CONFIDENTIAL Katherine Venti (9318) Michael W. Young (12282) Alan §. Mouritsen (13558) PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER 201 South Main Street, Suite 1800 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 ‘Telephone: 801.582.1284 Facsimile: 801.536.6111 KVenti@parsonsbehle.com MYoung@parsonsbehle.com AMouritsen@parsonsbehle.com Attorneys for Claimants NOTIC TO: Janene Weiss Provo City Recorder 351 W. Center Street Provo, Utah 84601 801.852.6524 jweiss@provo.utah.gov Pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-7-401, the individuals identified as Claimant 1 and Claimant 2 (collectively “Claimants”),1 through their undersigned counsel, notify Provo City of the following claims, 1 Claimants are identified anonymously to protect their identities as victims of sexual misconduct. Utah Code § 68G-7-401 does not require a notice of claim to list claimants’ names. See Mecham v. Frazier, 2008 UT 60, {| 18, 193 P.3d 630; Xiao Yang Li v, University of Utah, 2006 UT 57, { 15, 144 P.3d 1142 4814-3435.5992V3GENERAL NATURE OF CLAIMS AND ALLEGATIONS Claimants’ claims generally arise out of the sexual misconduct and predation of John Arthur King during his employment as Chief of Police of the Provo City Police Department (the “Department”). As described below, Chief King engaged in a pattern of unlawful sexual misconduct toward Claimants and others, and also unlawfully disc riminated against Claimants. Chief King’s egregious misconduct created a hostile working environment for those Claimants who are or were employees of Provo City. Despite multiple reports of Chief King’s misconduct, Provo City retained Chief King as one of its final policymakers, without taking disciplinary or supervisory action to prevent Chief King's misconduct toward, predation upon, and injury to Claimants and others As described in this notice of claim, as well as in various media accounts, Provo City permitted Chief King to run the Department as his personal fiefdom, mistreating people by harassing thom and, for at least one Claimant, committing sexual offenses that violated her bodily intogrity. For these reasons, and to remedy the wrongs committed against them, Claimants seek relief as set forth individually by Claimant below, 4814.34s5.s9923I, CLAIMANT 1 A. _ Brief Statement of Facts—Utah Code § 63G-7-401(8)(a)(i) Claimant 1 is a former employee of the Provo City Police Department who worked as a dispatcher from 2010 until 2015. During her time as a dispatcher, Claimant 1 suffered repeated instances of sexual harassment and misconduct by Chief King, For example, Chief King told Claimant 1 he had dreamt about her, made comments about Claimant I's breasts in the presence of other dispatchers, frequently and conspicuously leered at Claimant 1's breasts in public, and humiliated Claimant 1 by asking her to show Chief King and his son pictures of Claimant 1 in a workout outfit, Chief King’s repeated misconduct demeaned and humiliated Claimant 1 inside and outside the workplace. At times, Chief King also engaged in unwanted physical touching of Claimant 1, Claimant 1 put Provo City on notice of Chief King’s inappropriate conduct through a formal complaint as she was leaving her employment with the Department. Upon information and belief, Provo City took no corrective action to ensure Chiof King’s inappropriate, sexually charged behavior, perpetrated by a man in a position of power within Provo City, ceased within the Department or in the community, 14-3455-5992V3B. Nature of Claims Asserted—Utah Code § 63G-7-401(8)(a)(ii) In identifying specific claims for relief, Claimant 1 attempts to assist Provo City in assessing its liability. In doing so, Claimant 1 does not waive any potential causes of action or legal theories that are reasonably within the scope of the facts set forth above. See Doyle v. Lehi City, 2012 UT App 342, J 42, 291 P.3d 853. 42. U.S.C. § 1983: Claimant 1 asserts against Provo City and Chief King, individually, claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although Claimant 1 takes the position—and case law supports the position—that this claim preempts any requirements of Utah’s Governmental Immunity Act, Claimant 1 nevertheless sets forth the nature of this claim out of an abundance of caution. Chief King violated Claimant 1’s right to equal protection, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In particular, Chief King discriminated against Claimant 1 on the basis of her sex, depriving Claimant 1 of her right to equal protection of the laws. In doing so, Chief King engaged in willful misconduct as defined under Utah Code §§ 63G-7-102(11) and 63G-7-202(c)). Provo City is liable under § 1983 for the harm perpetrated upon Claimant 1 for two independent reasons. First, as the final arbiter of complaints regarding sexual harassment and misconduct within the Department, Chief King was a final policymaker with respect to his sexual harassment of Claimant 1, and Provo City is liable for the actions Chief King took as one of its final policymakers. Second, by 48143435-s99203,failing to meaningfully train, supervise, correct, or discipline Chief King in the area of sexual harassment, Provo City was deliborately indifferent to the constitutional rights of persons that Chief King would come into contact with, including Claimant 1. For either or both of these reasons, Provo City is liable to Claimant 1 under § 1983. Claimant 1 has been injured and suffered damages as a result of Chief King’s and Provo City’s misconduct. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Claimant 1 asserts against Chief King, individually, a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Chief King engaged in outrageous and intolerable conduct toward Claimant 1. Chief King intended to cause emotional distress to Claimant 1 or acted with reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress to Claimant 1. Chief King engaged in willful misconduct as defined under Utah Code §§ 68G-7-102(11) and 63G-7- 202(c)(i). Claimant 1 has suffered severe or extreme emotional distress as a result of, and caused by, Chief King’s misconduct. Battery: Claimant 1 asserts against Chief King, individually, a claim of battery. Chief King acted toward Claimant 1 intending to cause her harmful or offensive contact, or an imminent apprehension of such contact. Harmful contact with Claimant 1 directly resulted. Chief King engaged in willful misconduct as defined under Utah Code §§ 63G-7-102(11) and 63G-7-202(c)(j), Claimant 1 has been injured and damaged as a result of Chief King’s misconduct, 4614-3455-5992¥3Assault; Claimant 1 asserts against Chief King, individually, a claim of assault, Chief King acted with intent to cause harmful or offensive contact with Claimant 1, or imminent apprehension of such contact. As a result of Chief King’s actions, Claimant 1 was put in imminent apprehension of Chief King’s contact, Claimant 1 suffered injuries proximately caused by Chief King's actions. Chief King engaged in willful misconduct as defined under Utah Code §§ 63G-7-102(11) and 63G-7-202(c)(i). Claimant 1 has been injured and damaged as a result of Chief King’s misconduct. Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and/or Retention: Claimant 1 asserts against Provo City a claim of negligent hiring, supervision, and/or retention. Claimant 1 is aware that Provo City may assert immunity based on Larsen v. Davis County School District, 2017 UT App 221. Nonetheless, Claimant 1 preserves this claim should Larsen be distinguishable, be overtumed on a petition for certiorari, or otherwise be overturned by decision of the Utah Supreme Court Provo City owed a duty to Claimant 1, who came into contact with Chief King through her employment with Provo City, to protect Claimant 1 from harm at the hands of its employees, including Chief King, Provo City breached that duty by, among other things, failing to properly investigate Chief King’s background before his hiring, failing to properly supervise Chief King, and/or retaining Chief King as Police Chief after complaints of Chief King’s sexual and other misconduct. Provo 48143455-599208City’s breach of its duty was the proximate cause of Claimant 1's injuries at the hands of Chief King, C. Damages—Utah Code § 63G-7-401(3)(c)(iii) Claimant 1 states that she is entitled to damages for genoral damages including pain and suffering, lost wages, attorneys’ fees? and costs, and punitive damages. D. Governmental Employee—Utah Code § 63G-7-401(8)(c)(iv) Claimant 1 states, consistent with the facts and claims set forth above, that she is pursuing claims against the following governmental employee individually, as provided in Utah Code § 63G-7-202(8)(c): John Arthur King, Claimant 1 was not alone in being on the receiving end of Chief King’s blatant misconduct, Other employees of the Provo City Police Department witnessed Chief King’s abusive conduct and were at times subject to that conduct. One such employee began working at the Department in 2006 or 2007. During his tenure, he witnessed inappropriate behavior by Chief King toward female employees. These incidents included Chiof King’s leering at female dispatchers and attempting to cultivate off-duty relationships with subordinates. These female employees urged him to not report Chief King’s misconduct, however, out of fear of retribution. 2 Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, “[iJn any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of [§ 1983], the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party . .. a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs.” 4814343539903,‘This employee was at one point assaulted by a female co-worker who grabbed his genitals. He complained of this incident to the human resources department. Upon information and belief, a written report was generated in which it was recommended that no disciplinary action be taken against this employee, and that the co-worker be disciplined, Upon information and belief, Chief King was tasked with the final personnel decision related to this incident, and he chose to retain and not discipline the co-worker, with whom Chief King was having an off-duty relationship. After the complaint, this employes was eventually transferred from his patrol, SWAT, and K-9 positions at Chief King's direction and stationed in the Department's property room. Another long-time employee of the department witnessed inappropriate behavior by Chief King toward female members of the Department, including Chief King’s leering at female dispatchers and attempting to cultivate off-duty relationships with subordinates. In one of her first meetings with Chief King, he conspicuously leered at hor breasts during the entire 20-minute encounter in his office, On another occasion, Chief King groped her breast, Other employees and non-employees of the Provo City Police Department were similarly subject to Chiof King’s sexually aggressive and hostile words and conduct. We expect these individuals to come forward as the entire scope of Chief King’s wrongdoing comes to light. 4814.3455.59903,I, CLAIMANT 2 Provo City’s failure to discipline Chief King or otherwise hold him accountable for his misconduct culminated in what Chief King did to Claimant 2. A, Statement of Facts—Utah Code § 68G-7-401(8)(a)(i) Claimant 2 is a 26-year-old woman who was raped by Chief King in January 2017. Claimant 2 came into contact with Chief King while she was attending Utah Valley University. Claimant was a member of the Provo Police Citizens’ Advisory Board (“CAB”), which was a police-citizen advisory board instituted and run by Chief King. During months of contact with Claimant 2, Chief King made sexually suggestive comments to Claimant 2, in response to which Claimant 2 attempted to set boundaries with Chief King. Nonetheless, Chief King disregarded those boundaries and physically touched Claimant 2 without her consent, including kissing, fondling, and groping Claimant 2. In late January 2017, Chief King engaged in nonconsensual sexual contact with Claimant 2. Despite Claimant 2's protests to Chief King that she did not want to engage in sexual relations, Chief King persisted and raped Claimant 2, invading her bodily integrity. During her interactions with Chief King, Claimant 2 felt she was unable to report Chief King's unwanted advances, nonconsensual physical touching, and nonconsensual sexual contact. Because Chief King was Chief of the Provo Police 4814-3485.599210,Department, Claimant 2 feared retribution given Chief King’s power and authority within Provo City. Upon information and belief, prior to Chief King’s unwanted advances, nonconsensual touching, and nonconsensual sexual contact with Claimant 2, Provo ity was aware of inappropriate sexual behavior by Chief King toward employees within the Department and toward women outside the Department. Provo City failed to take any action to discipline Chief King or provent Chief King from using his authority as Chief of Police to continue his inappropriate and illegal sexual behavior. B, Nature of Claims Asserted—Utah Code § 63G-7-401(3)(a)(ii) In identifying specific claims for relief, Claimant 2 attempts to assist Provo City in assessing its liability. In doing so, Claimant 2 does not waive any potential causes of action or legal theories that are within the scope of the facts set forth above. See Doyle v. Lehi City, 2012 UT App 342, {| 42, 291 P.3d 853. 42 U.S.C, § 1989: Claimant 2 asserts against Provo City and Chief King, individually, claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although Claimant 2 takes the position—and case law supports the position—that this claim preempts any requirements of Utah's Governmental Immunity Act, Claimant 2 nevertheless sets forth the nature of this claim, as follows, out of an abundance of caution, Chief King violated Claimant 2's bodily integrity, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, 10 agia.sass.soo2v3Chief King’s unconstitutional conduct shocks the conscience, was brutal, and/or is offensive to human dignity. Chief King’s unconstitutional conduct with respect to Claimant was done under color of state law. Chief King engaged in willful misconduct as defined under Utah Code §§ 63G-7-102(11) and 68G-7-202(¢)(i). Provo City is liable under § 1988 for the harm perpetrated upon Claimant 2 for two independent reasons, First, as the final arbiter of complaints regarding police misconduct toward members of the CAB, Chief King was a final policymaker with respect to his sexual assault of Claimant 2, and Provo City is liable for the actions Chief King took as one of its final policymakers. Second, by failing to meaningfully train, supervise, correct, and/or discipline Chief King in the area of sexual abuse and misconduct, Provo City was deliberately indifferent to the constitutional rights of persons that Chief King would come into contact with, including Claimant 2. For either or both of these reasons, Provo City is liable under section 1983 to Claimant 2. Claimant 2 has been injured and damaged as a result of Chief King’s and/or Provo City’s misconduct. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Claimant 2 asserts against Chief King, individually, a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Chief King engaged in outrageous and intolerable conduct toward Claimant 2. Chief King intended to cause emotional distress to Claimant 2 or acted with reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress to Claimant 2. Chief King engaged i 4814-3455-5992V3,in willful misconduct as defined under Utah Code §§ 63G-7-102(11) and 63G-7- 202(c)(i). Claimant 2 has suffered severe or extreme emotional distross a result of, and caused by, Chief King’s conduct. Battery: Claimant 2 asserts against Chief King, individually, a claim of battery. Chief King acted toward Claimant 2 intending to cause her harmful or offensive contact, or an imminent apprehension of such contact. Harmful contact with Claimant 2 directly resulted. Chief King engaged in willful misconduct as defined under Utah Code §§ 63G-7-102(11) and 63G-7-202(c)(i). Claimant 2 has been injured and damaged as a result of Chief King’s misconduct. Claimant 2 asserts against Chief King, individually, a claim of assault, Chief King acted with intent to cause harmful or offensive contact with Claimant 2, or imminent apprehension of such contact. As a result of Chief King’s actions, Claimant 2 was put in imminent apprehension of Chief King’s contact. Claimant 2 suffered injuries proximately caused by Chief King’s actions. Chief King engaged in willful misconduct as defined under Utah Code §§ 68G-7-102(11) and 68G-7-202(0)(i). Claimant 2 has been injured and damaged as a result of Chief King’s misconduct. False Imprisonment: Claimant 2 asserts against Chief King, individually, a claim of false imprisonment. Chief King engaged in conduct with the intent to confine Claimant 2 within boundaries fixed by Chief King during his rape of Claimant 2. Chief King’s conduct resulted in a confinement of Claimant 2 while she 12 4814-3455-599213,was conscious of the confinement and harmed by it. Chief King’s conduct amounted to an unlawful detention or restraint of Claimant 2 against her will. Chief King engaged in willful misconduct as defined under Utah Code §§ 63G-7-102(11) and 63G-7-202(c)(i). Claimant 2 has been injured and damaged as a result of Chief King’s conduct. Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and/or Retention: Claimant 2 assorts against Provo City a claim of negligent hiring, supervision, and/or retention. Claimant 2 is aware that Provo City may assert immunity based on the decision in Larsen v. Davis County School District, 2017 UT App 221. Nonetheless, Claimant 2 preserves this claim should Larsen be distinguishable, be overturned on a petition for certiorari, or otherwise be overturned by decision of the Utah Supreme Court. The nature of this claim is as follows: Provo City owed a duty to Claimant 2, who came into contact with Chief King through the CAB, to protect Claimant 2 from harm at the hands of its employees, including Chief King. Provo City breached that duty by, among other things, failing to properly investigate Chief King’s background before his hiring, failing to properly supervise Chief King, and/or retaining Chief King as Police Chief after complaints of Chief King’s sexual and other misconduct. Provo City’s breach of its duty was the proximate cause of Claimant 2’s injuries at the hands of Chief King. 18 4814.2455-59925,C. Damages—Utah Code § 68G-7-401(8)(c) (iii) Claimant 2 states that she is entitled to damages for medical expenses, general damages including pain and suffering, attorneys’ fees? and costs, and punitive damages. D. Governmental Employee—Utah Code § 63G-7-401(8)(c)(iv) Claimant 2 states, consistent with the facts and claims set forth above, that she is pursuing claims against the following governmental employee individually as provided in Utah Code § 68G-7-202(8)(c): John Arthur King, DATED and EXECUTED on this 18th day of January, 2017, PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER Kathérine Venti j - Michael W. Young Alan 8, Mouritsen Aitorneys for Claimants 3 Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, “fiJn any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of [§ 1983], the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party . . . a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs.” 14 4814.3455.59903