Complaint Against Chicago State University and University Officials

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Willie Preston and Brittany Bailey, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) The Board of Trustees of Chicago State ) University, Wayne Watson (in his personal and ) official capacities), Angela Henderson (in her ) personal and official capacities), Patrick Cage (in ) his personal and official capacities), Matoya ) Jury Trial Requested Marsh (in her personal and official capacities), ) and Ronnie Watson (in his personal and official ) capacities), ) ) Defendants. )

Complaint for Injunctive, Declaratory, and Monetary Relief

Plaintiffs Willie Preston and Brittany Bailey (jointly, Plaintiffs), by and through their

attorneys, complain of the Board of Trustees of Chicago State University (CSU or the

University) as well as President Wayne Watson, Interim Provost Angela Henderson, Vice President

and General Counsel Patrick Cage, Matoya Marsh, and Chief Ronnie Watson, each individually and

in their official capacities as employees of CSU, and in support of their Complaint state as follows:

Introduction

1. Plaintiffs were active members of the student government at CSU who spoke out against

what they viewed as the autocratic and corrupt practices of several powerful and politically

connected members of the CSU administration, including certain defendants to this action.

2. In response, these defendants took a number of actions aimed at silencing Plaintiffs,

including instituting disciplinary actions against them, invalidating the results of elections they won,

arranging their arrest and criminal prosecution, and expelling Mr. Preston from the University.

Case: 1:14-cv-03423 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/12/14 Page 1 of 36 PageID #:1

23. Defendants wielded power through a carrot and stick approach, providing incentives for

political support and retaliating against perceived threats among the staff, faculty, and students. At

taxpayer expense, they manipulated the affairs of the University to maintain their own power and

control. This case is an illustration of a phenomenon described by a CSU history professor (as

recorded in the September 2013 Board of Trustees meeting minutes), that CSU is run like an old

fashion[ed] pre-modern medieval state with warlords in charge of various districts, and kings and

queen being fashioned and unfashion[ed] at whim.

Jurisdiction 4. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 to secure protection and redress

deprivation of the rights secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of

the United States of America, and the jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1331, 1343, 2201.

5. Supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims is sought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1367(a). Plaintiffs state law claims form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the

United States Constitution as their federal claims.

6. This Court is vested with venue over Plaintiffs claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b).

7. Plaintiffs and all defendants reside or maintain their principal place of business in the

Northern District of Illinois, and the unlawful actions alleged in this Complaint occurred in Chicago,

Illinois.

Parties

8. Plaintiffs Willie Preston and Brittany Bailey are students who attended CSU beginning in

2010. While Defendants Watson, Henderson, Marsh and others caused Mr. Preston to be expelled

from the University at the end of 2013, Ms. Bailey continues to pursue her education at CSU. At all

times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs were dating or married.


39. CSU is a public educational institution created by the Chicago State University Law, 110

ILCS 660, and is located at 9501 South King Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60628.

10. President Wayne Watson (President Watson or Dr. Watson) began working at CSU in

2009 despite opposition to his hire by the majority of the presidential search committee. He served

as President of CSU throughout the entirety of Mr. Prestons and Ms. Baileys attendance at CSU.

11. Interim Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs Angela Henderson (Dr.

Henderson) was hired in 2013. President Watson first hired Dr. Henderson to CSU after having

served on her doctoral dissertation committee in 2013 at the University of Illinois-Chicago (UIC).

On information and belief, the Graduate College of UIC is currently reviewing Dr. Hendersons

dissertation following allegations of extensive plagiarism. Dr. Hendersons husband is President

Watsons personal attorney.

12. Patrick Cage (Mr. Cage) was appointed by President Watson in 2009 as Vice President for

Labor and Legal Affairs and General Counsel for CSU. Mr. Cage oversees the Student Judicial

Affairs Office. Mr. Cages ties with President Watson precede his hire at CSU.

13. Matoya Marsh (Ms. Marsh) was appointed by President Watson in 2012 as Director of

Student Activities & Leadership in 2012 and still serves as Director of Student Activities to date. Ms.

Marshs ties with both President Watson and Dr. Henderson precede her hire at CSU.

14. Chief of Police Ronnie Watson (Chief Watson) was hired by President Watson in 2009 as

Chief of the CSU Police Department. On information and belief, Chief Watson is a personal friend

and relative of President Watson.

Facts Common to All Claims

15. In or about March 6, 2008, CSU reinstated a long-standing student-run newspaper named

Tempo, which had been shut down from 2003 through 2008. This newspaper, which is designated by

the Illinois legislature as a public forum, was historically run by student staff members and funded


4by the student activity fee. When Tempo published articles critical of CSUs management in or about

2008, the appointed advisor to the student newspaper was terminated and the newspaper was

eventually shut down again. Since 2009, Defendants did not permit the publication of Tempo or any

uncensored student-run newspaper or newsletter despite students repeated attempts to reinstate it.

16. In or about 2009, CSU hired Wayne Watson to fill the vacant presidency at CSU. President

Watsons hire was controversial amongst both faculty members and students. Fourteen out of the

seventeen members of the presidential search committee resigned in protest after the Board of

Trustees designated Dr. Watson and one other candidate as finalists even though they were not even

on the committees short list of most qualified candidates. On information and belief, Dr. Watson

was hired because he was politically connected to Board of Trustees member Leon Finney.

17. In August of 2010, Mr. Preston enrolled at CSU in a nontraditional degree program with a

focus in political science. That same year, Ms. Bailey enrolled at the University as a pre-medical

student.

Plaintiffs campus activism

18. In or about 2011, a group of students helped to re-establish a group called the Independent

Student Union (ISU), which would primarily serve to address student issues on campus. On

information and belief, this groups reinstatement was largely motivated by the desire to change

restrictive policies under CSUs current administration.

19. In or about August of 2011, Mr. Preston and Ms. Bailey were approached by members of

the ISU who were organizing a rally called Occupy Cook at the Cook Administration Building,

where President Watsons and other administrative offices were located.

20. The purpose of this rally was to protest the administrations policies and what the

organization viewed as the administrations extraordinary disregard for the needs of its students. Mr.

Preston and Ms. Bailey both participated in planning meetings for the Occupy Cook event.


521. During these meetings, Mr. Preston and Ms. Bailey listened to various concerns students

voiced regarding practices of President Watson and his administration. Mr. Preston voiced some of

his own concerns at these meetings. For example, students discussed frustration about inadequate

science labs, the physical disintegration of many of the buildings on campus, unreasonably restricted

library hours, CSUs ban against a student newspaper, and not having a day care despite the fact that

over 80% of the student population had children.

22. Occupy Cook took place in or about November of 2011. Approximately thirty-five to fifty

students along with some faculty members peacefully gathered on the third floor of the Cook

Administration Building to voice their displeasure with the policies of President Watson and his

administration. On information and belief, President Watson and other administrative members of

CSU such as Vice President of Enrollment Management Angela Henderson the then-Director of

Student Activities Jason Ferguson were in the vicinity.

23. During the protest, various students denounced policies and actions of the President and

other University officials. Mr. Preston and Ms. Bailey were among those students.

24. Mr. Preston, who had been asked by the ISU to serve as one of the spokespersons for the

event, received enthusiastic support from the protestors when he voiced his concerns to the group.

After Mr. Preston spoke, President Watson came forward and began to respond to some of the

students concerns, insisting that he was doing everything he could to advance student interests.

25. Later, as Plaintiffs were leaving the protest, Dr. Henderson, who was at that time the Vice

President of Enrollment Management, invited Mr. Preston to meet with her.

26. At the meeting, Dr. Henderson told Mr. Preston that he appeared to be a very intelligent

young man with a lot of potential, but that faculty members were using students to attempt to hurt

the President who she said was fighting every day to ensure African American students had just as

many opportunities as white students across the state. She stated that Mr. Preston should not let a


6bunch of white, Communist, atheist professors trick him. Dr. Henderson then offered Mr.

Preston a student work-study job in her office, which Mr. Preston respectfully declined.

27. Subsequent to the Occupy Cook event, Mr. Preston and Ms. Bailey remained heavily

involved with the ISU and worked with other students to devise ways to advance student interests

on campus.

28. Both Mr. Preston and Ms. Bailey were vocal about their concerns and openly discussed

issues on campus with other students at CSU, many of whom shared similar concerns.

Plaintiffs involvement in student government

29. In the fall of 2012, President Watson appointed Ms. Marsh as advisor for the Student

Government Association (SGA), replacing Jason Ferguson, even though student groups normally

chose their own faculty advisors in accordance with CSUs Clubs and Organizations Guidelines

Manual (Student Activities Manual). Former advisor Ferguson was popular amongst SGA

members but President Watson replaced him with Ms. Marsh because he preferred an advisor who

would closely monitor and control SGA affairs.

30. On information and belief, Ms. Marsh was generously compensated for her advising role to

the SGA, despite CSUs explicit policy designating the advising role as a voluntary one.

31. That same semester, the SGA held elections for Treasurer, Secretary, Speaker of Senate,

Illinois Board on Higher Education (IBHE) Representative, and twenty-five SGA Senator

positions.

32. Despite not having previously been involved with the SGA, Mr. Preston ran for IBHE

Representative and Ms. Bailey ran for SGA Senator.

33. On or about September 12, 2012, Mr. Preston and Ms. Bailey were notified that they had

been elected as IBHE Representative and Student Government Association Senator, respectively.


734. As student representative of the IBHE, Mr. Preston participated in university-wide

committees such as CSUs budget committee and the tuition and fees committee.

35. According to the Student Activities Manual, advisors should work with student groups, but

should not direct nor dictate the organizations programs and activities, nor should they play a

direct role in student club events.

36. It quickly became apparent that Ms. Marshs role within the SGA would be much more

heavy-handed than her faculty counterparts who had served student groups in similar capacities. For

example, Ms. Marsh attended every meeting the SGA held and vehemently opposed ideas for

reform with which she did not agree. If Ms. Marsh could not attend a meeting, the meeting was

viewed as unofficial. The SGAs activities were overregulated and censored by Ms. Marshs

micromanagement in direct contravention to the Student Activities Manual.

37. The SGA constitution was substantially revised in closed-door meetings which only Ms.

Marsh, the student Board of Trustees member, the SGA president and the SGA vice president were

permitted to attend (the president and vice president were permitted to attend these meetings only

after the president complained about having been excluded). Once the constitution was ratified, Mr.

Preston sought to publicize it to students but Ms. Marsh forbade him from doing that.

38. Among the revisions to the constitution was that no official SGA business could be handled

without the approval of the advisor.

39. In the first weeks of Plaintiffs term, Ms. Marsh repeatedly stated that SGA funds were

limited and that the SGA needed to keep this in mind when discussing proposals and plans. In

response to this, Mr. Preston asked Ms. Marsh questions about the size of the SGA budget but was

instructed to just spend the money and not ask any questions. Ms. Marshs responses were at odds

with the transparent financial policy contemplated by the Student Activities Manual including the

instruction that the advisor insure the group keeps accurate and accessible financial records.


840. On information and belief, Ms. Marsh was reluctant to respond to Mr. Prestons budget

questions because in addition to her regular salary, Ms. Marsh received income from the student

activity fee pool. On information and belief, Ms. Marsh also hoped that if the students were kept

unaware of the full extent of the budget, they would not implement some of the projects and

reforms they proposed.

41. When Mr. Preston asked President Watson about the SGA Budget and about how it was

funded in an executive board meeting on or about September 18 or 19, 2012, President Watson

responded that he never wanted anyone in the SGA to worry about money, and that the SGA would

have at least $200,000 to use. Based on enrollment numbers, Mr. Preston had estimated student

activity funds to be approximately $600,000. Mr. Preston continued to raise questions and voice

concerns about the budget to President Watson and others in the administration.

42. Starting in or about October of 2012 through about May of 2013, Mr. Preston worked in the

office of Vice President of Administration and Finance Glenn Meeks as a student worker. Ms. Bailey

also worked for the University in the Office of Meetings and Events and the Honors College in

2011 and 2012 respectively. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were excellent employees, received no

negative performance evaluations or reprimands, and received outstanding feedback from their

supervisors.

43. While part of the SGA, Mr. Preston and Ms. Bailey worked to implement beneficial

programs to service students and the public at large. As an example, Plaintiffs formally proposed

creating a student publication and developing scholarships and grants for students (which

culminated in the passing of the Leadership Recognition Act, passed in 2013). As another example,

shortly after being elected, Mr. Preston proposed a program called Cougar Bucks, to encourage

academic success and greater participation in SGAs democratic process. For example, students


9would receive Cougar Bucks for coming to SGA meetings, which had a particularly low student

attendance.

44. To assess student interest in these programs, Plaintiffs circulated petitions among the

student body about their proposals. For example, Plaintiffs circulated a petition called Night Owls

about a program to extend library hours. Plaintiffs also circulated a petition called Proposition 411

which sought to reestablish a student newspaper, and which received widespread support. Finally,

Plaintiffs circulated a petition asking students to evaluate President Watsons performance. Ms.

Marsh publicly criticized Mr. Preston during Executive SGA meetings for distributing these

petitions.

45. Ms. Marsh forcefully opposed many of Mr. Prestons proposals, including Cougar Bucks and

his call for a student-run publication. Ms. Marsh did not contend that the proposals violated

university regulations, but barred their implementation because she disagreed with them.

46. At one point, Ms. Marsh responded to repeated requests for a student publication by

advising that the student body could only publish a newsletter under her close direction and

approval. When Mr. Preston asked whether they would be able to include in such a publication

proposals about changing the administration, Ms. Marsh responded she would definitely not

approve that type of speech. Ms. Marsh did not cite to any policy that such speech would violate.

47. On several occasions, Mr. Preston respectfully voiced his concern that Ms. Marsh was

overstepping her bounds as an advisor, and that she was usurping student leadership roles by

dictating the direction the SGA took regarding their activities.

48. Mr. Preston and other members of the SGA (including the SGA President) repeatedly

attempted to replace Ms. Marsh with another faculty advisor. Ms. Marsh refused to step down,

however, stating that her role as advisor to the SGA was part of her contract and she thus could not

be replaced.


10

49. According to the Student Activities Manual, The voluntary association between an advisor

and the organization should continue as long as both parties believe the relationship is productive

and mutually satisfying.

50. In one meeting in or about January of 2013 between then-Dean Theresa McKinney, Ms.

Marsh, and Mr. Preston, Mr. Preston expressed his concerns about Ms. Marshs interference with

student attempts at democratic self-governance and respectfully requested that she be replaced. Ms.

Marsh became infuriated and visibly upset during that meeting.

Do we want someone like that representing our university?

51. Ms. Marsh directly supervised Evening and Weekend Event Coordinator Angela Hampton,

and, on information and belief, repeatedly voiced her dislike of Mr. Preston to her.

52. On or about January 25, 2013, Ms. Angela Hampton filed an incident report against Mr.

Preston with the Office of Judicial Affairs. Ms. Hampton provoked the incident by snatching

something out of Mr. Prestons hands while he was cleaning up after an event and ordered him to

leave, calling him names like mother fucker. When Mr. Preston did not leave, Ms. Hampton

continued to use profane language and asked Ms. Marsh to get this lil boy away from her before

she hurts him. In her report, Ms. Hampton alleged that Mr. Preston verbally assaulted her when he

responded to this profane tirade by calling her a name.

53. On information and belief, Ms. Marsh directed Ms. Hampton to file an incident report

against Mr. Preston. During the hearing on Ms. Hamptons allegations on or about February 6, 2013,

Ms. Hampton testified untruthfully to the hearing panel about what she had said to Mr. Preston. Ms.

Marsh also testified untruthfully, claiming that Mr. Prestons comment was unprovoked. She also

brought up Mr. Prestons role in student government and asked the hearing officers how they

thought the all-white IBHE would react if Mr. Preston verbally assaulted them. Do we want

someone like that representing our university? she asked.


11

54. Judicial Affairs ruled against Mr. Preston. On information and belief, Ms. Hampton was

never disciplined for verbally abusing and assaulting Mr. Preston.

55. This was the first instance Mr. Preston was ever disciplined for alleged inappropriate

behavior at CSU. On information and belief, no complaints were ever levied by administrators,

faculty members, CSU employees, or students against Mr. Preston before he began engaging in

speech critical of Dr. Watson, Ms. Marsh, and the CSU administration. In fact, numerous staff

members and administrators can attest to Mr. Prestons respectful demeanor and outstanding

character.

56. On or about February 21, 2013 during an SGA meeting for the general student body, Mr.

Preston was given the floor and began speaking about his concern about the lack of transparency of

the budget and student activity fees. As Mr. Preston spoke, he was constantly interrupted by SGA

Vice President Brittni Fitzgerald, a friend of Ms. Marsh. Ms. Fitzgerald yelled Point of Order

every time Mr. Preston said something about the budget. During the meeting, Ms. Marsh repeatedly

and overtly signaled to Ms. Fitzgerald to interrupt Mr. Prestons speech. At one point, Ms. Fitzgerald

attempted to snatch the microphone out of Mr. Prestons hands and Ms. Marsh yelled, This

meeting is over and asked people to please leave. It was not Ms. Marshs role to decide when to

end meetings.

57. When Mr. Preston continued to speak, Ms. Fitzgerald phoned CSU police and told the

officers that Mr. Preston threatened her, despite the fact he hadnt spoken directly to her that day

nor did he make any threats towards her. The officers left without arresting Mr. Preston, but

removed him from the room. Later, Ms. Fitzgerald admitted in a judicial hearing that Ms. Marsh

specifically instructed her to report any conceivably inappropriate conduct on the part of Mr.

Preston to the police.


12

58. After the meeting, Ms. Marsh e-mailed Mr. Preston notifying him that he was suspended

from the SGA pending the outcome of allegations of inappropriate conduct during an SGA

meeting. Later, Mr. Preston came to learn that Ms. Fitzgerald had filed an incident report against

him alleging that he exhibited disruptive and hostile behavior towards her during the meeting. On

information and belief, Ms. Marsh directed Ms. Fitzgerald to file that incident report.

59. The next day, Ms. Marsh e-mailed Mr. Preston and told him that since he was suspended

from the SGA, he could not attend an IBHE meeting scheduled for that day. On information and

belief, Ms. Marsh did not have the authority to stop Mr. Preston from attending the meeting because

his position as IBHE representative was not only authorized by but directly regulated by the state.

60. On information and belief, Ms. Marsh suspended Mr. Preston from the SGA in an effort to

censor his speech and block him from reporting budget concerns regarding the CSU administration

at the upcoming ISBE meeting. Mr. Preston complied with Ms. Marshs instruction and did not

attend the meeting.

61. Following Ms. Fitzgeralds complaint, then-Judicial Affairs Director Shannon VanSlyke

administered a hearing at the end of which the panel found Mr. Preston Responsible for

disruptive behavior but Not Responsible for hostile behavior.

62. The only thing disruptive about Mr. Prestons speech was its substance. A witness who was

present at the meeting testified that Mr. Preston had not acted inappropriately or aggressively

towards anyone, and that she did not understand why the police officers were called.

63. Judicial Affairs issued a combined sanction for Mr. Prestons alleged January and February

offenses. Specifically, Judicial Affairs members required him to complete seventy-five hours of

community service, four Conflict Resolution sessions, and fifty mentorship hours during which

Mr. Preston would observe employees on campus conduct their work.


13

64. Sometime in February or March of 2013, in a meeting with Dr. Watson, Dr. Watson told

Mr. Preston that they should work together because they are from the same hood and that he

should not be hanging around them white communist professors who got theirs and dont give a

damn about you getting yours. Mr. Preston told Dr. Watson that he listened to the students at CSU

and was acting according to their concerns.

65. On or about March 29, 2013, at the invitation of Executive Director of the CSU Foundation

Katy Assem, Mr. Preston and Ms. Bailey attended a reception as student ambassadors honoring

former Illinois Senate President Emil Jones, Jr. in light of his foundations $200,000 donation to the

CSU Foundation. Mr. Assem asked Mr. Preston to deliver a speech at the dinner, and also advised

that both he and Ms. Bailey would receive scholarships because of their leadership and dedication to

the University. At the dinner, Mr. Preston provided Mr. Assem with a copy of his speech, after

which Mr. Assem stated he was pleased with it. After President Watson briefly met with Mr. Assem,

however, Mr. Assem never re-approached Mr. Preston about addressing the audience, nor did

Plaintiffs ever receive the scholarship Mr. Assem promised. On information and belief, President

Watson directed Mr. Assem not to allow Mr. Preston to speak at the reception.

Defendants use authoritarian measures to thwart Plaintiffs growing influence

66. In or about March of 2013, Mr. Preston announced his candidacy for the position of Student

Trustee for the May of 2013 elections. Ms. Bailey announced her candidacy for President of SGA

soon thereafter.

67. Mr. Preston and Ms. Bailey ran on a platform to reform CSU policies and enact procedures

to guard against corruption. Central to Mr. Prestons campaign was his pledge to propose a motion

that the Board of Trustees remove Dr. Watson as president. Ms. Bailey also promised during her

campaign to work towards removal of Dr. Watson as president of the University.


14

68. As Student Trustee, Mr. Preston would vote on important matters pertaining to the

University (with the exception of faculty retention and promotion), including but not limited to the

renewal of CSU administrators contracts.

69. Both Plaintiffs received strong support from the general student body at CSU.

70. To deter Mr. Preston from running, Ms. Marsh told him that he was not eligible to run for

elections because he had been disciplined. There was no policy or state law prohibiting students who

were disciplined at CSU from running in elections, and Mr. Preston was in fact permitted to take

part in the campaign.

71. On information and belief, Ms. Marsh continuously directed students not to vote for

Plaintiffs, and repeatedly asked students to instead vote for Enrique Duncan, Ishmael Reina, and

Jasmine Cross, who were not political opponents of President Watson.

72. Ms. Marsh also told other CSU employees to campaign against Mr. Preston. As an example,

Ms. Marsh asked Director of Greek Life, Cassie Sledge, to ask students to vote for Mr. Prestons and

Ms. Baileys opponents. On information and belief, it was against CSU policy for faculty and

administrative members to endorse students running for student government.

73. Pursuant to CSUs written policy, members of student groups could not post or distribute

flyers or campaigning materials without their first being approved by the Student Activities Center.

Despite repeated attempts by Plaintiffs during the campaigning cycle in April, Ms. Marsh refused to

approve any advertising material for their campaigns, while approving campaign materials for all

other students in the election. Oftentimes, when Plaintiffs attempted to obtain her approval, Ms.

Marsh would make herself unavailable or ignore Ms. Baileys requests.

74. Ms. Marsh approved the advertising of Plaintiffs opponents, who distributed and posted

hundreds of cards, flyers, and other campaigning material. Because Plaintiffs campaign material was

never approved, Mr. Preston only posted one flyer at a gas station across the street from campus.


15

75. Mr. Duncan bragged to Mr. Preston at one point that President Watson had assured him he

would not lose the election (We take care of our own), and asked Mr. Preston, Why dont you

just tell Brittany to drop out of the race? Mr. Duncan also stated that President Watson told him

that even if he received a lower number of votes during the election, he would still win.

76. The SGA elections took place from May 1, 2013 through May 3, 2013.

77. On the first day of the election, May 1, 2013, Mr. Duncan became extremely aggressive

when he saw Mr. Preston and baselessly accused him of spreading a rumor about him. Mr. Duncan

then punched him, after which point Mr. Preston merely ducked and moved out of his way. This

attack was caught on a security camera right outside the Office of Judiciary Affairs.

78. On information and belief, at President Watsons suggestion Mr. Duncan filed a complaint

against Mr. Preston with Judicial Affairs for the incident described in paragraph 78.

79. Mr. Preston and Ms. Bailey overcame these roadblocks and campaigning restrictions, and

won the election for Student Trustee and President of SGA by an overwhelming majority. However,

the election results were never released to the general student body.

80. On information and belief, The Board of Elections (BOE), which included Ms. VanSlyke

and Ms. Marsh, under the direction of Mr. Cage, invalidated the results of the election on the

purported basis that Ms. Marsh had inappropriately interfered, even though Plaintiffs had brought

Ms. Marshs interference to the attention of the administration much earlier to no avail. So, rather

than act to stop Ms. Marshs interference while it was happening, the BOE waited until the

candidates Defendants favored had lost, and then used Ms. Marshs interference against Plaintiffs.

81. Between May 6 and May 9 of 2013, Plaintiffs and others met with the newly appointed

Board of Trustees member Spencer Leak and voiced some of their concerns regarding CSU and

about President Watson. President Watson knew this meeting was to take place.


16

82. On or about May 8, 2013, Mr. Duncan and Mr. Preston were brought before Judicial Affairs

because of their alleged altercation. At the hearing, Ms. VanSlyke refused to admit a written

statement provided by one of the only witnesses who had been present during the reported incident.

Ms. VanSlyke also permitted administrators who had nothing to do with the hearing attend and

provide statements against Mr. Preston. As an example, Assistant Director of Student Activities,

who reported to Ms. Marsh, suggested to the hearing panel that Mr. Preston was a bad student who

had a history of causing lot of problems on campus. During the hearing, Mr. Duncan admitted

that he had attacked Mr. Preston.

83. Despite viewing a security camera video that wholly exonerated Mr. Preston, on or about

May 10, 2013, Judicial Affairs members found that both Mr. Duncan and Mr. Preston were

responsible for the altercation, and issued Mr. Preston a suspension. On information and belief,

Director of Judicial Affairs Shannon VanSlyke received directions from President Watson, Dr.

Henderson, Mr. Cage, and Ms. Marsh regarding Mr. Prestons hearing and suspension. On

information and belief, another member of the Judicial Affairs panel had worked closely at the

Latino Resource Center with a candidate who ran against Mr. Preston in the election, Mr. Reyna.

84. On information and belief, Dr. Henderson asked Ms. VanSlyke in a profanity-laced phone

call to do something regarding Mr. Prestons disciplinary case that Ms. VanSlyke felt was illegal. Ms.

VanSlyke later resigned in part because of this incident.

85. Mr. Prestons suspension from CSU disqualified him from attending classes and participating

in student groups during the upcoming semester. On information and belief, then-Provost Sandra

Westbrooks refused to approve a suspension longer than one semester.

86. On information and belief, it was Provost Westbrooks refusal to cooperate with what she

viewed as objectionable actions of Dr. Watson as well as her political opposition to his continued

appointment that motivated Dr. Watson to accuse her of a number of improprieties. On


17

information and belief, President Watson made Provost Westbrooks job so unpleasant that she

chose to retire. President Watson then promoted Dr. Henderson to the position of Interim Provost.

87. On information and belief, Mr. Duncan was not suspended nor disciplined as a result of his

physical attack of Mr. Preston. In fact, Dean of First Year Experience Sheila Collins, who reported

to Dr. Henderson, offered Mr. Duncan a job by the administration shortly thereafter.

88. Also shortly following the hearing, Ms. VanSlyke was promoted to Dean of Students. On

information and belief, President Watson facilitated her promotion because of her cooperation

during the Judicial Affairs hearings against Mr. Preston.

Threatened by his words.

89. Soon after he was suspended, Mr. Preston was offered a job at the Office of State

Representative Ken Dunkin, who served as Chairman of the Higher Education Appropriation

Committee that made decisions regarding state monetary allocations to CSU and other universities.

Due to Mr. Prestons excellent job performance, Mr. Dunkin promoted him to a supervisory

position within the office. Later, some time after Mr. Preston had been hired into the Office of the

State Representative, Representative Dunkin received a letter from Mr. Cage. On information and

belief, that letter stated that Mr. Preston posed a threat to CSUs budget. On information and belief,

President Watson also directly communicated to Representative Dunkin that Mr. Preston was

causing problems at the University.

90. At the time he was suspended, Mr. Preston was never advised that he was banned from

campus. On information and belief, according to CSUs policy at the time, suspended students were

permitted to be on campus but could not attend classes. On at least one occasion, Mr. Preston asked

then-Dean VanSlyke whether or not he could be on campus and she responded that he could

because he was just like a guest but could not register for classes.


18

91. On or about October 11, 2013, while Mr. Preston was suspended from classes, Interim

Director of Judicial Affairs Anne Kent met with Mr. Preston and advised him that her job was to

contain him, and that she had been instructed by top-level administrators to keep him off campus.

Ms. Kent advised that the administrators did not want him speaking with students on campus. Upon

Mr. Prestons inquiry, Ms. Kent stated he was technically permitted on campus, but that she had a

meeting in the Presidential chambers that afternoon for the purpose of changing the University rules

to keep Mr. Preston off campus.

92. Mr. Preston told Ms. Kent that, although he respected her, so long as it was allowed, he

would not refrain from coming to campus and speaking with students about matters related to CSU.

93. On or about October 14, 2013, Mr. Preston entered the Cordell Reed Student Union

building (the Student Union Building), where an open house for prospective students had been

taking place. Upon entering, University officials approached Mr. Preston and instructed him to

report to Ms. Kent.

94. Ms. Kent then provided Mr. Preston with a letter that instructed him that he could no longer

come to campus, and provided him with a list of students who allegedly felt threatened by him. On

information and belief, all of these students were provided with incentives to complain about Mr.

Preston. For example, at least two students were offered paid internships shortly after agreeing to

their inclusion on the list. During that meeting, and under the instruction of Chief Watson, two CSU

police officers entered the room in which Mr. Preston sat and escorted him off campus.

95. On or about October 18 Mr. Preston was invited to attend a meeting held by the IBHE

faculty advisory committee, which took place at the library on campus. During the meetings

question and answer session, Mr. Preston raised his hand. After being called upon, Mr. Preston

stated that he was among many students on campus who believed that individuals in the

administration, including President Watson and Dr. Henderson, engaged in corrupt practices. The


19

IBHE Chair told Mr. Preston it was not the appropriate time for these comments. Mr. Preston then

stated that he apologized if he offended anyone, after which several faculty members of the meeting

stated they were not offended. When Mr. Preston got up to leave the meeting, the IBHE Chair

stated that this was a public meeting and that he was free to stay.

96. After Mr. Preston left the meeting, Dr. Henderson quickly followed and attempted to speak

with him. Mr. Preston declined to speak with her.

97. To Mr. Prestons surprise, as Mr. Preston exited the building, several members of the

University Police Department entered the library and arrested him. An officer advised Mr. Preston

that they received a call accusing him of disrupting a meeting.

98. On information and belief, Dr. Henderson was the individual who called the CSU Police

Department. Later, she admitted to calling Chief of Police Ronnie Watson directly.

99. Although Mr. Preston was first advised he would not be arrested, he was ultimately arrested

and taken to the CSU Police Station, where he was held for about three hours.

100. While he was detained, Mr. Preston denied Chief of Police Ronnie Watsons allegation that

he had threatened the Interim Provost. In response to this, one of the Sergeants of the department

remarked, Im clear on what this is really about.

101. On information and belief, Chief Watson knew Dr. Henderson had exclusively political

motives for seeking Mr. Prestons arrest but nonetheless ordered his officers to arrest and hold him.

102. Eventually, Mr. Preston was transferred to the 111th street Chicago Police Department

where he was held for another three hours and then released.

103. On information and belief, under the direction of Chief Watson, CSU filed a criminal

trespassing charge against Mr. Preston, but this charge was ultimately dismissed.

104. On or about October 23, 2013 Dr. Henderson filed a petition for a restraining order against

Mr. Preston, saying Mr. Preston angrily entered a meeting and proceeded to . . . yell, scream, and


20

holler about me. She added that Mr. Prestons threatening appearance (dressed in a black

overcoat) as well as angry words, and expressions were very out of control and caused her to feel

shaken and threatened by his words. She falsely accused Mr. Preston of shouting You, you

better be careful! as he was leaving the meeting. Mr. Preston was served notice of this restraining

order by the same CSU police officer who arrested him on October 18.

105. Mr. Preston was unable to attend the hearing on the proposed order and in October of 2013,

an Illinois court issued a restraining order prohibiting Mr. Preston from any contact with Dr.

Henderson. Dr. Hendersons purpose in obtaining the restraining order was to retaliate against Mr.

Preston for his speech and ensure he would not be engaging in speech critical of her or of President

Watson on campus or in her presence.

106. At no time did Mr. Preston ever threaten Dr. Henderson, yell at her, or make physically

aggressive movements toward her. Rather, he had always been civil and respectful toward her.

Defendants expel Mr. Preston

107. On or about October 21 and October 22, 2013, without sending notice of the date and time

to Mr. Preston, Judicial Affairs scheduled a preliminary hearing regarding a disciplinary complaint

Dr. Henderson made against him, entered a plea on Mr. Prestons behalf, and scheduled a full board

hearing for October 28, 2013. At the time, Janelle Carter had recently been appointed as Interim

Director of Judicial Affairs and handled the preliminary and full hearings. On information and

belief, President Watson and Mr. Cage transferred Ms. Carter from Mr. Cages office to the Judicial

Affairs position to handle Mr. Prestons expulsion.

108. Mr. Preston asked Ms. Carter if he could have some time to seek legal representation, but

was advised that he had no right to legal counsel. To the contrary, CSU policy provides that either

party may bring an advisor to the hearing[to] [offer] advice . . . . See CSU Policy Handbook

Article X, Section 2, Policy 2.1.


21

109. On information and belief, sometime in October of 2013, the administration amended CSU

policies on suspensions to restrict students who were suspended from being on campus.

110. On October 28, 2013, Mr. Preston was escorted to his expulsion hearing by police officers in

front of other students, staff, and faculty members.

111. Ms. Carter, who presided over the hearing, refused to allow Mr. Prestons witness, Jokari

Miller (who was present at the faculty IBHE meeting in which Mr. Preston allegedly threatened the

Provost), to testify at the hearing, and prohibited Mr. Miller from entering the room in which the

hearing took place. Ms. Carter did not provide a reason for excluding Mr. Prestons witness.

112. During the hearing, Provost Henderson testified that she was afraid to come to work

because of Mr. Preston and was afraid for her life, the lives of her family members, as well as other

administrators, students, faculty members, and staff. She called him an American terrorist and

stated that she felt Mr. Preston was prepared to engage in murderous activity like so many who

committed mass shootings on American campuses across the country. At no time did Dr.

Henderson provide evidence that could possibly justify these purported fears.

113. At the hearing, Veronica Williams, a student at CSU, testified that Mr. Preston had made an

outburst at the meeting. On information and belief, Ms. Williams was pressured by Dr.

Henderson and CSU police officers into making this statement.

114. Ms. Williams later retracted her testimony in an e-mail to University officials, explaining that

under stress she had described the incident inaccurately. She further stated that Willie Preston

did not make an outburst, but merely made a statement after getting permission from the Chair of

the IBHE, and that he made no statements that could even be taken out of context as a threat.

115. Mr. Preston timely appealed the expulsion on the grounds that the charges made with the

police station had been dropped and that Ms. Williams had retracted her statement in writing.


22

116. President Watson appointed Dan Schumacher, Director of Athletics, to handle Mr. Prestons

appeal hearing, and prohibited Mr. Preston from attending his own hearing.

117. On information and belief, Mr. Prestons appeal hearing took place on November 14, 2013

and during that hearing, Mr. Schumacher concluded that the expulsion was appropriate.

118. Mr. Preston was never provided minutes from the hearing, nor was he provided information

about who made the decision to uphold his expulsion on appeal.

Defendants turn attention to silencing Brittany lil bit Bailey

119. Meanwhile, on or about August 27, 2013, Ms. Bailey organized a vigil for a fellow student

who was gunned down one day prior to the start of the semester. Ms. Bailey followed CSUs

protocol in organizing the event, and submitted a room request to Ms. Marsh.

120. Ms. Marsh refused to sign the room request form Ms. Bailey submitted because she stated

that she wanted to hold her own vigil for the student.

121. On or about August 29, 2013, Ms. Marsh sent Ms. Bailey an e-mail stating that because the

room request was not approved, the event was not approved and threatened that if Ms. Bailey

moved forward with the event, she would make charges against her to the Office of Judicial Affairs.

122. On or about September 2, 2013, Ms. Marsh aggressively approached Ms. Bailey and

demanded that Ms. Bailey give her all of the fliers for the vigil that she was holding in her hand. Ms.

Bailey respectfully refused to hand over the fliers. Ms. Marsh also began threatening that she would

report Ms. Bailey to Judicial Affairs.

123. Several faculty members complained to the Office of the Dean of Students about Ms.

Marshs actions to restrict Ms. Baileys efforts to hold a vigil for her classmate.

124. On or about September 3, 2013 Dean of Students VanSlyke called Ms. Bailey and told her

that she and other students could proceed with the scheduled vigil and relayed that she had not

agreed with Ms. Marshs actions or behavior. Ms. VanSlyke resigned shortly thereafter.


23

125. That same day, SGA held the vigil on the quad outside the Student Union Building.

126. In early October of 2013, Ms. Bailey ran for Board of Trustees Student Representative.

127. At that time, the elections for Board of Trustees Student Representative were held by SGAs

BOE, which included Ms. Marsh.

128. Ms. Bailey openly campaigned for new leadership on campus and used the slogan Watson

Must Go! in her campaign. Ms. Bailey also campaigned against alleged misappropriation of student

funds at CSU.

129. Ms. Bailey followed CSU instructions and policies closely during the campaigning period.

Still, she received backlash throughout the process. As an example, the BOE refused to accept a

form because she had e-mailed it to the BOE instead of submitting it in person, despite having

submitted forms via e-mail in the past without a problem. On information and belief, no policy

existed that prohibited students from submitting election forms via e-mail.

130. As another example, on several occasions Ms. Bailey was thwarted in her attempts to secure

BOE approval for her advertisement material. On or about October 4, 2013, when Ms. Bailey came

into Ms. Marshs office and spoke with Ms. Marshs secretary about wanting to obtain approval for

the fliers, Ms. Marsh closed the door of her office and announced she was in a meeting.

131. After this incident, Ms. Bailey sent an e-mail to the BOE and Ms. Marsh seeking approval

for her fliers so that she could begin posting and distributing them. Ms. Bailey noted that the delay

in obtaining approval for these fliers was a major setback for her campaign.

132. Ms. Bailey never received approval for her advertisement material during this campaign, and

therefore could not post or distribute any of her fliers.

133. The BOEs Procedure and Protocol (Election Protocol) did not regulate the types of

individuals who could or could not campaign on behalf of students who were running for student


24

government. However, the Election Protocol did require candidates to provide a list of the

individuals campaigning on behalf of students to the BOE.

134. The only individual Ms. Bailey identified on the campaign list she submitted was Mr.

Preston.

135. Ms. Marsh then told Ms. Bailey that Mr. Preston would not be permitted to campaign for

her because he was suspended from classes. On information and belief, the BOE instituted a policy

that restricted suspended students from campaigning only after the campaigning period began, and

only because it did not agree with the viewpoints of Mr. Preston and Ms. Bailey.

136. On or about October 5, 2013, as she did the previous year, Ms. Bailey requested from the

BOE that her name appear on the ballot as Brittany lil bit Bailey, in order to incorporate the

nickname by which she was known on campus. Ms. Bailey also objected to new rules the BOE had

been making in the midst of the election period. Ms. Bailey expressed that because the Board of

Trustees position was state-mandated, there could be serious legal ramifications for restricting her

campaign through these ad hoc rules and policies.

137. The BOE denied Ms. Baileys request to list her name as described. On information and

belief, Ms. Marsh and Ms. Muskadin refused to print her nickname on the ballot because it knew

Ms. Bailey was commonly known around the University as lil bit.

138. Prior to this campaign, the BOE did not have a policy against including nicknames on the

SGA ballot, and, in fact, the SGA Constitution specifically allowed for it. In previous elections, both

Ms. Bailey and other students were permitted print their nicknames on the ballot.

139. Various students complained to the BOE, Ms. Marsh, Dr. Henderson, Dr. Watson, Dean

VanSlyke, and other about CSUs actions to restrict Ms. Baileys campaign. On information and

belief, some students were bribed by certain Defendants to cease their complaints.


25

140. Shortly after these complaints, the BOE accused Ms. Bailey via e-mail of various violations

of CSU policy. It alleged that she failed to provide certain information requested by the BOE

because the name she requested to be placed on the ballot did not belong to a current CSU

student. The BOE also prohibited Mr. Preston from campaigning on behalf of Ms. Bailey.

141. In Ms. Baileys response to the BOE, she stated that she instructed [Mr. Preston] not to

campaign on her behalf.

142. That same day, Mr. Preston e-mailed the BOE and Ms. Marsh stating that Ms. Bailey

informed him that he is not a part of her campaigning team. He indicated that going forward, any

expression of support he made for Ms. Baileys candidacy would be done on his own accord and

should not be interpreted as having been done on her behalf or per her instruction.

143. On or about October 8, 2013, the BOE sanctioned Ms. Bailey because Mr. Preston was

allegedly seen on campus campaigning on her behalf.

144. On or about October 9, 2013, Ms. Marsh called CSU police and filed a police report against

Mr. Preston when Mr. Preston respectfully advised students not to cheat during the elections.

145. Pursuant to the sanction, Ms. Bailey was then prohibited from campaigning on her own

behalf and having any other student campaign on her behalf during the two election days. Ms.

Marsh explained that neither Ms. Bailey nor any other CSU student on campus could ask people to

vote for Ms. Bailey, nor could they ask people to vote for them on social media websites.

146. The claims made against Ms. Bailey were baseless, not supported by any substantive

evidence, and were created to hinder her campaign. Ms. Bailey asked to respond to the charges made

against her, but was never afforded that opportunity.

147. On or about October 8, 2013 Ms. Bailey complained that she was being censored because of

her speech and election goals. Ms. Bailey also complained that she was not afforded an opportunity

to refute charges the BOE levied against her.


26

148. On or about October 9, the BOE notified Ms. Bailey that her name was being removed

from the ballot because certain unnamed voters reported that she and Mr. Preston had engaged in

campaigning activities.

149. That same day, while Ms. Bailey was at the Student Union Building on campus explaining to

students that her name was inappropriately removed from the ballot and that if they wanted to vote

for her, they could write her name on the ballot, Ms. Marsh yelled for campus police officers to

arrest her, which they did. Ms. Bailey was told she was being arrested because CSU received a

hotline call complaining that Ms. Bailey, whose height is 410, was throwing tables. Ms. Bailey was

detained at the CSU police station for forty-five minutes and was subsequently released because

there was no evidence to corroborate that story.

150. On information and belief, under the authority of Chief Watson, Ms. Marsh directed campus

police to arrest Ms. Bailey because she did not want her present on campus during the election

period.

151. Ms. Bailey inquired about but was never informed of the election results.

152. On or about October 13, 2013 Ms. Bailey appealed to the BOE for permission to respond to

the sanctions leveled against her, but received no response.

153. On or about October 15 approximately fifty students and faculty members rallied on Ms.

Baileys behalf, protesting that the action taking Ms. Baileys name off the ballot was inappropriate.

154. In November of 2013, Ms. Baileys opponent in the Board of Trustees race, Ismael Reyna,

untruthfully reported to the Department of Judicial Affairs that on October 9, 2013, Ms. Bailey

bullied, harassed, intimidated, and held him hostage, despite Ms. Bailey being considerably smaller in

stature than Mr. Reyna and never having done the aforementioned acts. On information and belief,

there were no witnesses to this supposed hostage crisis. Ms. Bailey agreed to a no-contact order in

lieu of a hearing because she was afraid she would be disciplined and expelled like Mr. Preston.


27

155. In or about February of 2014, CSU student Tierra Clark, who had been employed by Ms.

Marsh, approached Ms. Bailey from behind and began choking her until Ms. Bailey fell forward. On

information and belief, this incident was caught on a security camera kept by CSU.

156. Ms. Bailey immediately reported the event to Interim Director of Judicial Affairs Anna Kent.

On information and belief, no charges were ever brought against this student, even though Ms. Kent

stated she knew Ms. Clark had in fact choked Ms. Bailey.

157. Ms. Bailey continued to organize peaceful demonstrations regarding the needs of CSU

students including but not limited to a "repression" forum on or about April 9, 2014 where students

and faculty members voiced their experiences about the current administration's attempts to restrict

their speech. As an example, one student spoke of how Ms. Marsh refused to accept her application

to run for student government because of her support of Mr. Preston. Another student who was

afraid to attend the repression forum wrote a statement (which was read out loud) about how he was

threatened that he would not graduate if he continued to speak out against the administration.

158. In or about April 15, 2014, in front of the Student Union Building, Ms. Bailey and others

held a peaceful protest demanding a day care at CSU. During the protest, CSU police officers were

called to the protest and threatened to arrest students who would use a bullhorn. When questioned

regarding the legal basis of such arrests, the officers told students that they didnt know about any

legal basis regarding the orders they were given and that they were just following Mr. Cages orders.

Dr. Henderson attempts to criminalize Mr. Prestons speech

159. Meanwhile, on or about March 14, 2014 Mr. Preston was arrested for attending a public

meeting of the CSU Board of Trustees (which is open to all residents of Illinois).

160. Mr. Preston was told he was being arrested for stalking Dr. Henderson in violation of her

no-contact order even though she was not present during that meeting and Mr. Preston knew she


28

would not be present at the meeting before he entered the room. Mr. Preston is currently being

criminally prosecuted for attending that meeting and faces up to one year in prison.

161. During the spring semester of 2014 a CSU police officer approached Ms. Bailey and

commented, in reference to Mr. Preston, Why do they keep messing with this guy, trying to ruin his

life when hes not even breaking the law? Angela Henderson is not scared of Willie. This is just a

plan they concocted to get him off campus. He indicated that all the police officers knew the

arrests had political motives but had to comply with orders if they wanted to keep their jobs.

162. In April of 2014, Mr. Preston received an e-mail from the CSU Director of Judicial Affairs

advising him not to attend a public Budget Appropriation meeting in Springfield, Illinois because

Dr. Henderson would be there. Despite having planned on attending the meeting to voice his

concerns about CSUs misuse of state funds, Mr. Preston did not attend.

163. On information and belief, CSU sent this communication to Mr. Preston not because Dr.

Henderson is afraid for her physical safety, but to prevent him from expressing his concerns about

CSU during the meeting in Springfield.

164. Students other than Plaintiffs who continue to object to CSUs policies and practices, and

who have stood up to CSU administrators in support of Mr. Preston, also suffer serious

consequences for their speech. For example, Jokari Miller, a former student senator who has

supported the transfer of various students to Northern Illinois University (NIU) in protest of

CSU's policies and practices, and who accompanied Mr. Preston to court several times when he was

defending against Dr. Hendersons allegations, wore a hat bearing NIUs name at a Board of

Trustees meeting on May 9, 2014. President Watson and Chief Watson demanded that Mr. Miller

remove his hat. Mr. Miller protested that it was not illegal to wear a hat and they both continued to

insist he take it off. Mr. Miller refused to remove the hat and stated that this was exactly why he and

other students organized a repression forum.


29

165. When Mr. Miller subsequently left the meeting, CSU police officers approached him from

behind and grabbed him by the neck, put him in a chokehold position, aggressively forced him to

the ground, arrested him and charged him with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. At least one

other person at the meeting was wearing a hat but was not asked to remove it until after Mr. Miller

was arrested and the chairman of the meeting announced a new rule that hats were not permitted in

the meeting. On information and belief, the only reason Mr. Miller was asked to remove his hat was

because it symbolized opposition to the administration. Subsequent to his release from jail, after

being held overnight, Mr. Miller was admitted to the hospital for injuries to his upper body and

prescribed strong painkillers. Mr. Miller also faces charges brought before CSU's Judicial Affairs,

only days before his graduation.

Count I First Amendment Deprivation and Retaliation Claim

(42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1988) Against Defendants President Watson, Cage, Henderson, and Marsh, in their personal

capacities

166. Paragraphs 1 through 165 are incorporated by reference as if fully set out herein.

167. Plaintiffs speech critical of CSU policies and practices and their proposals for reform are

matters of public concern and protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

168. Plaintiffs right to voice their concerns and goals related to CSU, to seek publication of a

newspaper or newsletter, and to associate themselves with certain faculty members and students,

outweighed any interest of Defendants in suppressing that speech.

169. Defendants used their discipline authority to retaliate against Plaintiffs for their protected

speech, frivolously reported them to legal authorities, interfered with their attempts to run for

democratic office, and expelled Mr. Preston from CSU in retaliation for Plaintiffs speech and

associations.


30

170. Under the color of law, Defendants additionally prohibited Plaintiffs from campaigning or

voicing their concerns to other students, faculty members, and members of the public in meetings

and/or through a student newspaper or newsletter, constituting an unconstitutional prior restraint.

171. Defendants have conspired to and have injured and continue to injure Plaintiffs by

restricting, aiding and abetting in restricting, or condoning the restriction of Plaintiffs speech and

associations.

172. Defendants acted with callous disregard for Plaintiffs clearly established rights.

173. Plaintiffs protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor for Defendants actions.

As a result of Defendants violations of Plaintiffs constitutional rights, Plaintiffs suffered damages

that include restricted speech, expulsion from the University, loss of business and academic

opportunities, loss of reputation, humiliation, inconvenience, emotional distress, litigation expenses,

attorney fees, and other compensatory damages.

Count II First Amendment Deprivation and Retaliation Claim

(42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1988) Against all Individual Defendants, in their official capacities


175. Defendants imposed policies, practices, and actions restricting and censoring Plaintiffs

speech and associations, which were protected by the First Amendment.

176. Defendants lacked a compelling governmental interest to justify this infringement on the

students freedom of speech rights and their right to associate with specific people.

177. In violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, and under the color of state law, Defendants deprived and

continue to deprive Plaintiffs of their right to freedom of speech and freedom of association,

guaranteed under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.


31

Count III Fourteenth Amendment Claim

Due Process and Conspiracy to Deprive Plaintiffs of Due Process (42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1988)

Against all individual Defendants, in their personal capacities and official capacities


179. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiffs had a right under the due process clauses of the federal

constitution not to be deprived of their life, liberty, or property.

180. At all times relevant herein, the defendants were state actors subject to 42 U.S.C. Sections

1983, 1985, and 1988.

181. Defendants have conspired to and have injured and continue to injure Plaintiffs by acting,

aiding, and abetting in denying Plaintiffs procedural rights and meaningful hearings in the

disciplinary actions levied against them.

182. Defendants have injured and continue to injure Plaintiffs without due process of the law by

arranging the detainment and arrests of Plaintiffs on numerous occasions, by restricting their

campaigns, disqualifying them from SGA elections, bringing about their arrest, suspending and

expelling Mr. Preston, and causing the criminal prosecution of Mr. Preston.

183. Defendants willfully and maliciously acted to violate Plaintiffs rights, intending to prejudice

and bias in disciplinary actions levied against them, and in arranging their arrests.

184. Defendants actions caused Plaintiffs to be deprived of due process of the law.


32

Count IV Illinois State Officials and Employees Ethics Act Claim

Against Defendants CSU, President Watson, Cage, Henderson, and Marsh


186. CSU is a public body within the meaning of 5 ILCS 430/15-5 and a state agency within

the meaning of 5 ILCS 430/1-5.

187. Defendants Watson, Cage, Henderson, and Marsh were at all relevant times employees

within the meaning of 5 ILCS 430/1-5.

188. Plaintiffs were employees within the meaning of 5 ILCS 430/1-5, since they were student

workers, and elected or prospective members of student government.

189. Plaintiffs publicly opposed actions, policies, and practices of Defendants that they

reasonably believed to be in violation of laws, rules, and regulations.

190. Plaintiffs protected activities were at the very least contributing factors in Defendants

interference with Plaintiffs participation in student government, discipline, and Mr. Prestons

expulsion.

191. Defendants actions caused suppression of Plaintiffs speech, exclusion from student

governance, and discipline.

Count V Illinois College Campus Press Act

110 ILCS 13/1 et. seq. Against Defendants CSU, Watson, Henderson, and Marsh


193. Defendants repeatedly subjected student media to prior review, and did not permit media

produced by students to be distributed, published, or displayed without approval from CSU officials.

194. Defendants actions were not necessary to serve a compelling state interest, nor were the

restrictions narrowly drawn so as to achieve a compelling state interest.


33

Count VI Violations of the Illinois State University Law

and the Chicago State University Law (110 ILCS 660/5-42)


196. Defendants carried out wrongful actions against Plaintiffs including but not limited to

creating policies, rules, and bylaws inconsistent with the law, excluding and marginalizing Plaintiffs

from student governance, and misappropriating and concealing the use of public funds.

197. Many of the actions allowed herein exceed the authority given to them by state law.

198. The actions of the individual defendants were undertaken intentionally with the purpose of

denying Plaintiffs procedural and substantive rights under the CSU Law.

199. Plaintiffs were harmed and continue to be harmed by the conduct of the individual

defendants. Such harm includes defamation, great and irreparable present and future loss and injury

including but not limited to pain and suffering, humiliation, embarrassment and mental stress.

200. The conduct of the individual defendants above was the proximate cause and a substantial

factor in Plaintiffs harm.

Count VII Illinois Breach of Contract Claim

Against CSU


202. In 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Plaintiffs and CSU entered into legally valid and binding

agreements, whereby in exchange for Plaintiffs payment of tuition and student activity fees, CSU

would be bound by the rules, regulations, policies, guidelines, and Code of Excellence it established

203. In addition, these agreements both implicitly and expressly provided that Plaintiffs be

eligible to receive a full college education uninterrupted by wrongful intimidation and persecution.

Importantly, CSUs Policy on Student Conduct provides that CSU


34

is a community where the means of seeking truth are open discussion, free discourse, spirited debate and peaceful dissent. Free inquiry is indispensable to the purposes of the University and should be protected as a matter of academic freedom within the institution. Accordingly, conditions must exist which allow and encourage this freedom for all students. No students or group of students, regardless of moral impetus, sincerity, or conviction has the right to limit or abrogate this freedom or prevent in any way the peaceful and lawful pursuits of other students.

See CSU Policy 2.1: Grievance Procedures.

204. CSU also promises to ensure students the full opportunity to participate in social, cultural,

intellectual and governance programs that expand the involvement of students with the campus,

community and society. See Student Activities Manual.

205. Said guidelines were set forth in CSUs student handbooks, written policies, website, and

advertising and recruiting literature.

206. Plaintiffs performed their material obligations pursuant to those agreements, including the

payment of all tuition costs and student activity fees.

207. Defendant breached these agreements by, among other things, suppressing Plaintiffs speech

and restricting their campus involvement, failing to provide Plaintiffs various procedural protections

when complaints and/or charges were levied against them as set forth in CSUs written policies, and

failing to provide Plaintiffs with a safe environment to continue their academic programs.

208. As a result of Defendants breach of its agreements, Plaintiffs have suffered substantial

damages.


35

WHEREFORE Plaintiff respectfully requests:

1. Reinstatement of Mr. Preston as student at CSU;

2. Injunctive relief appointing Mr. Preston as student trustee for one year, and Ms. Bailey to the student trustee position for another year;

3. Injunctive relief appointing Ms. Bailey as President of the SGA for one year;

4. Injunctive relief reestablishing an uncensored student-run newspaper;

5. Reversal and Dismissal of all charges and disciplinary actions levied against Plaintiffs;

6. Declaratory Relief finding:

i. That Mr. Preston and Ms. Bailey were winners of the 2013 SGA election;

ii. That Defendants violated the First Amendment when they suppressed speech with which they did not agree, closely censored student organization speech and activities, and prohibited the publication of an uncensored student newspaper or newsletter.

iii. That Defendants violated the First Amendment when they disciplined Plaintiffs and arranged the arrest and criminal prosecution of Plaintiffs in retaliation of the substance of their speech and their expressive association

iv. That Defendants violated the First Amendment when they censored Plaintiffs SGA election campaigns, prohibited them from campaigning, and invalidated election results in retaliation of the substance of their speech and their expressive association.

v. That Defendants violated the Fourteenth Amendment when they disciplined and sanctioned Plaintiffs without due process of the law.

7. Two times the compensation (including tuition reductions and other benefits) to which Plaintiffs would have been entitled upon their election as student members of the CSU Board of Trustees;

8. Two times the back pay for the employment opportunities Mr. Preston was denied as a result of his suspension and expulsion;

9. Compensatory damages;

10. Prejudgment interest;

11. Punitive damages;

12. Attorneys fees and costs; and

13. Such other relief as law and justice allow.


36

JURY DEMAND Plaintiff requests trial by jury. Dated: May 12, 2014

Respectfully Submitted, s/ Yusra Gomaa s/Rima Kapitan Yusra Gomaa Attorney #: 6299883 Rima Kapitan Attorney #: 6286541 Kapitan Law Office P.O. Box 6779 Chicago, IL 60680

312.566.9590


Complaint Against Chicago State University and University Officials

Documents

Transcript of Complaint Against Chicago State University and University Officials