentucky statutory law, it is illegal for any police officer acting under
color of law to discriminate against any person on the basis of race.

14
90.
The police officers noted above detained, arrested, jailed, charged, and
prosecuted Plaintiff for second degree trespassing and disorderly conduct solely on the
basis of race.
91.
As a result of the discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and
continues to suffer damages including, but not limited to, embarrassment, humiliation,
indignity, suffering, multiple fears, emotional distress and trauma, anxiety, harm to
reputation, discouragement, damage to self-esteem, helplessness, hopelessness,
shamefulness, shame upon his family and daughter, loss of job, loss of earnings,
expenditure of legal fees, costs, expenses, and more.
COUNT 3 - ASSAULT AGAINST SULLYS
FOR MANAGERS CONDUCT
92.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if set forth fully herein, each and
every averment, allegation or statement contained in the previous paragraphs of this

Verified Complaint.
93.
Sullys manager behaved in a physically threatening and menacing
manner towards Plaintiff as described above.

94.
Sullys manager intended to intimidate and frighten Plaintiff.
95.
Sullys manager intended to cause Plaintiff to fear offensive physical
contact from him (said manager).

96.
Sullys manager was conscious of the fact that his conduct was wrongful.
97.
Plaintiff reasonably feared that the manager would offensively contact him
physically.
98.
As a result of this conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer
damages including, but not limited to, embarrassment, humiliation, indignity, suffering,
15
multiple fears, emotional distress and trauma, anxiety, harm to reputation,

discouragement, damage to self-esteem, helplessness, hopelessness, shamefulness,
shame upon his family and daughter, loss of job, loss of earnings, expenditure of legal
fees, costs, expenses, and more.
COUNT 4 - ASSAULT AGAINST SULLYS
FOR BOUNCERS CONDUCT
99.

Verified Complaint.
100.
Sullys bouncer behaved in a physically threatening manner towards
Plaintiff as described above.

101.
Sullys bouncer intended to physically intimidate and frighten Plaintiff.
102.
Sullys bouncer intended to cause Plaintiff to fear offensive and harmful
physical contact from him (said bouncer).

103.
Sullys bouncer was conscious of the fact that his conduct was wrongful.
104.
Plaintiff reasonably feared that the bouncer would offensively contact him
physically.
105.
COUNT 5 BATTERY AGAINST SULLYS
16
FOR BOUNCERS CONDUCT

106.

Verified Complaint.
107.
Sullys bouncer roughly pushed and shoved Plaintiff as described above.
108.
Sullys bouncer grappled for Plaintiffs phone in an effort to stop the video-
taping.
109.
Sullys bouncer was conscious of the fact that his conduct was wrongful.
110.
All of this physical contact from the bouncer was offensive and harmful to
Plaintiff.
111.
COUNT 6 - ASSAULT BY LMPD, OFFICER WHITE,
AND UNKNOWN OFFICER
112.

Verified Complaint.
113.
LMPD, Officer WHITE and/or Unknown Officers behaved in a physically
threatening manner towards Plaintiff as described above.
17
114.
LMPD, Officer WHITE and/or Unknown Officers intended to physically
intimidate and frighten Plaintiff.

115.
LMPD, Officer WHITE and/or Unknown Officers intended to cause Plaintiff
to fear offensive and harmful physical contact.

116.
Each officer was aware and conscious of the fact that his conduct was
wrongful.
117.
Plaintiff reasonably feared that one or both officers would offensively
contact him physically.

118.
COUNT 7 BATTERY BY LMPD, OFFICER WHITE,
AND UNKNOWN OFFICER
119.

Verified Complaint.
120.
LMPD, Officer WHITE and/or Unknown Officers roughly pushed and
shoved Plaintiff as described above.

121.
LMPD, Officer WHITE and/or Unknown Officers roughly grabbed Plaintiffs
phone out of his hand(s) in an effort to stop the videotaping.
18
122.
LMPD, Officer WHITE and/or Unknown Officers cuffed Plaintiffs wrists so
that one was twisted, thereby inflicting great pain until Plaintiff was in jail and the cuffs
were removed.
123.
LMPD, Officer WHITE and/or Unknown Officers forced Plaintiff to submit
to a search with his arms cuffed behind his back, one arm painfully twisted, chest
leaning against the squad car, and legs spread and extending backwards behind him.
124.
Each officer was aware and conscious of the fact that his conduct was
wrongful.
125.
This physical contact from each of the officers was offensive and harmful
to Plaintiff.
126.
COUNT 8 FALSE IMPRISONMENT
AGAINST SULLYS
127.

Verified Complaint.
128.
The words and actions by each of SULLYS manager and bouncer
imposed physical restraints upon Plaintiffs movement and actions.
19
129.
Each of SULLYS manager and bouncer intended to impose physical
restraints upon Plaintiffs movements and actions.

130.
Plaintiff reasonably feared physical reprisal if he did not submit to the
physical restraints the words and actions of each of the manager and bouncer imposed
upon him.
131.
Plaintiff was deprived of freedom of action by the managers and
bouncers conduct as described above.

132.
COUNT 9 - FALSE IMPRISONMENT
AGAINST LMPD, OFFICER WHITE,
AND UNKNOWN OFFICER
133.

Verified Complaint.
134.
Officer WHITE and/or Unknown Officers , acting under color of law,
forcibly detained, arrested, charged/arraigned, and jailed Plaintiff.

135.
Upon his arrival at jail, Plaintiff was required to pay $70 administrative
fees, which he obediently paid from the cash in his wallet.
20
136.
The detainment, arrest, charges, $70 expense, and the jailing of Plaintiff
were wrongful.
137.
COUNT 10 PREMISES LIABILITY
AGAINST 4TH STREET LIVE LANDLORD
138.

Verified Complaint.
139.
4TH STREET LIVE LANDLORD knew or should have known that the
employees of SULLYS, and/or other Cordish-related restaurants, bars, and venues

within 4th Street Live in general, and/or private security firms and/or off-duty police
officers under contract with 4th Street Live, and/or METRO POLICE officers rendering
services in and around 4th Street Live were engaging in discriminatory, negligent, and
tortious conduct against African American patrons and/or would-be patrons in and
around 4th Street Live.
140.
4TH STREET LIVE LANDLORD had a duty to take reasonable care to
prevent such ongoing discriminatory, negligent and tortious conduct against AfricanAmerican patrons or would-be patrons of SULLYS and the Cordish-related restaurants
and bars within 4th Street Live or both.
21
141.
A reasonably prudent landowner/landlord in 4th Street Live and/or Sullys
would believe or anticipate that injury to a patron would be caused by such

discriminatory, negligent, and tortious conduct.
142.
4TH STREET LIVE LANDLORD failed to take reasonable steps to stop this
harmful conduct from occurring.

143.
Plaintiff was injured by this discriminatory, negligent and tortious conduct.
144.
COUNT 11 NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO HIRE, TRAIN AND/OR SUPERVISE
AGAINST SULLYS
145.

Verified Complaint.
146.
SULLYS had a duty to hire, train and supervise employees as would the
reasonably prudent bar and restaurant in the community under the same and/or similar
circumstances.
147.
SULLYS knew or should have known that one or more of its employees
were targeting blacks from time to time and ejecting them from the premises without just
cause and based only on their skin color, in violation of their rights to be free from
discrimination in places of public accommodation.
22
148.
SULLYS failed to reasonably hire, train, and/or supervise its employees
so that they would refrain from targeting and/or ejecting black patrons without just
cause.
149.
AGAINST Entertainment Consulting International (ECI)
150.

Verified Complaint.
151.
Upon information and belief, ECI is under contract with SULLYS to
manage multiple aspects of SULLYS business, including the training and supervision of
employees, the policies and procedures under which customers are handled and
treated, implementation and enforcement of dress code, and diversity and cultural
awareness training.
152.
Plaintiff is a third party beneficiary of said managerial contract.
153.
Under the managerial contract, ECI had a duty to hire, train and/or
supervise Sullys employees and managers as would a reasonably prudent bar and
restaurant owner in the community under the same and/or similar circumstances.
23
154.
ECI knew or should have known that one or more Sullys employees
and/or managers were targeting blacks from time to time and ejecting them from the
premises without just cause and based only upon their race, and/or that one or more of
Sullys employees needed to have racial sensitivity or other training designed to prevent
discriminatory conduct.
155.
ECI failed to reasonably hire, train, and/or supervise Sullys employees so
that they would refrain from discriminating against black patrons or would be patrons.
156.
AGAINST LMPD
157.

Verified Complaint.
158.
LMPD is under a duty to hire, train, and supervise its police officers, as
would the reasonably prudent police force under the same or similar circumstances, in a
manner designed to reasonably prevent its police officers from engaging in
discrimination and/or tortious conduct.
24
159.
LMPD failed in its duty to so hire, train and supervise its employees such
that its police officers involved in the subject incident engaged in the wrongful acts
described herein.
160.
COUNT 14 NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO HIRE, TRAIN, AND SUPERVISE
SECURITY OFFICERS AND/OR EMPLOYEES
AGAINST 4TH STREET LIVE LANDLORD
161.

Verified Complaint.
162.
4TH STREET LIVE LANDLORD is under a duty to hire, train, supervise
and monitor its own employees, and its third party security firms and off-duty police
officers, as would a reasonably prudent landlord under the same or similar
circumstances, in a manner designed to reasonably prevent its own employees, its third
party security firms, and its off-duty police officers from engaging in discriminatory,
negligent, and/or tortious conduct.
163.
4TH STREET LIVE LANDLORD failed in its duty to so hire, train,
supervise, and/or monitor such that one or more of its employees, security firms, offduty police officers and/or other agents involved in the subject incident (such as the
25
man wearing the 4th Street Live shirt and carrying the clipboard), engaged in,
participated in, affirmed, validated, and/or failed to stop what should have been
apparent as discriminatory, negligent, and tortious conduct against Plaintiff as described
herein.
164.
As a result of the this conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to
suffer damages including, but not limited to, embarrassment, humiliation, indignity,
suffering, multiple fears, emotional distress and trauma, anxiety, harm to reputation,
COUNT 15 INTENTIONAL/NEGLIGENT INFLICTION EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
AGAINST EVERY DEFENDANT
165.

Verified Complaint.
166.
Each of the Defendants named in this lawsuit committed one or more acts
as described herein with intentional, reckless and/or negligent indifference to the

physical safety, civil rights and emotional well-being of Plaintiff.
167.
The conduct of each of the Defendants as described herein is outrageous
and intolerable and offends the generally accepted standards of decency and morality in
this community.
168.
As a result of the outrageous and intentional conduct by each of the
Defendants as described herein, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages
including, but not limited to, embarrassment, humiliation, indignity, suffering, multiple
26
fears, emotional distress and trauma, anxiety, harm to reputation, discouragement,

damage to self-esteem, helplessness, hopelessness, shamefulness, shame upon his
family and daughter, loss of job, loss of earnings, expenditure of legal fees, costs,
expenses, and more.
COUNT 16 FALSE ARREST/MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AGAINST SULLYS
169.

Verified Complaint.
170.
The above facts constitute false arrest and malicious prosecution under
Kentucky law, under the state and federal constitutions, and under Kentucky common
law.
171.
The actions of Sullys and its employees, as described above, in initiating
contact, detaining, and continuing the prosecution against Plaintiff was done
maliciously, intentionally, wantonly and/or recklessly.
172.
The malicious acts by SULLYs and its employees were done with
reckless disregard for the truth and/or actual knowledge of the falsity of the charges.
COUNT 17 FALSE ARREST/MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AGAINST LMPD,
OFFICER WHITE,
AND UNKNOWN OFFICER(S)
173.

Verified Complaint.
27
174.
The above facts constitute false arrest and malicious prosecution under
Kentucky law, under the state and federal constitutions, and under Kentucky common
law.
175.
The actions of LMPD, OFFICER WHITE and/or Unknown Officer(s), as
described above, in initiating contact, detaining, and continuing the prosecution against
Plaintiff was done maliciously, intentionally, wantonly and/or recklessly.
176.
The malicious acts by LMPD and its employees were done with reckless
disregard for the truth and/or actual knowledge of the falsity of the charges.
COUNT 17 LIABILITY UNDER KRS 446.070
AGAINST LMPD, OFFICER WHITE AND UNKNOWN OFFICER(S)
177.

Verified Complaint.
178.
In addition, The actions of LMPD, OFFICER WHITE and/or Unknown
Officer(s), actions violated portions of the Kentucky penal code, including but not limited
to the following:
179.
a)
Official Misconduct (KRS 522.020-030);
b)
Assault (KRS 508.030);
c)
Perjury (KRS 523.020); and
d)
Tampering with physical evidence (KRS 524.100).
Said actions of Defendants, as described above, entitle Plaintiff to recover
damages under KRS 446.070.

COUNT 18 ADDITIONAL STATE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS
28
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

180.

Verified Complaint.
181.
In addition, and by virtue of the facts as set forth above, Defendants
knowingly, willfully and/or maliciously:

a)
Violated the Plaintiffs clearly established Kentucky Constitutional
rights, specifically, but not limited to, prohibition against unreasonable searches
and seizures, state equal protection guarantees, state due process guarantees,
and such provisions in the Kentucky Constitution including but not limited to 1,
2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, and 14.
b)
Unreasonably and unjustifiably seized the personal property of
Plaintiff;
c)
Subjected Plaintiff to unreasonable and excessive force;
d)
Violated clearly established standards and protocols of the police
profession;
e)
Deprived Plaintiff of his substantive and procedural due process
f)
Denied Plaintiff equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the
rights;
Kentucky State Constitution; and

g)
182.
Conspired to violate Plaintiffs state constitutional rights.
In addition or alternatively, the Defendants, as described above, acted
pursuant to an unconstitutional (under state law) and/or otherwise illegal policy, custom
or practice.
29
183.
In addition or alternatively, the Defendants LMPD, OFFICER WHITE, AND
UKNOWN OFFICER(S), as described above, were not properly trained as to the proper
method to conduct searches and seizures of property and persons, or to otherwise
perform their duties.
Count 19: VIOLATION OF THE KENTUCKY RACIAL PROFILING ACT
AGAINST LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE, OFFICER WHITE,
AND UNKNOWN OFFICER(S)
184.

Verified Complaint.
185.
Defendants WHITE, LMPD and Unknown Officer(s) conduct as outlined
above was solely motivated by racial consideration, which constitutes a direct violation
of KRS 15A.195 (Kentucky Racial Profiling Act).
186.
Accordingly, Defendants WHITE, LMPD and Unknown Officer(s), deprived
Plaintiff of rights secured by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution and analogous provisions of the Kentucky Constitution.
COUNT 20 ALTER EGO/PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL
AGAINST ECI, 4TH STREET LIVE LANDLORD, SULLYS
THE CORDISH COMPANIES INC., AND CORDISH OPERATING VENTURES
187.

Verified Complaint.
188.
Upon information and belief, each of these named Cordish-related entities
is owned, managed, operated and/or dominated by the same persons and/or entities.
30
189.
Upon information and belief, each of these Cordish-related entities is an
instrumentality or alter ego of one or more of the owners, managers, and/or officers of
THE CORDISH COMPANIES, INC., or of THE CORDISH COMPANIES INC. itself, or of
one of the other of these named Cordish-related entities, or of one or more Cordishrelated entity(ies) whose identity(ies) is/are presently unknown.
190.
Upon information and belief, the separate existence of these Cordish-
related entities is for the mere purpose of providing tax benefits and avoiding various
liabilities, all while hiding the identities of the real persons/entities in control of said
defendant entities.
191.
Upon information and belief, one or more of these Cordish-related entities
are asset-less and income-less shells incapable of meeting the financial obligations
which would attach to liability for the damages suffered by Plaintiff in the event Plaintiff
prevails in this lawsuit.
192.
Upon information and belief, one or more of these Cordish-related entities
derives virtually all of the benefits associated with operating SULLYS, while controlling
and dominating the operations of SULLYS, and/or withdrawing or spending the income,
appreciation, or other values/benefits generated by the operations of SULLYS.
193.
To allow one or more of the Cordish-related Defendants to escape
financial responsibility for the damages caused to Plaintiff by the agents and employees
of SULLYS, ECI, CORDISH INC., CORDISH OPERATING, and 4TH STREET LIVE
LANDLORD and the agents and employees of each of them, would sanction a fraud
and promote substantial injustice.
COUNT 21 CONSPIRACY AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
31
194.

Verified Complaint.
195.
One or more of the Defendants has conspired with one or more of the
other Defendants to discriminate against blacks in and around Sullys and in and around
4th STREET LIVE.
196.
One or more of the Defendants conspired with one or more of the
Defendants to target, harass, eject, and/or arrest and prosecute Plaintiff based on his
race, all in furtherance of the conspiracy to commit illegal discrimination against blacks
in and around SULLYS and/or in and around 4TH STREET LIVE.
197.
As a result of this conspiracy, under the laws of the State of Kentucky,
each Defendant is liable for each act committed by any other member of the conspiracy,
in furtherance of the conspiracy, from which damages result.
198.
As a result of the conspiracy and one or more acts committed in
furtherance of the conspiracy, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages
including, but not limited to, embarrassment, humiliation, indignity, suffering, multiple
fears, emotional distress and trauma, anxiety, harm to reputation, discouragement,
damage to self-esteem, helplessness, hopelessness, shamefulness, shame upon his
family and daughter, loss of job, loss of earnings, expenditure of legal fees, costs,
expenses, and more.
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
32
199.
As described above, Defendants were malicious, negligent, oppressive,
wanton, reckless, and/or grossly negligent in their treatment of Plaintiff, thereby entitling
Plaintiff to punitive damages for all violations, constitutional and otherwise.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to:
a. Certify the Plaintiffs Class, appoint Plaintiff as Class Representative and
appoint the undersigned as counsel for the Class;
b. Grant trial by jury on any and all issues triable;
c. Award of compensatory damages against Defendants jointly and severally for
the lost wages, lost good will and reputation value, embarrassment,
humiliation, and mental anguish suffered by Plaintiff, all according to proof;
d. Award liquidated damages;
e. Award punitive damages;
f. Pierce the Corporate Veil and issue its Judgment that the separate corporate
existence of THE CORDISH COMPANIES INC., ECI, 4TH STREET LIVE
LANDLORD, CORDISH OPERATING, AND SULLYS is pierced and
disregarded pursuant to Kentucky law for the purposes of this lawsuit, such
that each of these entities is liable for any and all of the damages awarded to
Plaintiff in this case.
g. Award attorneys fees and expenses incurred herein and the costs of this
action as the law may permit; and
h. Grant any and all other relief the Court determines appropriate, for Counts 1
and 2 below.
33
Respectfully submitted,
______________________________
DANIEL M. ALVAREZ
ADAMS & ALVAREZ, PLLC
539 West Market Street
Suite 300
Louisville, Kentucky 40202
(502) 272-2006
Counsel for Plaintiff
34
VERIFICATION
I, Shelton McElroy, do hereby verify that I have read the foregoing Verified
Complaint and the statements contained therein are true and accurate to the best of my
belief and knowledge.
____________________________
SHELTON MCELROY
STATE OF
)
) SS.
COUNTY OF
On this
day of
, 2015, before me personally appeared
Shelton McElroy, to me known to be the person described herein, and who executed
the foregoing instrument and she acknowledges that she voluntarily executed the same.
My Commission Expires:
NOTARY PUBLIC
35

Shelton McElroy Lawsuit Against Cordish, LMPD

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Shelton McElroy Lawsuit Against Cordish, LMPD

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

NO.

JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT

LOUISVILLE JEFFERSON COUNTY

Plaintiff, Shelton McElroy, (hereafter as Plaintiff) is a resident of

Plaintiff is of African American descent.

Defendant, THE CORDISH COMPANIES INC. (hereafter Cordish Inc.),

is a Maryland corporation which, by and through its officers, owners/shareholder(s)

Defendant LOUISVILLE IRISH LLC is a Kentucky limited liability company

Upon information and belief, SULLYS is owned and/or operated by

officers, owners/shareholder(s)/members of one or more of Cordish-related Defendants

INTERNATIONAL LLC (hereafter ECI) is party to a management contract with

Upon information and belief, CORDISH OPERATING VENTURES, LLC

(hereafter CORDISH OPERATING) is a foreign Limited Liability Company currently

Upon information and belief, LOUISVILLE GALLERIA LLC (hereafter 4TH

METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT (hereafter LOUISVILLE METRO) is the successor

This entity is authorized to conduct

Upon information and belief, Officer Christopher M. White (herafter

In addition, there may be additional unknown LMPD Officers (Unknown

This cause of action arose in the Commonwealth of Kentucky in and

around SULLYS, in 4th Street Live.

This cause of action is brought pursuant Kentucky common law and to

This cause of action is also being brought pursuant to KRS 15A.195.

The damages suffered by plaintiff are in excess of the minimum

This cause of action arose on or about October 26, 2014.

Plaintiff is a responsible citizen and resident of the City of Louisville,

employed as a full-time College Instructor at Jefferson Community Technical College,

Prior to October 26, 2014, Plaintiff also was employed as a part-time

substance-abuse counselor for recently released parolees.

Plaintiff, today a 38 year old male of African descent, grew up in multiple

The owners of businesses located in 4th STREET LIVE have a reputation

The manager checked Plaintiffs ID and approved his attire.

Plaintiff then observed the manager make a head movement in the

direction of the Plaintiff, while looking at the bouncer.

The managers head movement appeared to Plaintiff as some type of

signal to the bouncer.

The hostess collected a $10 cover charge from Plaintiff.

Plaintiff walked through Sullys, looking to see if any of his friends or

acquaintances were in the establishment.

Hip hop music was playing during this time.

abruptly switched to country.

Plaintiff obediently followed the bouncers instructions, not knowing what

in compliance with the dress code.

of the bar wearing no shirts, and the DJ was also shirtless.

Plaintiff began video-taping the incident on his phone.

The bouncers demeanor remained forceful and menacing throughout the

Observing the bouncers demeanor, Plaintiff stated he would leave, but

wished to have his $10 cover charge returned.

The manager was positioned so he could enforce the bouncers ejection of

At that moment, an LMPD officer arrived and forcefully grabbed Plaintiffs

arm, ordering him to step outside of Sullys.

This LMPD officer said, Come with me or Ill arrest you.

Plaintiff, surprised, asked, Arrest me for what?

Plaintiff observed another LMPD officer aggressively striding toward him.

several feet outside the door.

of his hand so the officer could turn off the video.

Plaintiff stated, You cant have my phone.

about to be charged with resisting arrest.

on the ground, so he wanted to get arrested anyway.

degree criminal trespassing and disorderly conduct.

No bail option was given Plaintiff.

Because he was in jail, Plaintiff was unable to pick up his ten-year-old

daughter as planned the following morning at 8 a.m.

Plaintiff was arraigned on the charges.