Reynolds Complaint

Case 6:23-cv-06506 Document 1 Filed 08/30/23 Page 1 of 109
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------- X
CONOR DWYER REYNOLDS, :
:
Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.:
:
v. : COMPLAINT
:
CITY OF ROCHESTER, SHANI WILSON, : Jury Trial Demanded
DUWAINE BASCOE, DEBORAH :
CAMPBELL, DRORAH SETEL, MATTHEW :
NICKOLOFF and NATALIE BANKS (in their :
individual and official capacities) :
:
Defendants. :
----------------------------------------------------------------------- X
Plaintiff Conor Dwyer Reynolds hereby alleges as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. Days after being hired at Defendant City of Rochester (“the City”), Mr.
Reynolds’s supervisor – Defendant Shani Wilson – began making unwanted sexual advances
toward him as part of what her friends called an “obsession,” and a “delusional” one at that.
2. When Mr. Reynolds failed to give in to more than a year of persistent sexual
advances, Wilson – who has said her “job” was to serve as Mr. Reynolds’s “dominatrix” by
“humiliat[ing]” him into “submission” – engaged in a range of misconduct the City has admitted
was “clearly inappropriate.” This misconduct included, among many other things, graphic
sexual remarks, inappropriate sexual contact, cruel rumors and jokes, exclusion from work
functions, orders to stop having sex with women, and pressure to have sex with men.
3. When Mr. Reynolds stated his intention to complain about this behavior, did so
shortly thereafter, and went public with his story, Defendants subjected him to baseless
complaints, illegal orders to remain silent, an unjustified suspension, the public leak of his
personnel file, and a termination premised on obviously pretextual grounds.
1
4. All of this happened despite Mr. Reynolds being, in his employer’s words, a “role
model” employee who was doing “miracle” work at his job, someone who had never before, in
his entire career, faced a complaint or negative performance review.
5. Unsurprisingly, the State of New York has found – not once, but twice – that
there is probable cause to believe Defendants discriminated and retaliated against Mr. Reynolds.
6. What Defendants did to Mr. Reynolds is also a perfect illustration of employer
negligence. Defendants knew that Wilson had a long history of engaging in heinous workplace
misconduct similar to the behavior to which she subjected Mr. Reynolds. Despite this
knowledge, Defendants hired and retained her. Worse yet, Defendants never provided training
on sexual harassment and retaliation to any of the individuals responsible for supervising Mr.
Reynolds or Wilson – despite the countless best practices, laws, policies and practices that
required them to do so.
7. What Defendants did to Mr. Reynolds goes far beyond a run of the mill case of
negligence, retaliation, or discrimination. In the words of City officials, Mr. Reynolds needed to
pay a “heavy price” for “cast[ing] aspersions” on his powerful boss, who was a “best friend” of
countless City officials. That heavy price for reporting misconduct this: Mr. Reynolds being
publicly “hurt,” “lynch[ed],” “choke[d],” “destroyed,” and “pu[t] out of [his] misery.”
8. Defendants exacted this toll on Mr. Reynolds by launching a six-month campaign
to publicly discredit Mr. Reynolds’s story, destroy his reputation, and end his career. They
falsely branded him as a liar, a criminal, a person with a loathsome disease, and an incompetent
manager. They asked their own employees, the public, and community leaders to lie about,
isolate, and silence him.
2
9. City Councilmember Kim Smith and Board member (and Defendant) Drorah
Setel even attended a fundraiser held for Wilson while, at the same time, they were overseeing
the investigation into her misconduct – an “investigation” that was opened only after Defendants
had already declared his claims “unequivocally false.” To conduct this investigation, the City
hired a law firm that was also obligated to defend it against Mr. Reynolds’s claims and an
attorney who the City admitted had a “conflict of interest.”
10. Defendants’ campaign against Mr. Reynolds was so ham-fisted that Defendants
have been repeatedly forced to admit its baseless and punitive nature. For example, after
learning of the complaints solicited against Mr. Reynolds, Defendants labelled those charges as
“hyperbole” that merited a response of “So what?” Just after suspending Mr. Reynolds,
Defendants stated that a reason for doing so “had not been defined.” The day Defendants
publicly labelled Mr. Reynolds’s complaint “unequivocally false,” they admitted privately that
“many” of the allegations he made had, in fact, “occurred” – and later concluded that his boss
had engaged in “clearly inappropriate” behavior. Shortly before disseminating unsubstantiated
allegations against Mr. Reynolds to countless media outlets, Defendants admitted that their doing
so “constituted an unwarranted invasion of privacy.”
11. Defendants were so single-mindedly focused on humiliating, silencing, and
terminating Mr. Reynolds that they chose to openly violate his due process rights as an employee
who, by statute, could only be fired for “good cause.” It took Defendants four months after his
suspension to give Mr. Reynolds any information about the charges against him; when they did,
they omitted charges, misdescribed others, kept secret the evidence and witnesses against him,
and rejected his request to make a response to the relevant decision makers. In addition to
3
stripping him of pre-disciplinary due process, Defendants refused to inform Mr. Reynolds of the
reasons for his termination, hold an evidentiary hearing, or provide him with any form of appeal.
12. When Mr. Reynolds told his boss he would be reporting her misconduct, she
made him a promise: “I’m going to hurt you because you hurt me.” In fulfilling that promise,
Defendants did not merely discriminate and retaliate against Mr. Reynolds, neglect duties of care
owed to him, violate his due process rights, and defame him. They did all of this with ill will,
spite, and disregard for Mr. Reynolds’s well-being so reckless that it is clear Defendants intended
to inflict immense emotional distress upon him. Their intentions were fulfilled beyond measure,
causing massive damage to Mr. Reynolds’s reputation, his body and psyche, his mental health
and personal relationships and finances.
13. In taking a job at Defendant City, Mr. Reynolds was asked to work to fix a
longstanding problem within the City’s police department – namely, that powerful officials are
incapable of addressing misconduct by the powerful. The story of his firing proves that this
problem of City government is not limited to Rochester’s police department.
PARTIES
14. Mr. Reynolds is an individual who resides in Rochester, New York. From
October 16, 2020 to November 17, 2022, Mr. Reynolds served as the Executive Director of the
Rochester Police Accountability Board (“the PAB”) and, as such, was an employee of the City.
15. Defendant City of Rochester was and is a municipal corporation located in
Rochester, New York, and is organized under New York State law. The PAB is, by statute, an
office of and within the City.
16. Defendant Shani Wilson served as a PAB Board Member and as Chair of the
Board from January 2020 to June 2022. In her capacity as Chair of the Board, Wilson served as
4
Mr. Reynolds’s direct supervisor. Defendant Wilson is sued in her individual and official
capacity.
17. Defendant Duwaine Bascoe served as an attorney at the PAB from January 2022
to May 2022. From May 2022 until November 2022, Bascoe served as an “interim” or “acting”
Executive Director of the PAB. Defendant Bascoe is sued in his individual and official capacity.
18. Defendant Deborah Campbell served as the Director of Staff Support at the PAB
from December 2021 to mid-2023. Defendant Campbell is sued in her individual and official
capacity.
19. Defendant Drorah Setel has served as a PAB Board Member from January 2020
to the present. In her capacity as a member of the Board, Setel served as Mr. Reynolds’s direct
supervisor. Defendant Setel is sued in her individual and official capacity.
20. Defendant Matthew Nickoloff served as a PAB Board Member from January
2020 to January 2023. In his capacity as a member of the Board, Nickoloff served as Mr.
Reynolds’s direct supervisor. Defendant Nickoloff is sued in his individual and official capacity.
21. Defendant Natalie Banks has served as the Chief of Public Affairs at the PAB
from May 2021 to the present. Defendant Banks is sued in her individual and official capacity.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
22. Mr. Reynolds exhausted his administrative remedies and otherwise complied with
procedural perquisites prior to filing this action. Mr. Reynolds filed a Notice of Claim with the
City and two Charges of Discrimination with the New York Division of Human Rights (“DHR”),
an administrative prerequisite to filing the discrimination claims at issue here under both New
York State Human Rights Law and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. DHR issued
probable cause findings on both charges. Mr. Reynolds has received a dismissal for
5
administrative convenience and a Right to Sue letter. This Complaint was filed fewer than 90
days after his receipt of said Right to Sue letter.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
23. This Court has jurisdiction of Mr. Reynolds’s federal claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Reynolds’s state
law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
24. Equitable relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, Rule 57 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s inherent equitable authority.
25. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c), venue is proper in the Western District
of New York because Defendants are located in this District and a substantial part of the events
or omissions giving rise to this action, including the unlawful practices alleged herein, occurred
in this District.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
I. THE CITY HIRES WILSON KNOWING THAT SHE HAS A HISTORY OF

ENGAGING IN SEXUAL MISCONDUCT AND RETALIATORY BEHAVIOR
A. The PAB Is Formed and the City Hires Wilson as the Chair of its Board
26. In November 2019, Rochesterians overwhelmingly voted to create the PAB, an
“autonomous office of the City” whose mission was to “ensure public accountability and
transparency over the powers exercised by sworn officers of [the] Department.” See Sections 18-
1 & 18-3(B) of the Rochester City Charter.
27. The PAB is run by a group of nine Board members who are – having been
appointed by the Rochester City Council – ultimately responsible for running the PAB and
conducting all “Board business.” See Section 18-6(B) of the Rochester City Charter.
6
28. Some of the PAB’s board members are nominated by the Police Accountability
Board Alliance (“the Alliance”), a coalition of activists and organizations dedicated to
supporting the PAB’s work.
29. All PAB Board members serve as “public officers” of the City. See Section 18-
4(G) of the Rochester City Charter.
30. PAB Board members were responsible for selecting, supervising, and overseeing
an Executive Director who would “report” to the Board. See Section 18-6(C) of the Rochester
City Charter. The Board made this point clear in a presentation made to the public on June 16,
2022, which stated that the Board members had “the power to supervise the Executive Director
and to direct the Executive Director.”
31. PAB Board members are led by a Chair who, among other things, was responsible
for: (i) “leading the search for and evaluation of” the Executive Director; and (ii) serving as “the
link” between Board members and the Executive Director. See Section (A)(2)(a) of the PAB’s
bylaws.
32. Between November 2019 and January 2020, the City – by and through members
of its City Council – interviewed a range of candidates to serve as PAB Board members,
including Wilson.
33. Wilson was appointed as a PAB Board member in January 2020 and, weeks later,
was appointed as Chair of the PAB Board.
34. In appointing Wilson as a PAB Board member, City officials were empowering
an individual with deep friendships and ties across City government – including to those directly
responsible for appointing, supervising and retaining her as the Chair of the PAB.
7
35. For example, Wilson is a self-described “best friend” of City Councilmember
Mary Lupien, a longtime associate of City Councilmember LaShay Harris, and a close friend of
then-City Council Chief of Staff B.J. Scanlon.
36. Wilson was also a self-described “best friend” and “soul mate” of Smith, who
became a City Councilmember in January 2022.
37. Wilson is a self-described “best friend” of Board members Nickoloff and Setel,
both of whom were appointed as PAB Board members alongside Wilson in January 2020 and
served in those roles throughout Mr. Reynolds’s tenure as Executive Director.
38. In addition, during her time on the PAB Board, Wilson befriended a host of other
PAB Board members, City Councilmembers, and City officials – including Mayor Malik Evans,
whom she said “owed her” for her support of him in the local LGBTQ community.
39. Many of these friends and associates – along with Wilson’s many close friends in
state and local government, including in the Monroe County and New York legislatures –
provided Wilson with emotional, financial, and political support throughout her tenure at the
PAB.
40. Indeed, City officials advocated for Wilson’s appointment as a PAB Board
member, supported her appointment as PAB Chair, threw her birthday parties, provided her with
financial support, called upon the public and those in power to praise and support her, and urged
her to run for public office.
41. As Wilson would tell Mr. Reynolds, these “friends” in City government would
“always protect” her by ensuring that she was appointed and retained as a PAB Board member.
8
B. Wilson’s History of Sexual Misconduct and Retaliation Was Known By the

City at the Time of Her Appointment
42. At the time of Wilson’s appointment as a Board member and Chair of the PAB,
she worked as a physician’s assistant at Trillium Healthcare (“Trillium”), which specializes in
mental health treatment.
43. In that position Wilson engaged in a wide range of misconduct and retaliation.
44. Among other things, Wilson defamed co-workers by making false statements
about their competency and solicited baseless complaints against co-workers in efforts to punish
or get them terminated.
45. Wilson herself discussed the latter with Mr. Reynolds.
46. Specifically, she told Mr. Reynolds that while she was working for Trillium, she
solicited colleagues to make complaints about Dr. Robert Biernbaum, who was the Chief
Medical Officer of Trillium and with whom Wilson engaged in a sexual relationship. Wilson
solicited these complaints after Dr. Biernbaum ended the relationship and began to reject her
sexual advances.
47. Wilson’s efforts eventually resulted in Dr. Biernbaum’s termination, which she
openly celebrated at the PAB’s offices in front of Mr. Reynolds.
48. Another target of Wilson’s abuse was a former member of Trillium’s leadership
team. He was so traumatized by Wilson that, to this day, he “live[s] in fear” of her.
49. Wilson’s workplace misconduct was so egregious and widespread that it led to
her departure from Trillium.
50. That departure, and the complaints and circumstances behind it, were a matter of
common knowledge among Wilson’s co-workers, patients, friends, and those responsible for
9
appointing, retaining, and supervising Wilson – including individuals serving on (or working for)
the Rochester City Council and the PAB Board.
51. One of the individuals with knowledge of Wilson’s misconduct at Trillium was
her “best friend,” Councilmember Smith. As explained in detail below, despite knowing of these
issues, Councilmember Smith would later go on to urge her colleagues in the City Council to
support Wilson and retaliate against Mr. Reynolds for exposing her ongoing sexual misconduct
at the PAB. She was also on the Select Committee responsible for overseeing an investigation
into Mr. Reynolds, an obvious conflict of interest.
52. Another individual with knowledge of Wilson’s misconduct at Trillium was
another one of her “best friends,” Councilmember Lupien. Also as described in further detail
below, Councilmember Lupien would later be seen on social media hugging and praising Wilson
while, at the exact same time, she was responsible for implementing any recommendations
flowing from an investigation into Wilson’s misconduct at the PAB – another obvious conflict of
interest.
53. A third individual who was aware of Wilson’s prior misconduct was yet another
“best friend,” Board member Nickoloff. Although he would concede to Mr. Reynolds in a
meeting held in March 2022 that Wilson was a “tyrant,” Nickoloff also would later support
Wilson by blatantly retaliating against Mr. Reynolds and, inter alia, illegally ordering him not to
discuss his allegations of sexual harassment with PAB employees.
54. Board member Setel – a fourth “best friend” – also knew of Wilson’s workplace
misconduct. Although she would concede to Mr. Reynolds that Wilson was an “autocrat” in a
meeting held in March 2022, she would go on to support Wilson by blatantly retaliating against
Mr. Reynolds, which ultimately led to his unlawful suspension and termination.
10
55. Finally, upon information and belief, Scanlon, the former Chief of Staff to the
City Council, who was tasked with running the process for selecting PAB Board members, also
knew about Wilson’s workplace misconduct. In fact, Scanlon was serving as the Chair of the
Board of Trillium at the time of the misconduct. Incredibly, despite his knowledge, and his role
in the PAB Board member selection process, Wilson was still appointed to the PAB Board.
C. The City Fails to Adequately Investigate and Train PAB Board Members
56. Perhaps because of these deep-seated friendships and incestuous relationships,
before appointing Wilson, the City never asked Wilson (or any other candidates for PAB Board
membership) questions about their prior employment experience, supervisory skills, or whether
they had been the subject of accusations, complaints, or discipline regarding workplace
misconduct – including misconduct relating to sexual harassment, retaliation, or inappropriate
workplace relationships.
57. Nor did the City contact the current or former employers or co-workers of Wilson
or any other candidates to determine if they had been the subject of accusations, complaints, or
discipline regarding workplace misconduct.
58. In fact, the City effectively conducts no substantive background check on any of
the individuals appointed to serve as members of City commissions or Boards, despite the fact
that these individuals often interact with and supervise City employees.
59. Any reasonable person with the knowledge (or reason to have knowledge) of
Wilson’s workplace behavior would never have appointed or retained Wilson in her position as a
supervisor in City government – and would foresee that placing her in such a position would
likely make her subordinates into victims of her longstanding pattern of workplace misconduct.
11
60. To make matters worse, between January 2020 and June 2022 – that is, the entire
period of Wilson’s affiliation with the PAB – the City never provided her with any training
regarding sexual harassment or retaliation. 1
61. Board member Nickoloff affirmed these findings during a public meeting held on
October 20, 2022. In discussing “critique[s]” about the “lack of oversight” of the PAB’s Board
members and how they had “messed this up,” Nickoloff said that, when it came to the PAB, the
City “rush[ed] this thing out” to the point that “the Board was not actually provided initial
training or guidance” it required. New Board members, he said, needed to be “trained better than
we were, which means being trained at all, frankly.”
62. “When people talk about the fault of the Board,” Nickoloff said, “it doesn’t just
rest with the people who are on the Board, but also the way that the Board was set up” by the
City.
63. PAB Board member Arlene Brown shared Nickoloff’s sentiments during a public
meeting on December 1, 2022, “One of the things I got blindsided with was the sexual
harassment,” Brown said, “and I would like very much to see us get some additional training on
how to handle those kinds of things.”
64. Upon information and belief, the City Councilmembers responsible for funding
and working with the PAB – before and during the time of Mr. Reynolds’s employment – were
also never trained on sexual harassment, retaliation, or how to handle workplace complaints.
1
In response to Mr. Reynolds’s complaint, however, Defendants falsely told state
investigators on November 29, 2022 that the City “provides sexual harassment training yearly to
all employees and Board members.” This statement was false – and Defendants knew so when
they made it. Indeed, just two weeks earlier, Defendants had publicly stated that, “PAB Board
members reported never receiving City of Rochester training regarding any policies or
practices.” Defendants concluded that, as a result of this failure to train, Board members were
“not able to properly oversee the activities of the PAB.”
12
65. These failures were a blatant violation of the New York State Sexual Harassment
Law, which requires employers like the City to provide “sexual harassment prevention training .
. . on an annual basis.”
66. Without ensuring their employees, manager, supervisors, and agents received this
training, it was foreseeable that employers like the City would – according to the State – further
“sexual harassment in the workplace” and contribute to a “culture of silence that victims face.”
That is exactly what happened to Mr. Reynolds.
II. WILSON LAUNCHES A CAMPAIGN OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT
A. Mr. Reynolds is Hired as PAB Executive Director and Wilson Promptly

Warns Him that He Would Need to Be “Nice” to Her
67. In early 2020, Mr. Reynolds was working as a Clinical Lecturer in Law at Yale
Law School. There, he ran the school’s Environmental Protection Clinic, overseeing a team of
faculty, fellows, and over thirty students.
68. Before taking a job at Yale, Mr. Reynolds had worked in the White House and for
the federal judiciary, a national law firm, the University of Rochester and a host of clients via
political consulting work.
69. Throughout his career, Mr. Reynolds consistently received stellar performance
reviews and evaluations from his clients and supervisors. He had never been the subject of a
workplace complaint or negative performance review.
70. During his time working at Yale, Mr. Reynolds learned that the City was looking
to hire an Executive Director for the PAB.
71. After a City Councilmember urged him to apply for the position, Mr. Reynolds
submitted his application.
13
72. In reviewing over 150 applications, City officials quickly determined that Mr.
Reynolds was – in the words of PAB Board member Bob Harrison – the Board’s “number one
and really [ ] only choice” for the position.
73. During the application process, Mr. Reynolds was interviewed by Wilson and
other PAB Board members.
74. In October 2020, Wilson called Mr. Reynolds to inform him that the PAB Board
had selected him to serve as the agency’s Executive Director.
75. In her role as Chair, Wilson was consistently acknowledged – by herself, her
fellow Board members, and countless other City officials – as the “boss” of the PAB’s Executive
Director, i.e., Mr. Reynolds. Accordingly, Wilson exercised supervisory control over Mr.
Reynolds’s work, including by, among other things, giving him instructions via email, text and
phone call, defining the scope of his work duties and obligations and approving his requests for
accommodations, leave and modified work schedules.
76. A few days after Wilson informed Mr. Reynolds that he would be hired as the
PBA’s Executive Director, Wilson met with Mr. Reynolds at a local café to lay out her “vision”
for his work at the agency.
77. Wilson told Mr. Reynolds that some City officials were “hostile” to the PAB’s
success, and that the Executive Director could only be “protected” from political interference if
Wilson used her “connections” to remain “leader” of the agency. Among those whom Wilson
identified as being “hostile” to the PAB’s success were: (i) then-Mayor Lovely Warren, who had
openly opposed the version of the PAB voters enacted into law; (ii) Warren’s then-Deputy
Mayor, James Smith (who later became City Council Chief of Staff); (iii) then-Corporation
14
Counsel, Tim Curtin; (iv) then-City Council Vice President Willie Lightfoot; (v) City
Councilmember Mitch Gruber; and (vi) then-Councilmember – and now Mayor – Malik Evans.
78. Wilson then told Mr. Reynolds that in order to succeed at the agency, he would
have to be “friends” with her.
B. Wilson Immediately Subjects Mr. Reynolds to Unwanted Sexual Advances
79. Mr. Reynolds began employment with the City on October 16, 2020.
80. In announcing Mr. Reynolds’s selection, the City issued effusive praise of his
work experience and talents as a manager, telling the public that Mr. Reynolds had “proven in a
diversity of contexts that his considerable talent is rooted in a keen interest and willingness to
listen deeply, and learn with humility across lines of race, gender, ability, and socioeconomic
conditions.”
81. Less than one week later, on October 22, 2020, Mr. Reynolds attended a morning
meeting with Wilson and a local pastor involved in the local police accountability movement.
After that meeting ended, Wilson asked Mr. Reynolds to accompany her on a walk in a local
cemetery to “talk about work.”
82. In the cemetery, however, Wilson quickly turned the conversation toward her own
sexual history and preferences.
83. Wilson discussed, in graphic detail, her sexual history with her ex-husband, the
sexual orientations and habits of past co-workers and her own sexual preferences.
84. Mr. Reynolds, disturbed by Wilson’s talk, attempted to change the conversation.
85. Wilson replied by telling Mr. Reynolds that he “needed to hear this” if he was to
be – as his position “required” – the “friend” of the PAB’s Chair.
15
86. After the walk ended and Mr. Reynolds went to his car to leave, Wilson asked
him to sit on a bench near the cemetery parking lot to “talk about something important.”
87. On the bench, Wilson disclosed her own sexual orientation and asked Mr.
Reynolds if he was “straight.”
88. When Mr. Reynolds resisted disclosing his sexual identity, Wilson reassured him
that – as a “leader in the queer community” – she could “help protect” him if he were to disclose
his identity to her.
89. When Mr. Reynolds stated that he was bisexual, Wilson commented: “I knew it!
You know you are a unicorn, right?”
90. After talking about the rarity of bisexual men, Wilson stated: “Unicorns like you
are attractive to people like me.”
91. Mr. Reynolds, uncomfortable but hoping Wilson meant no harm, said that he
needed to head home and was thankful we could “frame ourselves as friends.”
92. At 12:50 PM that afternoon, Wilson texted Mr. Reynolds to ask what she
admitted was a “dicey” question about “being friends and framing that.” Specifically, Wilson
asked: “Does that [being friends] even need to be framed?”
93. Mr. Reynolds, concerned that Wilson was attempting to push back on the
boundary he had established earlier in the day, replied: “I am your employee and occasionally
your lawyer. More importantly, I am your friend.”
94. Mr. Reynolds believed this text would be a firm and final statement that he did
not want a romantic relationship with his boss.
95. This belief was soon proven unfounded.
16
96. On November 19, 2020 at 11:31 AM, Wilson called Mr. Reynolds to tell him that
they would need to meet over the weekend to discuss work matters.
97. The next day at 3:56 PM, Wilson called Mr. Reynolds to say she would be buying
dinner for him from a local Chinese restaurant so they could have a “working meal” at his house.
After Mr. Reynolds agreed to the meeting, Wilson asked if Mr. Reynolds “want[ed] something to
drink.” Via text, Mr. Reynolds, who does not drink alcohol, declined, saying “I’ve got water!”
98. At approximately 6:30 PM, Wilson arrived alone at Mr. Reynolds’s house with
dinner and a bottle of red wine.
99. At the time, Mr. Reynolds was on the phone with his sister, who heard Wilson
complaining that she would have to be a “hipster” and use a mason jar to drink out of because
Mr. Reynolds did not own any wine glasses. Before ending the call, Mr. Reynolds’s sister heard
Mr. Reynolds decline Wilson’s request for him to “start drinking.”
100. As Mr. Reynolds ate dinner, Wilson began drinking and continued to ask Mr.
Reynolds to join her. Mr. Reynolds consistently declined.
101. When dinner ended around 8 PM, Wilson asked Mr. Reynolds to go into his
office – which Wilson had learned was connected to Mr. Reynolds’s bedroom – to talk about
work more and “listen to music.”
102. Upon entering the office, however, Wilson stopped talking about work. After a
brief discussion of music, Wilson turned the conversation to her dating history, with particular
focus on a past partner she believed Mr. Reynolds knew from college.
103. When Mr. Reynolds confirmed that he knew Wilson’s previous partner, Wilson
began talking about the explicit details of that friend’s sex life.
17
104. Uneasy, Mr. Reynolds moved away from Wilson, into the corner of the room, and
called his sister at 8:27 PM. Over the next 23 minutes, Mr. Reynolds’s sister overheard Wilson
talking about the sexual activities of others and Wilson’s continuing requests for Mr. Reynolds to
“drink some wine.”
105. Immediately after Mr. Reynolds ended the call with his sister, Wilson began
asking questions about Mr. Reynolds’s sexual orientation and gender identity, including
questions about whether he had ever fantasized about having different genitalia or using
hormones to change his gender presentation. Mr. Reynolds, who by that point was incredibly
uncomfortable, deflected.
106. Wilson then told Mr. Reynolds she had “something she’d been meaning to ask
him.”
107. After referencing difficulties she had with her “straight” past partners and her
resulting search for a “unicorn,” Wilson said, “Conor, I have feelings for you.” Wilson then
stood up, walked towards Mr. Reynolds’s bedroom, and asked if Mr. Reynolds “wanted to act on
those feelings.”
108. Mr. Reynolds, walking in the opposite direction toward the kitchen, said he
wanted to “just be friends.”
109. Wilson responded by saying she was “embarrassed” and began to cry. Mr.
Reynolds assured Wilson that it “would be okay,” and that “being friends,” which would mean
“no more dinners” at his home, would be better for PAB.
110. Before leaving, Wilson gave Mr. Reynolds an unsolicited, unwanted hug that
involved her rubbing her breasts up and down on Mr. Reynolds’s chest. In the days after Wilson
propositioned Mr. Reynolds, he told family members, close friends, and his therapist about
18
Wilson’s advances. After telling his sister on Sunday, November 22, 2020, she texted Mr.
Reynolds: “Dear god[.] Sure you okay?”
111. On December 3, 2020, Wilson texted Mr. Reynolds to ask about “[her] coming
over [to] [his] house.” Mr. Reynolds did not invite Wilson to his house.
112. On December 4, 2020, Wilson texted Mr. Reynolds to ask him to come to a
gathering that was “not a meeting as so much it is just normal people getting together.” Mr.
Reynolds declined.
113. On December 5, 2020, at 10:15 PM, Wilson texted Mr. Reynolds to “come over!”
Mr. Reynolds declined.
114. Mr. Reynolds also declined several other invitations to “hang out” made via
phone by Wilson in late November and early December.
115. By mid-December, Wilson began retaliating against Mr. Reynolds for rejecting
her sexual advances. Wilson would ignore him in work meetings, make what she called
“lighthearted jokes” that criticized his dress and appearance, and cancel last-minute work
meetings even though she knew Mr. Reynolds needed her help.
116. On December 17, 2020, at 8:30 PM, Wilson texted Mr. Reynolds to ask him to
talk because, “I have some things I have to say to you.”
117. In a subsequent call, Wilson berated Mr. Reynolds for “being so distant” and
“hurting [her] feelings” by not responding to her sexual invitations.
118. Mr. Reynolds said he was “trying to keep things professional” because he felt
“uncomfortable” with Wilson’s advances. When Wilson asked why they needed to keep things
“professional,” Mr. Reynolds told Wilson that it was “inappropriate” for a boss to make
advances on a subordinate and that she needed to stop.
19
119. Wilson replied, “Oh god. I feel so guilty. You’re making me hate myself.” Wilson
further said, “this had happened to me before.”
120. Mr. Reynolds repeated his request to “just be friends” – and that Wilson “respect
[his] boundaries” by not making further advances toward him.
121. To be clear, at no time did Mr. Reynolds have, express or act on any romantic or
sexual interest in Wilson.
C. A “Delusional” Wilson Attempts to “Humiliate” Mr. Reynolds into

“Submission”
122. Wilson did not keep her feelings for Mr. Reynolds – or her anger that he had
rejected her advances – a secret.
123. By way of example, Wilson told her then-friends that she was in love with Mr.
Reynolds – and that it was only a matter of time before he reciprocated her feelings. These
individuals included, among others, a former Policy Analyst with the PAB.
124. One of Wilson’s closest friends referred to the idea that Mr. Reynolds would
eventually succumb to her advances “delusional behavior.”
125. Wilson also told at least one friend (Rev. Lane-Mairead Campbell) and at least
one of Mr. Reynolds’s employees (Bascoe) that her “job” was to serve as Mr. Reynolds’s
“dominatrix” and “humiliate” him into “submission.”
126. In addition, Wilson told at least one of Mr. Reynolds’s employees that she was
“angry” about the fact that Mr. Reynolds had rejected her advances.
127. In December 2020, Wilson made a surprise visit to Mr. Reynolds’s home to give
him an unsolicited gift. As was witnessed by his sister, Mr. Reynolds had to physically prevent
Wilson from trying to enter his home uninvited. Days later, Mr. Reynolds decided to move to a
20
new apartment and, for fear of Wilson again trying to enter his home, made sure to never
disclose his new address to her.
128. Between December 2020 and April 2021, Wilson made a long string of
invitations to Mr. Reynolds – via text message and telephone call – asking him to come over to
her house late at night, requesting invitations to his house and otherwise asking Mr. Reynolds to
meet for alone purposes unrelated to work. Mr. Reynolds rejected all of these advances.
129. On April 26, 2021, Wilson texted Mr. Reynolds a request to meet. Believing this
was to discuss the work they had been conducting that day, Mr. Reynolds replied, “Yes.” Wilson
then replied: “This is not about work. So you can always say no, I should have said that at the
beginning.” Mr. Reynolds, fearing additional retaliation if he declined, confirmed his earlier
acceptance, texting Wilson: “Okay okay fine. I’ll do it.”
130. At a meeting held in public days later, Wilson stated she was “over” her feelings
for Mr. Reynolds. Wilson then promised Mr. Reynolds she would not talk about her sex life or
romantic interest in him. However, Wilson also again told Mr. Reynolds that he needed to “act
like a friend” toward her if he wanted to be “successful” as Executive Director. Wilson said Mr.
Reynolds could “be a friend” by attending a book sale hosted by someone Wilson knew.
131. On May 3, 2021, Mr. Reynolds and his friends attended the book sale as
requested by Wilson. At the event, Mr. Reynolds’s friends observed Wilson following Mr.
Reynolds at the event and touching him in ways that appeared inappropriate and unwanted.
132. Later that day, Mr. Reynolds went on a dinner date with a fellow Rochesterian.
Minutes later, he received a text from Wilson stating: “So…..how was dinner? ” Wilson
later contacted Mr. Reynolds’s date and told her she was “hurting” Wilson by dating Mr.
Reynolds, given that Wilson was “in love” with him.
21
133. At a subsequent work meeting held at a local coffee shop, Wilson berated Mr.
Reynolds for “fucking a woman I know,” as Wilson explained that she “still had feelings” for
Mr. Reynolds. Wilson told Mr. Reynolds that she “would not talk to” him in any capacity if he
continued to engage in a romantic relationship with another woman.
134. Forced to choose between his job and dating romantically, Mr. Reynolds decided
to end the relationship. In response, the individual he had been dating texted him a request to
continue the relationship while hiding it from Wilson. Mr. Reynolds declined, fearing what
Wilson would do in response. Wilson and the City would later tell the New York State Division
of Human Rights that the friend ended the relationship and was not interested in seeing Mr.
Reynolds romantically. The aforementioned text exchange puts the lie to that claim – as does the
City’s own conclusion in November 2022 that “Dwyer Reynolds’ allegation that Wilson
pressured him to end a romantic relationship with her friend was corroborated.”
135. The following day, during a “work meeting” at which Wilson requested his
presence, Wilson asked if Mr. Reynolds had ended the relationship and expressed pleasure he
had done so. Wilson, noting Mr. Reynolds’s bisexuality, told him that she wanted him to “hook
up” with men.
136. On May 23, 2021, Mr. Reynolds received an unsolicited text from a man saying:
“So Shani tells me you haven’t had the chance to meet much of the community since you came
to [Rochester]. Now that things are opening up again we should change that!” Mr. Reynolds,
uncomfortable with his boss’s attempt to dictate the terms of his sexuality, did not reply. At a
work meeting days later, Wilson chastised Mr. Reynolds for not taking her up on “her offer” and
saying Mr. Reynolds was “missing out” on “being gay.”
22
137. On June 6, 2021, Mr. Reynolds visited a flea market with a friend. Mr. Reynolds
was unexpectedly approached at the event by Wilson. Again, as confirmed by a witness, Wilson
touched Mr. Reynolds in ways that were inappropriate, unwanted, and flirtatious.
138. On June 26, 2021, Wilson invited Mr. Reynolds to the home of Victor Sanchez, a
local political figure. Wilson told Mr. Reynolds that he would need to “connect with” individuals
at the event for professional purposes. Mr. Reynolds arrived to find that Wilson had apparently
told several of the men at the event he was, in sum and substance, “single and ready to mingle.”
Uncomfortable with the physical attention he received, Mr. Reynolds left the event shortly after
arriving. As he did so, Wilson said that attendees “being handsy just means they like you.”
139. On July 15, 2021, Wilson called Mr. Reynolds and yelled at him for “playing
games with [her] emotions” because he had told a female employee – PAB’s Chief of Public
Affairs, Natalie Banks – to work on a project without Wilson’s assistance. When Banks reported
to Mr. Reynolds that Wilson had made a threatening phone call to her, Mr. Reynolds met with
Wilson the following day to tell her that “whatever confusion or anger [you have] with me”
should not “roll on to” female employees. After Wilson promised to apologize to the employee
directly, Mr. Reynolds emailed her to say he was “address[ing]” the “hostility” Wilson had
exhibited.
140. On August 21, 2021, Wilson asked Mr. Reynolds to attend Rochester’s Puerto
Rican Festival so he could meet local leaders, including then-County Legislator Ricky G.
Frazier, for work purposes. When Mr. Reynolds arrived, Wilson told him she would be
introducing him to “some good gays,” a few of whom she noted were “single.” After briefly
introducing himself to the local leaders he had been told were in attendance, Mr. Reynolds chose
to immediately leave the event despite Wilson’s request that he “stay” to “meet the gays.”
23
141. In response to Mr. Reynolds’s refusal throughout summer 2021 to reciprocate
Wilson’s feelings or the submit to her desire that he engage in same-sex sexual activity, Wilson
subjected him to a range of punitive and humiliating behavior, including additional unwanted
touching and “friend hugs” like the one given on the night Wilson originally propositioned him.
Wilson refused to talk to Mr. Reynolds about important work projects and ignored work-related
calls. She ridiculed his appearance through jokes at work meetings, making fun of his weight,
eating habits and way he cut his hair.
142. When Mr. Reynolds told Wilson that her actions were hurting him and his ability
to do his work, Wilson replied by saying that it was “his job” to “take abuse” from her because
“her job” was to “be a boss bitch.”
143. On August 31, 2021, Mr. Reynolds met Wilson at a local coffee shop at her
request. Wilson said she was “angry” at Mr. Reynolds for his being a “bad friend” and having
“disrespected” the fact that Wilson “still had feelings” for him. As he had done in October 2020,
November 2020, December 2020, April 2021 and May 2021, Mr. Reynolds told Wilson he was
not interested in a sexual or romantic relationship with her. Wilson replied by telling Mr.
Reynolds to “not talk about” his discomfort at her continuing expression of sexual and romantic
interest because it was “manipulative” for him to do so.
144. On September 30, 2021, Wilson called Mr. Reynolds to say there were “important
people” at a local event Mr. Reynolds needed to meet. When Mr. Reynolds arrived around 11
PM, Wilson told him that a local political figure in attendance – Ravi Mangla – was “good at
eating pussy.” This followed an earlier text message from Wilson sent on August 19, 2021 about
Mangla’s being “good in bed.”
24
145. This was one of many unsolicited and unwanted remarks Wilson made to Mr.
Reynolds (and many others) about the sexual behaviors of Rochesterians involved in his work.
Shortly after December 1, 2021, Wilson told someone that Mr. Reynolds worked with that he
was sexually and romantically interested in them. Mr. Reynolds had no interest in this person
and had never expressed any interest in them to anyone. Nevertheless, Wilson encouraged this
person to sexually pursue “her subordinate,” referring to herself as Mr. Reynolds’s “dominatrix.”
146. Mr. Reynolds’s hopes that the winter 2021-2022 resurgence of the coronavirus
would create needed distance from Wilson were dashed on March 4, 2022. The night before,
former PAB Board member Ida Perez had resigned in protest of what she believed was unethical
behavior on the part of Wilson and two of her friends in City government, Nickoloff and Setel.
In a meeting at a café on 240 East Main Street, Mr. Reynolds told Wilson that she needed to
apologize to other Board members for her behavior. Wilson replied by saying “fuck off,” telling
him she would “punish” him for “the way [he] treated her feelings,” and threatening to hit him in
his face.
147. Four days later, on March 8, 2022, three female PAB employees informed Mr.
Reynolds that they believed their supervisor – Chenoa Maye – was creating a “dehumanizing”
workplace environment for subordinates that violated the City’s anti-bullying policies. As Maye
would later inform Mr. Reynolds, she had “friends in City government” – including Wilson. 2
2
Indeed, months earlier, in November 2021, Wilson had texted Mr. Reynolds that
Maye was a “strong candidat[e]” who had been endorsed by a powerful member of the local
Democratic Party, then-City Attorney Shani Curry Mitchell. When the City’s corporation
counsel informed Mr. Reynolds that Maye had been “fired” from previous employment at the
City, Wilson instructed Mr. Reynolds to say this was a lie and hire Maye anyway. Then, upon
Maye’s hiring in February 2022, Wilson immediately pushed Mr. Reynolds to give her a
promotion. A month later Wilson asked Mr. Reynolds via text message to have Maye
functionally serve as the PAB’s second-in-command.
25
148. When Mr. Reynolds learned of the allegations against Maye – and, shortly
thereafter, Maye’s own complaint against one of her subordinates – he consulted with the City’s
Employee Office of Public Integrity about next steps. He then asked PAB’s Director of Staff,
Defendant Deborah Campbell, to begin an investigation.
149. On March 18, 2022, Wilson called Mr. Reynolds to ask him to disclose the names
of the individuals who had made complaints about Maye. When he refused to do so, Wilson
threatened him, saying: “If you do anything to [Maye], you are going to have a lot to explain to
the Board.” Mr. Reynolds responded by saying, “You just threatened me for protecting
employees.” Wilson responded by hanging up the phone.
150. The next day, March 19, 2022, was the date of a work event at a local museum
that PAB Board members asked Mr. Reynolds to attend with Wilson. Unbeknownst to Mr.
Reynolds, Wilson had informed her closest friends that she expected the event to be the night
when Mr. Reynolds would submit to her.
151. Unsurprisingly, after an uncomfortable Mr. Reynolds refused to give Wilson a
ride to the event, she began to degrade and humiliate Mr. Reynolds. Upon his arrival, she asked
him about the way her breasts looked in her dress. She then told him he looked “stupid,” forced
him to carry her personal belongings, and told him he would “be in trouble” if he did not remove
her shoes from her feet and obtain flip-flops for her from her car.
152. At the end of the event, Mr. Reynolds declined Wilson’s request to “take [her]
home.”
153. In the days after this rejection, Mr. Reynolds’s workplace environment
deteriorated. Wilson’s friend on his staff, Maye, began subjecting him to the same kind of
humiliation he experienced from Wilson. For her part, Wilson excluded him from important
26
meetings with City Councilmembers regarding the agency’s budget and operations. When
Wilson would come into the PAB’s offices, she would speak with other staff while ignoring Mr.
Reynolds.
154. For example, on or about April 12, 2022, Wilson berated Mr. Reynolds publicly
at a local café. Later, Wilson refused to speak with Mr. Reynolds for an hour. When Mr.
Reynolds asked if this was “punishment” for his rejection of her, Wilson replied, “It is.”
III. DESPITE IMMENSE COSTS, MR. REYNOLDS DOES “MIRACLE” WORK AS

“ROLE MODEL” EMPLOYEE
155. Wilson’s 18-month campaign of harassment caused Mr. Reynolds immense
suffering and harm. He moved apartments after Wilson attempted to force her way into his
home, fearing what she would do if she discovered his new address. He became unable to engage
in romantic relationships of any duration, scared that Wilson would punish him or his partner. He
lost interest in the things he loved, like attending events in the local queer community, hiking,
and cycling. He had nightmares, gained weight, lost hair, and experienced spells of
uncontrollable fear.
156. By the end of summer 2021, the toll of this workplace hostility was becoming
clear to those around Mr. Reynolds. For example, when his sister texted him on August 27 to ask
if he was “okay” given his consistently “sour mood[s],” Mr. Reynolds explained that he was
again facing “questionable workplace behavior from Shani.” One night that summer, his sister
would find Mr. Reynolds crying on the floor of his apartment, saying that he couldn’t keep
working with Wilson because of what she was making him endure.
157. By winter 2021, the abuse and humiliation Mr. Reynolds was experiencing at
work began having serious psychological side effects, including flashbacks so debilitating they
27
led to suicidal ideation. During one episode, Mr. Reynolds’s sister found him “in complete
distress” and “look[ing] like a deer in the headlights.”
158. This, in turn, led to his being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in
December 2021, his stay in a partial hospitalization program in January 2022, and a doctor’s
suggestion that he stop working at the PAB because of how triggering it was for his disorder.
The effects of this diagnosis and its treatment caused Mr. Reynolds to, in a particularly
humiliating moment, ask the cause of much of his suffering — Wilson herself — for a disability
accommodation relating to his work schedule.
159. Despite these harms, Mr. Reynolds was deeply reluctant to formally complain
about Wilson’s behavior. As he had seen through Wilson’s treatment of co-workers, both at the
PAB and her former workplace, Mr. Reynolds knew that her standard response to a complaint
was to retaliate and force the complainant out of a job. He also had seen the price paid by others
who had spoken up about sexual harassment experienced at the hands of politically powerful
people like Wilson. As he wrote in a note: “If it were ever my word against hers, I’d likely end
up without a job and without a future in Rochester, disbelieved by just about every person with a
connection to my work at PAB.”
160. Mr. Reynolds also endured Wilson’s harassment, as he told his sister in summer
2021, because of his commitment to his work at the PAB — what he called his “dream job.” He
knew that, even in the best scenario, a complaint against Wilson would jeopardize the viability of
the fledgling, desperately needed agency he had been tasked with building. Mr. Reynolds was
willing to do anything, including suffering Wilson’s harassment, to ensure his hometown
received the police oversight it deserved.
28
161. Mr. Reynolds’s commitment to his work was reflected in a list of remarkable
achievements. As the Executive Director, Mr. Reynolds drafted and released a comprehensive
reform plan for the Rochester Police Department. He held the first-ever oversight hearing of the
police department led by unelected civilians. He launched civilian-led investigations into the
police department’s policies and procedures. He lobbied for, and obtained, first-of-its-kind state
funding for a local police oversight agency.
162. Most importantly, Mr. Reynolds built a new government agency from the ground-
up essentially on his own. At one time or another, he performed every feature of every job
necessary to expand the agency from an entity with a $350,000 budget and a single staffer to one
with a $5 million budget and over 30 staffers. He drafted comprehensive planning and policy
documents, devised and obtained the largest budget ever given in the United States to a police
oversight agency on a per capita basis, created and executed communications strategies, created
and ran a candidate recruitment, interviewing, and hiring process, facilitated Board meetings,
served as a liaison to community groups and interagency task forces, managed consultants in
creating a training program, procured office space and equipment, and supervised employees.
163. In performing this extraordinary range of work, Mr. Reynolds received an
extraordinary amount of praise. In countless public and private meetings, his supervisors
consistently praised him for serving as an “excellent” Executive Director. This praise can be
found in countless YouTube videos hosted on the City’s social media pages. Until Mr. Reynolds
decided to file a complaint about Wilson’s behavior, these evaluations never wavered in their
positive nature.
164. For example, during an April 21, 2022 public meeting, just days prior to Mr.
Reynolds’s suspension, PAB Board member Nickoloff asked members of the public to
29
“celebrate” Mr. Reynolds’s “leadership” given the “amazing” work to perform the “miracle” of
getting PAB up and running with “no staff, no money, and no onboarding process, [and] very
little support from the [City] administration.”
165. On May 5, 2022, the day Mr. Reynolds formally filed his complaint, PAB Board
member Arlene Brown texted him: “You are doing a good job. Things are going to work out for
the good. You are giving it your all. It's going to pay off.”
166. In terms of formal assessments of his work at PAB, the agency’s Board never
gave Mr. Reynolds an even marginally critical performance review, let alone a negative one.
Moreover, until Mr. Reynolds informed Wilson of his intent to complain about her work on
April 19, 2022, he had never been the subject of a Human Resources complaint, a Division of
Human Rights complaint, or any other formal disciplinary inquiry or action.
167. As Defendants stated in November 2022, “Wilson admits that he threatened to
bring forward a complaint against her before staff complaints” were filed against Mr. Reynolds
(emphasis added).
168. The single formal evaluation of Mr. Reynolds’s work at the PAB, conducted in
2021, confirmed the widespread belief he was an excellent worker. In the majority of the 14
areas of evaluation, the PAB Board concluded he was an “Outstanding/Role Model” employee.
In all other areas evaluated, Mr. Reynolds was rated as “Very Competent.” The evaluation’s
“overall” assessment of Mr. Reynolds’s work labeled him as “Outstanding/Role Model,”
concluding he was “doing a great job.”
169. Mr. Reynolds also received broad support from his own employees and
community leaders involved in the PAB’s work. Members of the Police Accountability Board
30
Alliance, the coalition of community activists and organizations responsible for supporting the
PAB’s work, consistently and praised Mr. Reynolds’s “heroic” work as Executive Director.
170. Unsurprisingly, Mr. Reynolds’s suspension from the PAB caused the agency to
spiral into dysfunction, face widespread criticism, and lose the majority of its workers.
IV. MR. REYNOLDS COMPLAINS – AND IS PUNISHED FOR DOING SO
A. Wilson Tells Mr. Reynolds He Will Be “Hurt” If He Engages in Protected

Activity
171. On April 19, 2022, Mr. Reynolds decided neither he nor the PAB could continue
to endure Wilson’s abuse. At a work meeting held at 240 East Main Street that day, Wilson
publicly berated Mr. Reynolds by yelling in his face, calling him an “idiot,” and accusing him of
not “respecting” her as a “friend.” Wilson told Mr. Reynolds that she was angry with him for
having “played with her feelings” by refusing to “be with” her.
172. Mr. Reynolds asked Wilson to “stop telling me about your feelings” and “asking
me out.” Wilson told him what she often told those who complained about her behavior: that she
would only “deal with the problem” if he agreed to “speak to a mediator.” When Mr. Reynolds
said sexual harassment wasn’t something to mediate, Wilson replied, “Then I’m not going to talk
with you about anything, including work. I’m fucking done with you.” Mr. Reynolds told Wilson
that the only thing left to do was for him to “tell the [PAB] Board” about Wilson’s sexual
harassment. Wilson then replied, in a phrase recorded in Mr. Reynolds’s meeting notes: “I’m
going to hurt you because you hurt me.”
173. Wilson then suggested that she would consider resigning. Given this offer to
avoid the humiliation and risk inherent in filing a sexual harassment complaint, Mr. Reynolds
told Wilson that he would not file a complaint until they had a chance to talk again. Wilson
agreed to meet that weekend, then left. On April 23, 2022, the day of the meeting to discuss
31
Wilson’s resignation, she called him to ask to postpone the discussion for another week. Mr.
Reynolds agreed.
B. Wilson Solicits “Concerns” About Mr. Reynolds that City Officials Call “A
Bunch of Nuts”
174. On April 27, 2022, Wilson’s friend on Mr. Reynolds’s staff — Maye — convened
a meeting for a small group of PAB employees, including Defendants Bascoe and Campbell.
One employee in attendance would later say that the purpose of this meeting was to solicit
complaints about Mr. Reynolds. This meeting came just four days after Wilson asked Mr.
Reynolds to hold off complaining about him.
175. The next day, on April 28, 2022, Wilson convened a work meeting at the home of
PAB Board member Setel. One hour before the meeting, Wilson called Mr. Reynolds to inform
him that he should not attend what she called a “social get-together” for PAB Board members.
176. As a PAB Board member in attendance would later tell Mr. Reynolds, Wilson
spent the April 28, 2022 meeting trying to convince other PAB Board members — for the first
time — that Mr. Reynolds was having “serious performance issues” that needed to be “addressed
immediately.”
177. Shortly thereafter – according to Larry Knox, who succeeded Wilson as PAB
Chair – Wilson “put together a special committee” of Board members to “deal with” Mr.
Reynolds. This committee included: (1) Wilson; (2) Setel, her closest friend on the PAB Board;
and (3) Board member Brown, who would go on to openly deny Mr. Reynolds’s claims. In
selecting these individuals, Wilson ensured membership of this committee would be supportive
of her – and hostile to Mr. Reynolds.
178. Then, on April 29, 2022, Campbell sent Mr. Reynolds an email titled “Senior
Staff Concerns.” Campbell’s email listed “a number of issues related to leadership” that had
32
arisen “over the last few weeks,” and suggested – incorrectly – that the issues were shared by all
supervisors at PAB. Those issues, described vaguely, were primarily about “internal
communication,” “information sharing,” “understanding regarding our roles,” “hiring and
personnel decisions,” and Mr. Reynolds’s “communication style.”
179. This email was the first time that Mr. Reynolds had heard about any of these
issues. There were no concerns listed about sexual discrimination, racial discrimination, or any
other kind of actionable wrongdoing. The email asked Mr. Reynolds to “advise on any
opportunity to meet with this group for further discussion and resolution.”
180. After receiving this email, Mr. Reynolds met briefly on Zoom with Campbell to
talk about her email. Campbell said the issues were “not an emergency,” and advised Mr.
Reynolds to “wait” to discuss the issues with the staff until one person who was on vacation
could return to the office a week later. Mr. Reynolds then ended the meeting.
181. Minutes later, Mr. Reynolds received a phone call from PAB Board member Bob
Harrison. Board member Harrison asked Mr. Reynolds, “What the hell is going on?” Harrison
then said that he had received an email from Wilson asking the PAB Board to hold an
“emergency meeting” to discuss Mr. Reynolds’s “performance issues.”
182. On May 1, 2022, Mr. Reynolds told his assistant, Rina Pacheco-Walker, that he
had been sexually harassed by Wilson and that he believed that the “concerns” being raised
about his performance were efforts driven by Wilson to spark his termination. Pacheco-Walker
disclosed that Defendant Campbell was widely perceived in the office to be a close friend of
Maye, which was troubling because Defendant Campbell had been tasked to handle the
investigation into the complaints about Maye.
33
183. Unsurprisingly – and as Defendants later admitted – Campbell “failed to
adequately investigate” complaints against Maye. Campbell failed to ask “key questions
regarding allegations,” “did not spend more than 20 minutes on a single interview,” and led to a
final report that exonerated Maye yet “included conclusions that were unsubstantiated by witness
testimony and that appeared to include her personal opinions without supporting evidence.”
Defendants ultimately concluded that Campbell “should not be given discretion to act
independently regarding the handling of internal complaints.”
184. On May 2, 2022, two of Wilson’s “best friends” — PAB Board members
Nickoloff and Setel — arrived unannounced at Mr. Reynolds’s office. They then ordered Mr.
Reynolds to stop “talking” about his skepticism regarding the “concerns” raised about him. Later
that day, Setel sent an email instructing Mr. Reynolds to not discuss any “personnel issues” with
PAB Board members until May 9, 2022.
185. On May 5, 2022, Wilson convened a secret videoconference to have Maye and a
handful of other employees present the “concerns” they had raised about Mr. Reynolds a week
earlier.
186. Many PAB Board members openly stated that the “concerns” were, at worst, of
minimal importance. For example, in a phone call placed to Mr. Reynolds later that evening,
Board member Brown told him that “everything was going to be okay” because “the ‘staff
concerns’ were a bunch of nuts.” On a separate phone call recorded days later, Brown would say
the “concerns” merited nothing more than a response of “So what?”
187. Other PAB Board members believed the presentation of “concerns” was a
baseless attempt to punish Mr. Reynolds. For example, in a message Defendants admit was
written during the May 5, 2022 meeting, Board member Harrison expressed his belief that the
34
presentation of “concerns” proved that Mr. Reynolds was being subjected to a “viper’s den”
work environment.
C. Mr. Reynolds Files A Complaint – And Is Told He Will Be “Choked” and

“Lynched”
188. Upon learning that Wilson was convening a secret meeting of the PAB Board,
Mr. Reynolds asked another Board member to allow him to speak to the Board at that meeting to
explain what was going on. Mr. Reynolds was granted “ten minutes” to talk.
189. After talking with his leadership coach, therapist, and family members about how
best to simultaneously address the misconduct of Wilson, Maye, and Campbell, Mr. Reynolds
decided to write out a statement he would recite to Board members at the meeting. As he told his
therapist, Mr. Reynolds believed that he could place his faith in the Board to do the right thing.
190. Late on the evening of May 5, 2022, Mr. Reynolds was allowed into the
videoconference — though his leadership coach, Kevin Beckford, could not enter the meeting
thanks to intervention by Wilson.
191. Mr. Reynolds acknowledged the “concerns” raised about employees “get[ting]
siloed” and explained he was developing a plan to address those concerns. He then stated his
belief that the “root cause” of the concerns was an attempt by Wilson and Maye to “destro[y]”
himself and the agency. When Mr. Reynolds began relating the harassment he had experienced at
the hands of Maye, Wilson made a “cut him off” gesture. As Defendants have admitted, one of
Wilson’s friends then muted his microphone, saying, “We don’t need to hear about that.”
Although Board members eventually voted to allow Mr. Reynolds to speak, he was instructed to
“keep it brief.”
192. With tears running down his face, Mr. Reynolds summarized the sexual
harassment Wilson had put him through, how it had affected him, and why he believed the
35
“concerns” being raised against him were an effort to silence and retaliate against him. At the
end of the statement, Mr. Reynolds said: “I do not want this to become public. I don’t want to
file a lawsuit against the City. I don’t want to tell my staff about this. I just want this to end. We
are about to hire a clerk that will report to the Chair of the Board. If that person suffers what I
have been going through, I can and should be held responsible. I will not let that happen. This
needs to change.”
193. When Mr. Reynolds finished speaking, the response from many of the Board
members was silence. Setel, visibly angry, broke the silence by telling Mr. Reynolds to leave the
meeting.
194. Immediately following the meeting, PAB Board member Brown called Mr.
Reynolds. On the brief call, she said: “The ‘staff concerns’ were a bunch of nuts. Nothing to
worry about. Now, what you said about Shani – I wish you hadn’t said that.”
195. Realizing the PAB Board likely did not believe his story, Mr. Reynolds became
extremely distraught. His sister cradled him on the floor of his office as he began to shake and
cry, stating: “They don’t believe me.”
196. In a phone call recorded on May 8, 2022, Brown confirmed Mr. Reynolds’s
assertion – and his fears that he would be punished for complaining about Wilson.
197. “I could have cheerfully choked you,” Brown said on the call, “and taken you out
of your misery when you mentioned the ‘Shani thing,’ because up until that point nothing was
personal, and it was a lot easier for me to help people see things clearly. But once it went to a
personal level, it’s muddy.”
36
198. When Mr. Reynolds asked Brown if he had lost the Board’s “support” for having
“brought up the ‘Shani stuff,’” Brown replied:
Heck yeah! Yuppers. . . . the staff members had concerns, okay? We want
to know: is this true? You know? ‘I don’t like how he talks.’ You know, so
what? Whatever your concern is, I want something concrete that I can work
with. Those were the kinds of comebacks that I would have liked to have
had with staff, as far as whatever their concerns are. But then when we got
‘Page Two’ – because as far as I’m concerned, and I’m not in your position,
so I can’t tell you how to feel, but I thought that yours and Shani’s
conversation the night of the dinner and anything that transpired after that
was personal. There’s two adults having a conversation, an agreement, a
disagreement that has nothing to do with Board work. Because, see, I’m all
about Board work. But when you open the other can of worms, there’s
nothing you can do or say that would put you in a better light, you know?
You felt – this is what I heard – ‘I felt uncomfortable and it’s bordering on
sexual harassment.’ Well, if that’s the case, why are you still socializing
with this person? This person makes you feel this uncomfortable, and
you’ve got issues with that, it’s business only! So the fact that you all still
socialized, even when it wasn’t Board business, had me say – ‘Oh, okay,
this is just two friends who saw things differently, had a discussion.’ And –
but then you just took it to a whole other level, which took anything that I
had in mind as far as making sure that things in your arena were polished
was difficult.
199. Defendants told state investigators that Brown “admits to [making] these
statements,” but that her statements were not evidence of “retaliation” for a patently ludicrous
reason – namely, that they were “not communications Brown made in her capacity as a Board
member, but rather [as] a close friend.”
200. It was undeniably in her official role that Brown later related her disbelief to all of
Mr. Reynolds’s employees. In an audio recording of an all-staff meeting held on June 12, 2022,
Brown can be heard stating that Wilson resigned as Chair because of a belief that Mr. Reynolds’s
“accusations” were “a distraction from the work that has to be done.”
201. These beliefs were reiterated during a phone call recorded on May 9, 2022
between Board member Rickey Harvey and Mr. Reynolds.
37
202. Harvey, discussing the previous support Board members Nickoloff and Setel had
given Mr. Reynolds, explained that Mr. Reynolds’s complaint had caused them to “flip” on him.
“Your friends are not your friends. You understand? Yep. Now your friends are not your
friends.”
203. “You got some tough days ahead of you,” Harvey said, because Nickoloff and
Setel were “big mad” at Mr. Reynolds for having complained about Wilson.
204. Harvey said that City officials’ response to Mr. Reynolds’s complaint would be
“hurtful,” “personal stuff” driven by their “love for Shani.”
205. Harvey told Mr. Reynolds he needed “fight” against efforts to punish him. “I
won’t watch you get lynched,” Harvey said.
D. Defendants Immediately Leak Mr. Reynolds’s Complaint to “Destroy” and

Silence Him
206. According to the City’s sexual harassment policy, Mr. Reynolds’s supervisors on
the PAB Board and all City employees — including Defendants Wilson, Setel, Nickoloff,
Bascoe, and Campbell — had an obligation to “keep reports” like his “confidential,” sharing
them only with “the Department of Human Resource Management.”
207. Rather that follow this policy — and, in doing so, protect Mr. Reynolds from
embarrassment, humiliation, and retaliation — Defendants’ immediate response to his complaint
was to needlessly disseminate its details to countless individuals who were not within the City’s
Department of Human Resources.
208. On May 6, 2022 — less than 24 hours after filing his complaint — City
Councilmember Martin met with Mr. Reynolds and his sister at their home.
209. Martin told Mr. Reynolds that Wilson was “terrified” about Mr. Reynolds’s
complaint spreading beyond City government, as it would “embarrass” her and “end her political
38
career.” Wilson was prepared to “do anything” to make Mr. Reynolds “stop talking.” “Shani
cares more about destroying you than she does the PAB,” Martin said.
210. Martin explained to Mr. Reynolds that, in an effort to silence him, Wilson had
spent the hours after he filed his complaint disseminating its details to, inter alia, Martin, City
Councilmember Smith, Maye and Bascoe.
211. Martin’s statement was confirmed by Campbell in a May 2022 email, where she
admitted that “Board members” like Wilson also disclosed the details of Mr. Reynolds’s
complaint to her “on Friday, May 6, 2022.”
212. The “concerns” Wilson previously raised against Mr. Reynolds were plainly
insufficient to warrant termination. Indeed, during a secret meeting of PAB Board members held
in violation of open meetings laws on May 7, 2022, PAB Board members declined Wilson’s
proposal to take any disciplinary action against Mr. Reynolds.
213. As such, Wilson needed other City officials to “pressure” PAB Board members to
punish him.
214. To that end, the purpose of Wilson’s disclosures to other City officials, according
to Martin, was to make others to “disbelieve” Mr. Reynolds’s story, convince them he was a
“liar,” and encourage them to “support” Wilson in “getting [him] fired.”
215. Wilson’s disclosures quickly helped her garner the support of the City’s most
powerful officials. For example, upon learning the details of Mr. Reynolds’s complaint from
Wilson, Smith sent a text message on or about the morning of May 6, 2022 to the private cell
phones of all other City Councilmembers. The text message said Mr. Reynolds was causing
“problems” for the City and urged Councilmembers to “contact” and “support” Wilson.
39
216. Shortly after Smith sent this text message, City Councilmembers began to send
communications to PAB Board members urging them to suspend Mr. Reynolds — and take no
action against Wilson. These communications would eventually culminate in a letter sent to PAB
Board members by the City Council President, Miguel Melendez, on or about May 12, 2022,
stating his “support” for the “suspension” of Mr. Reynolds while “complaints” against him were
investigated.
E. To Be “Loyal” to a “Best Friend,” City Officials Illegally Order Mr.

Reynolds to Be Silent
217. After selectively leaking Mr. Reynolds’s complaint, Defendants’ next goal was to
stop Mr. Reynolds from discussing his experiences with other employees who were at risk of
what he had warned the PAB’s Board about – namely, harassment and retaliation at the hands of
Wilson and her allies in City government.
218. To that end, Defendants issued a range of gag orders in person, via telephone,
text, letter, and email to Mr. Reynolds, all of which told him to stop speaking with co-workers
about his complaint of sexual harassment.
219. These orders came after Mr. Reynolds shared his complaint with PAB Associate
General Counsel A.J. Durwin on May 6, 2022. Mr. Reynolds asked Durwin for legal advice on
how to proceed while protecting employees from harassment and retaliation by Defendants.
Durwin advised Mr. Reynolds to share his complaint with other senior employees at the PAB,
whom Durwin believed were “unaware” of the facts about Wilson’s behavior.
220. In a meeting with Mr. Reynolds immediately thereafter — and in the presence of
his assistant, Pacheco-Walker — Campbell told Mr. Reynolds he was “instigating problems” at
PAB by talking to others about “personal issues” he was having with Wilson. Campbell then said
she was “directing” Mr. Reynolds to not talk about “personal issues like that” in the office.
40
221. After the meeting, Campbell — as she admitted in a May 2022 email — “told
[Bascoe] to let the staff know they did not have to take [Mr. Reynolds’s] calls or meet with [Mr.
Reynolds].” Campbell then “sent an email to the PAB Board . . . and asked them to reiterate to
[Mr. Reynolds] that he should not be reaching out to staff.”
222. Immediately thereafter, Board member Setel emailed Mr. Reynolds what she
called a “direct instruction from the Board” to “have no communication with staff about the
concerns that have been raised related to your job performance.”
223. Board member Nickoloff then texted Mr. Reynolds, “Conor, Did you receive
[Setel’s] email?” Mr. Reynolds responded, “I will not be directed to not discuss the sexual
harassment I have experienced.” Nickoloff replied, “[Y]ou should report it via the appropriate
channels and not your staff or subordinates. . . . I’m not clear why you’d discuss it with anyone
except city HR if you don’t trust the Board to handle it[.]”
224. As explained in guidance issued in 2012 by the Buffalo office of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, “[D]iscussing one’s complaints of sexual harassment
with others is protected opposition. An employer who tries to stop an employee from talking
with others about alleged discrimination is violating Title VII rights, and the violation is
‘flagrant’ not trivial. . . . [T]elling [a] woman who complained of harassment that they were not
to tell others about the alleged harassment is enough to constitute a harm under Title VII. There
does not have to be a separate adverse action.”
225. Believing that Defendants’ orders were further proof that Defendants were
violating his rights and mishandling his reports of misconduct, Mr. Reynolds immediately filed a
complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights about both Wilson’s behavior and
the retaliation he was experiencing from Nickoloff, Setel, and others.
41
226. During the afternoon of May 8, 2022, Setel ordered Mr. Reynolds to attend a
meeting with Nickoloff and other Board members a few hours later. Mr. Reynolds consulted
with Durwin about the legality of joining a meeting that violated state open meetings law.
Durwin advised him that, despite the meeting’s illegality, he should attend to not give the City
“an excuse to fire you.” Mr. Reynolds decided to attend the meeting after Board member Harvey
texted him to say that he would be “in trouble” if he failed to attend.
227. During the meeting, Nickoloff demanded that Mr. Reynolds “apologize” for
having “disobeyed the Board’s orders” by speaking to staff about his sexual harassment
experiences. Mr. Reynolds refused to do so.
228. In an email sent to Mr. Reynolds shortly thereafter, Nickoloff chastised Mr.
Reynolds for having “disseminated” his complaint “to staff.” Mr. Reynolds replied that he would
“respect your request” to “stop speaking to staff about my experiences of sexual harassment”
because of a belief he “would face termination if I failed to do so.” “As difficult as it is for me to
have staff unaware of sexual harassment and retaliation occurring at the agency,” Mr. Reynolds
noted, “it would be more painful to have the staff without a leader who is willing to protect them.
And so I remain quiet.”
229. In a phone call recorded on May 9, 2022, Board member Harvey called Mr.
Reynolds to explain that Nickoloff and Setel had lied about the nature of their orders to remain
silent. “I said, ‘Matthew, you just said [to Mr. Reynolds], ‘You violated the Board. You didn’t do
what the Board said.’ I said, ‘The Board ain’t said shit. . . . Don’t come telling me that because
you said something, it was the Board. Because [Setel] said something, it was the Board. Y’all
didn’t bring that shit to us[.] . . . It was not a violation of the Board. I don’t give a damn – if you
42
told him to look up and stare at the wall, that was not a directive from the Board. If you told him
not to talk, and we didn’t tell you tell him that, it was not a directive from the Board.’”
230. Harvey, explaining why Nickoloff would issue an illegal order against a former
“friend” like Mr. Reynolds, said: “That’s a personal friendship that went bad, went sour, and it
may be because of his love for Shani.”
231. In a subsequent recorded phone call with Mr. Reynolds, Nickoloff confirmed
Harvey’s belief. When Mr. Reynolds mentioned the instructions to “not talk about the sexual
harassment,” Nickoloff explained these orders aimed to ensure “that there wouldn’t be any
aspersions cast on anybody.” Nickoloff elaborated by saying, “I want to be loyal to people
maybe I shouldn’t be loyal to. . . . You know that Shani is one of my best friends.”
V. DEFENDANTS’ RETALIATION ESCALATES VIA SUSPENSION,

DEFAMATION AND BASELESS COMPLAINTS
A. Fabricated Complaints Are Filed Against Mr. Reynolds
232. Trying to make the best of a bad situation, Mr. Reynolds spent the days after
filing his complaint focusing on his job as Executive Director. During meetings held between
May 6, 2022 and May 11, 2022, Mr. Reynolds finalized a detailed plan for the agency to start
accepting formal reports of police misconduct on May 18, 2022, implementing a timeline Mr.
Reynolds had circulated to the PAB’s Board and City Councilmembers a year prior.
233. Upon learning the details of this plan, Wilson decided to dramatically accelerate
her efforts to silence Mr. Reynolds, knowing that it would be politically infeasible to punish Mr.
Reynolds or label him as incompetent after the agency publicly achieved a major milestone
under his leadership.
234. In addition to asking employees to obstruct and not implement Mr. Reynolds’s
plan, Wilson directed two other individuals he had complained about — Campbell and Maye —
43
to file false, baseless, and retaliatory complaints against him, with the aim of securing his
suspension.
235. This cynical maneuver proved that City Councilmember Martin was correct in
telling Mr. Reynolds that Wilson “cares more about destroying you than she does the PAB.” The
PAB’s union would later state that the actions of Maye, Campbell, and others in PAB’s
management were a “deliberate effort to drive this agency into the ground” after Mr. Reynolds’s
departure.
236. On May 9, 2022, Campbell – at the direction of at least one superior, including
Wilson – sent an email to the head of the City’s Human Resources department protesting the
PAB Board’s decision to not punish Mr. Reynolds. In the email, Campbell stated she was
speaking “on behalf of the PAB staff” – a group of over thirty individuals – in her capacity as
Director of Staff Support.
237. Campbell requested that Mr. Reynolds “be placed on a paid administrative leave”
and that “an independent entity [ ] review and investigate the matter.” Campbell said all of Mr.
Reynolds’s employees were making this request “due to their heightened sense of anxiety,
apprehension in coming to work, and fear of retaliation” – and their belief that Mr. Reynolds had
created a “hostile, toxic, and retaliatory” workplace for all.
238. Campbell sent the email knowing that the statements it contained were false, as
Defendants admitted one month later.
239. On or about June 10, 2022, Mr. Reynolds’s employees sent a letter to City
officials castigating Campbell and others for “submitting statements, public or otherwise, that
speak on behalf of [the] Staff[’]s collective experience,” as the “claims that Conor Dwyer
44
Reynolds fostered a toxic, paranoid, and racist work environment aren’t beliefs shared by all of
the staff.”
240. When responding to this letter during a videoconference recorded on June 13,
2022, Defendant Bascoe asserted that Campbell had “never” taken a “survey to see whether or
not . . . we can state that the workplace is toxic or that . . . [employees] felt retaliated against.”
Bascoe also stated “nor can it be seen” that Mr. Reynolds created “a hostile work environment”
for employees.
241. Recognizing that Campbell’s email had failed to result in Mr. Reynolds’s
suspension, Maye filed an internal HR complaint against Mr. Reynolds on May 11, 2022.
242. Maye alleged that, because Mr. Reynolds made a complaint to the PAB Board on
May 5, 2022, the PAB’s “work environment . . . has become increasingly hostile, disorderly and
unsafe as the result.” Maye claimed that Mr. Reynolds’s May 5, 2022 complaint to the Board
was an attempt to “rally support for his characterization of [Maye] as an aggressive, bullying
black woman intent on stealing his job.” It also alleged that Mr. Reynolds’s complaint was
improper because its claims about Wilson and Maye were “inflammatory,” “laughable,” and
“dangerous.”
243. Maye’s complaint was facially baseless and retaliatory – and was widely
perceived as such by a range of City officials and employees, including the PAB employees who
signed the aforementioned June 10, 2022 letter.
244. Disbelief in Maye’s complaint was especially high in Maye’s former work
environment, the City’s Law Department. In the weeks before Maye’s complaint was filed,
Linda Kingsley – the City’s Corporation Counsel – asserted that Maye exhibited behavior so
45
inappropriate that she couldn’t be trusted, to the point where the City had previously been forced
to “terminate” Maye from City employment.
245. And after Maye’s complaint was filed, employees in the City’s Law Department
expressed disbelief in her claims, resulting in a statement by one City attorney on December 17,
2022 that Maye’s complaint was mere “hyperbole.”
246. Maye’s May 11, 2022 complaint was part of a longstanding pattern of subjecting
those who complained about her misconduct to baseless counter-complaints. By the end of her
tenure at PAB in early 2023, Maye filed such counter-complaints against at least three City
officials, including: (i) Corporation Counsel Kingsley; (ii) PAB’s Deputy Chief of Investigations
Will Cleveland; and (iii) PAB Staff Attorney Erin Barry. Maye even went as far as to threaten
Kingsley with a defamation lawsuit.
247. On November 16, 2022, the City itself concluded Maye’s complaint against Mr.
Reynolds was “unsubstantiated.”
B. Mr. Reynolds Is Suspended For No Stated Reason Whatsoever
248. Unaware of Defendants’ efforts to file baseless complaints against him, Mr.
Reynolds continued his efforts to open the PAB’s doors for accepting complaints of police
misconduct.
249. On May 12, 2022 – one week after filing his complaint with the PAB Board – he
sent a letter to the Rochester Police Department stating that PAB would be accepting complaints
“in the coming days.” His staff closed out the day with a plan to inform the Board, City Council,
and community activists about the imminent report-acceptance process.
250. As Mr. Reynolds was about to leave work that day, he received a phone call from
Board member Nickoloff. In recorded audio of the phone call, Mr. Reynolds explained to
46
Nickoloff that, “Telling people you care about that you're being sexually harassed and having no
one believe you is probably the most hurtful betrayal you could imagine. . . . I hope that you
recognize that and think about it because it has been horrifying.” Nickoloff replied by saying,
inter alia, “You’re experiencing a lot of suffering and I know that I’ve probably contributed to it
through my own kind of imperfection and I do want to apologize for that.”
251. Nickoloff concluded the call by informing Mr. Reynolds that Board members
would be attending a long-scheduled “training session” with consultants that evening.
252. Shortly after the call, Mr. Reynolds received a phone call from the employee
responsible for scheduling the session. The employee, confused, said that Board members had
failed to show up to the meeting.
253. Mr. Reynolds drove from the PAB offices to his home. Mr. Reynolds left his
personal computer, his briefcase, his personal belongings, and his work notes in the office.
Before leaving, he left some notes of encouragement on a few employee’s desks, with some
articles to read and discuss the following morning.
254. What Mr. Reynolds did not know is that, rather than attending a “training
session,” Board members were attending a meeting so hastily scheduled that it violated both state
open meetings laws and the PAB’s own transparency policies. No member of the public was
notified about the meeting in advance. No minutes were taken to record what happened in the
meeting. And the Board gave no justification for why, shortly after entering the meeting, they
were entering an “executive session” to discuss a “personnel matter.”
255. At 8:30 PM that evening, about two hours after this Board’s meeting began, a
City security team appeared at Mr. Reynolds’s door.
47
256. A City security official handed Mr. Reynolds a letter from City Council’s Chief of
Staff, Smith. The letter stated: “City Council has been informed that the Rochester Police
Accountability Board (PAB) has voted to place you on Administrative Leave (suspension). This
letter is to inform you that the PAB’s action means that, effective immediately, you are hereby
suspended with pay pending an administrative investigation.”
257. The letter did not state why Mr. Reynolds was suspended, what the scope of the
investigation was, or how long the investigation was expected to last.
258. After handing Mr. Reynolds the letter, the City’s security team sat outside of Mr.
Reynolds’s home for at least 30 minutes.
259. When Mr. Reynolds asked to have his personal belongings returned, he was told
that they would be available “in a box” at the front of City Hall.
260. When Mr. Reynolds arrived to pick up the box, a City security team emerged
from cars near the entrance to City Hall and followed Mr. Reynolds in and out of the building.
261. Upon arriving at his car, Mr. Reynolds discovered a bag of rotting vegetables had
been placed the bottom of a box containing his belongings.
262. In a telephone call recorded on May 16, 2022, Mr. Reynolds spoke with the point
of contact named in the suspension letter, Smith.
263. When Mr. Reynolds asked if he would be “told what this investigation is about”
and if “anyone knew” why he had been suspended, Smith replied, “I don’t think it’s been
defined.”
C. Defendants Expand Gag Order on Mr. Reynolds – And Punish Employees

Seen As Supporting Him
264. One of Defendants’ goals in suspending Mr. Reynolds was to prevent him from
speaking with his co-workers about both his own complaint of harassment and his fear that other
48
employees would be subjected to abuse and misconduct at the hands of City officials like
Wilson.
265. This goal was reflected in an unusual directive placed in Mr. Reynolds’s
suspension letter: “You are not to contact your supervisor, subordinates or co-workers.” As
revealed by the text of suspension letters issued to other PAB employees during 2022, this
directive was not a standard term of suspensions of City employees.
266. The goal was also reflected during a May 13, 2022 “all staff meeting” held by
Board member Setel for Mr. Reynolds’s employees.
267. Before the meeting, Mr. Reynolds received communications from his employees
expressing panic and fear about the meeting and his absence in the office.
268. During the meeting, Setel informed employees that Mr. Reynolds was suspended
and that, while he was suspended, they were ordered to have no contact with him.
269. As one employee wrote on July 30, 2022, “The way that they are so willingly
tr[ying] to scare people into keeping quiet is shocking.”
270. Mr. Reynolds’s employees were also told to report any contact they believed Mr.
Reynolds was having with other PAB employees.
271. Many of Mr. Reynolds’s employees stated that Setel and Wilson’s other friends in
City government were “obsessed” with trying to prevent employees from contacting Mr.
Reynolds to speak with him about his suspension and his complaints. This obsession went to
extremes, with one employee texting Mr. Reynolds on October 12, 2022: “We were just told they
are doing a criminal investigation into staff who have been in contact with you.”
49
272. PAB employees believed they would face adverse employment actions if they
violated these orders or otherwise acted to support Mr. Reynolds or complain about his
treatment.
273. This belief was founded on statements made by Defendants during an all-staff
meeting held on June 13, 2022, just days after Mr. Reynolds went public with his story of
harassment and retaliation.
274. In an audio recording of the call, Bascoe can be heard urging employees to only
“make [complaints] to HR” rather than “complaining to other coworkers” like Mr. Reynolds,
saying it “does you no good to complaint to someone who can’t help you.”
275. Banks can also be heard instructing employees to “get your issues resolved at the
staff level internally first, before escalating it” as Mr. Reynolds did. In response, one employee
stated that “the staff do not feel safe” filing complaints about misconduct.
276. Most notably, Maye can be heard warning that only “legitimate complaints of
retaliation or fear should be reported,” and that – if an employee filed a complaint Defendants
deemed “frivolous” (as Mr. Reynolds’s had) – there would be “serious consequences” (as Mr.
Reynolds suffered).
277. Defendants made good on the above threats throughout 2022, subjecting those
seen as supportive of Mr. Reynolds to what employees called a “pattern of unjust retaliation and
disciplinary actions” that was “the same kind of shit they pulled with Conor.” Such employees
include, but are not limited to:
i. A young female employee serving in an administrative role

who, after filing a complaint of sexual harassment against
Banks in May 2022, was stripped of her job duties, given
“nothing to do,” forced to report to Banks, and subject to work
conditions so hostile they amounted to a constructive
termination.
50
ii. Árpád Szentkirályi, an operations staffer, who in June 2022

was terminated without any stated reason one week after
raising employee complaints during a meeting with PAB Board
members.
iii. Mark Prins, a case manager, who – after submitting a

complaint in August 2022 “about the current environment and
the prevalent feeling of hostility and retaliation that has
consumed the office” to the PAB’s Board – was punished and
fired for what the City said was “discuss[ing] in a public
setting for others to hear your HR concerns.”
iv. Michael Higgins, the agency’s Chief of Policy & Oversight,

who in October 2022 filed a whistleblower complaint stating
that “Bascoe was intoxicated by drugs or alcohol at a staff
meeting.” The City responded by immediately suspending
Higgins without a stated reason, taking “no action to
investigate” his complaint, and “permitting Mr. Bascoe to fire
[him] in what board member Reverend Matthew Nickoloff
wrote in a text message was ‘a clear act of spite and
stupidity.’”
v. Brandy Cooper, an investigator, who was – in Defendant’s

words – “terminated … due to [her] insubordination” at the
very moment she was making a public statement on November
9, 2022 denouncing the treatment of PAB employees.
vi. A.J. Durwin, a senior attorney, who was denied the opportunity
for a promotion at Wilson’s directive because he had
encouraged Mr. Reynolds to inform other employees about
Wilson’s misconduct.
vii. A PAB employee who complained to PAB Board members

about the “extremely problematic” leak of Mr. Reynolds’s
personnel file described infra – and who called for “severe
consequences for whoever did [the] leak” – was subject to
baseless complaints shortly thereafter.
278. PAB employees widely believed they were being targeted for punishment
because, as one said in a text message to Mr. Reynolds, Defendants saw employees resisting
misconduct and “think it’s all you.”
51
279. Defendants confirmed this belief in an October 12, 2022 press release, which
explained that “all personnel decisions made to date” were “necessary steps” taken to address
“people who were not aligned with the agency’s goals” – namely, the “current and former PAB
staff” engaging in “collusion” by communicating with Mr. Reynolds. Defendants stated these
actions were part of a plan “vetted by the City’s Human Resources and Law Departments.”
280. Defendants’ treatment of employees seen as supportive of Mr. Reynolds stands in
stark contrast to the treatment of the handful of employees who had been asked to solicit
concerns about his work.
281. Defendants gave these employees sudden, unjustified promotions and raises. For
example, days after raising “concerns” about Mr. Reynolds, Bascoe was promoted from a mid-
level managerial position to the PAB’s head administrator – with a corresponding raise of over
$10,000. Banks was also given a raise, making her the highest-paid employee at the agency,
earning more than Mr. Reynolds did as Executive Director. Maye was promoted to serve as
acting head of the agency’s policy division.
282. Defendants allowed these employees to go on extended vacations, work almost
exclusively from home, and otherwise ignore policies that were strictly enforced against other
employees. For example, Bascoe was permitted to get paid while vacationing while other
employees had their vacation requests ignored.
283. Defendants ignored countless complaints filed against them – and actively
defended them against charges of shockingly severe misconduct, as described infra. These
employees, as PAB employee Brandy Cooper said in a public statement, were given “the ability
to do what [they] wanted to do … with no pushback.”
52
284. In doing all this, Defendants’ message to PAB employees was clear: oppose Mr.
Reynolds and be rewarded; support him and be punished. As one employee wrote to Mr.
Reynolds on August 31, 2022, “It’s so blatantly obvious what they are doing they aren’t even
trying to cover anything up.”
285. At the same time Defendants worked inside City government to undermine Mr.
Reynolds, Defendants moved to isolate him from his greatest supporters in the community:
Rochesterians within the Police Accountability Board Alliance.
286. Stunned by Mr. Reynolds’s abrupt and unexplained suspension, many Alliance
members clamored for an opportunity to speak to Mr. Reynolds.
287. Wilson, directly and through messages conveyed by friends, told Alliance
members throughout summer 2022 that the City did not want them to Mr. Reynolds or speak
with him for any reason.
288. As one Alliance member later told their colleagues, “We know that [] when
[Shani] heard that Conor was coming [to an Alliance meeting], she reached out to people. …
[S]he reached out to people on this Alliance.”
D. The Campaign to Destroy Mr. Reynolds Goes Public
289. On the morning of May 13, 2022, hours after suspending Mr. Reynolds, the City
issued a brief press release announcing his suspension to the public.
290. The press release outrageously referred to Mr. Reynolds’s suspension a
“transition,” which conveyed to the public that – regardless of what the facts were – Mr.
Reynolds would eventually be terminated.
53
291. Through this implication – and by failing to give any explanation for his
suspension – the press release communicated to the public that Mr. Reynolds had engaged in the
kind of extreme misconduct that would justify an immediate suspension.
292. The press release did not inform the public that, one week earlier, Mr. Reynolds
had filed a complaint of sexual harassment against the PAB’s Chair.
293. Foreseeably – and as intended by the individuals who drafted the press release,
including Wilson – the press release caused Rochesterians to assume the worst of Mr. Reynolds,
doubt his credibility, and subject him to immense humiliation.
294. Within hours of the press release being released, Mr. Reynolds was publicly
accused of masturbating in the office, embezzling funds, engaging in “sexual harassment,” being
a pedophile, being a “child molest[er],” “touch[ing] little kids,” “touch[ing] some little boys,”
“being caught with his [penis] out, looking at some [porn],” being a “sexual predator,” and
committing “sex crimes.”
295. Officials across City government believed that it was wrong and harmful to issue
the May 13, 2022, press release.
296. For example, in a letter sent to PAB Board members on or about May 13, 2022,
City Council President Melendez reprimanded them for “mishandling of the communication
issued today,” as “all staff involved in this matter [must be] afforded their right to privacy and
protection.”
297. And in a Facebook Message sent to a friend on May 17, 2022, Board member
Nickoloff stated that he was “deeply concerned for [Mr. Reynolds’s] safety,” given the
“harassment” Mr. Reynolds was enduring in the wake of the press release. “I fear too much
trauma is already being inflicted,” Nickoloff wrote.
54
E. Anticipating That Mr. Reynolds Would Go Public, Defendants Threaten and

Preemptively Defame Him
298. Days after his suspension, Mr. Reynolds retained counsel to represent him
regarding his claims against Defendants.
299. On May 20, 2022, Mr. Reynolds’s attorneys contacted the City to ask for an
explanation as to why Mr. Reynolds had been suspended and whether the City was investigating
Mr. Reynolds’s complaint against Wilson.
300. Two days later, in an unsolicited text message sent on May 22, 2022, Board
member Brown told Mr. Reynolds: “Please proceed with caution. Blowing someone else’s
candle out will not make yours burn brighter.”
301. Undeterred by this threat, Mr. Reynolds’s attorneys contacted a reporter at the
Democrat & Chronicle on or about May 26, 2022 to discuss Mr. Reynolds’s complaint filed with
the Division of Human Rights.
302. Upon learning of this contact, Defendants encouraged Maye to escalate her
complaint by re-filing it with the New York State Division of Human Rights, which she did on
May 30, 2022.
303. Defendants’ aim in refiling Maye’s complaint was to create a false, “dueling
complaints” narrative to undermine the public perception of Mr. Reynolds as a victim of
harassment and retaliation.
304. Now expecting Mr. Reynolds’s story to become public any day, Wilson began
disclosing the details of Mr. Reynolds’s complaint to her friends and other community leaders
across Rochester in ways that would make them disbelieve Mr. Reynolds’s story, convince them
he was a liar, and enlist them in the effort to get Mr. Reynolds fired.
55
305. To aid in this campaign, Wilson told countless individuals that – in her capacity
as a licensed mental health professional – she knew Mr. Reynolds was diagnosed with a
loathsome disease: namely, narcissistic personality disorder.
306. As Defendants admitted in letters sent to the Division of Human Rights on June 8,
2022 and July 11, 2022, Wilson published this statement – by orally stating Mr. Reynolds was a
“narcissistic abuser” – to: (1) a fellow mental health professional before and on or about June 8,
2022; (2) attorney Elizabeth A. Cordello on or about June 8, 2022; and (3) local government
official Hushla Re before and on or about June 8, 2022.
307. These statements were false.
308. Before Wilson made these defamatory statements about Mr. Reynolds, she made
identical false claims about other co-workers and friends who complained about her behavior,
including: (i) former PAB Board Members Perez and McIntosh; (ii) former City Council
President Loretta Scott; and (iii) Wilson’s ex-lover, Dr. Biernbaum.
VI. MR. REYNOLDS FINALLY GOES PUBLIC – AND GETS SUPPORT FROM
OTHER VICTIMS
309. While Defendants’ threats increased Mr. Reynolds’s hesitancy to speak out
publicly, messages from his employees about Defendants’ behavior changed his mind.
310. In late May 2022, Mr. Reynolds was alerted to the fact that Defendants had taken
no substantive action to investigate or address his complaints against Wilson. Wilson was
continuing to run PAB Board meetings, give directions to employees, and communicate with
City officials about Mr. Reynolds. Worst of all, Defendants were allowing Wilson to freely
interact with and have increased control over his employees – including in closed-door meetings
like those during which he had been sexually harassed by Wilson.
56
311. The continuing empowerment of Wilson was wrong – as Defendants admitted in
November 2022 when they stated “she should have been temporarily removed from the PAB
Board while the investigation was pending because of the actual or perceived conflict of
interest.”
312. Unwilling to tolerate the obvious risk of harassment Defendants were imposing
on his employees, Mr. Reynolds chose to break his silence and inform the public about the
widespread and severe misconduct in which City officials were engaged.
313. On Tuesday, June 7, 2022, Mr. Reynolds published an essay online titled, “I
Reported Sexual Harassment by My Boss. A Week Later, I Was Suspended.” The essay detailed
his experience of harassment, the misconduct he reported to the City, and the retaliation he and
his employees were suffering as a result.
314. Mr. Reynolds’s essay made clear that the wrongdoing he and his employees was a
matter of public interest, rather than a mere employment dispute. The essay described a “cover-
up” and “culture of corruption” aimed at “shield[ing]” powerful City officials like Wilson from
“accountability.” Mr. Reynolds called on the “community” of Rochester to help “get [City
government] back to where we need to be.”
315. Mr. Reynolds’s essay prompted victims of Wilson’s previous campaigns of
defamation, harassment, and retaliation to speak out publicly or reach out to Mr. Reynolds.
316. Shortly after his essay was published, Mr. Reynolds received a phone call from
former PAB Board member McIntosh. McIntosh had resigned from the PAB’s Board earlier in
2022 because of bullying, lying, and an effort by Wilson and her friends on the PAB’s Board to
punish and oust McIntosh for complaining about misconduct.
57
317. Calling Defendants’ response to his complaint “strategic,” McIntosh told Mr.
Reynolds:
That game [Wilson] playing is a very dangerous game. She’s

tarnishing everybody’s relationship and reputation. . . . It’s literally
a game. . . The same knife that cuts the sheep cuts the goat. And
that’s what she’s doing to you because she can’t find another
person to scapegoat. . . . They’re rogue, they’re rogue. I’m sorry
you have to be enduring that – and the reason I have to say that is
because I know. I’ve been there. . . . It’s terrible. I am so sad for
what’s happening. . . . [Shani] is more worried about tearing
people down than the whole fucking mission. Because she’s at the
helm, she wants to play the victim because she does all this shit
behind closed doors. And in the public eye, she acts like she’s so
great because she’s the face of the organization.
318. Mr. Reynolds received a phone call from another former PAB Board member,
Perez. Like McIntosh, Perez had resigned from the PAB’s Board earlier in 2022, citing bullying,
lying, and unethical behavior by Wilson and her friends on the PAB’s Board. “It was stuff that
would keep me up at night and I didn’t feel comfortable with,” Perez would later tell the media.
319. Stating that she also witnessed Wilson made inappropriate sexual comments and
“lives in a fantasy world,” Perez told Mr. Reynolds:
[Wilson is] gonna deny it all. She’s gonna deny it, all of it, because
that’s what she did to me. And that’s what she did to Celia. And
now she’s doing that with you. . . . I feel that there’s some validity
to what you’re saying because it’s very similar to what happened
to me and what happened to Celia. Because the minute she doesn’t
– she thought that you were a threat, or that you were above her,
she was gonna get you out. Because that’s what happened to Celia.
And that’s what happened to me when I no longer would stroke her
[ego] and I started calling her out for the things she was doing.
320. One Rochesterian replied to Mr. Reynolds’s story by posting the following
statement online:
I’m a former patient of Shani’s. I believe everything Conor Dwyer

Reynolds is saying 100%. I was never sexually harassed by her (at
least not like that) but some of the things he quoted her as saying-
58
she said to me almost word for word. The tactics she employs and
bullying/retaliation he describes I have also experienced first hand.
As one of her PATIENTS.
321. Another Rochesterian went online to state: “I used to work w her and believe it to
be true as well. I heard she had an affair w another physician at Trillium. Seems to be a trend of
being inappropriate in the workplace.”
322. In a message about Wilson sent to Mr. Reynolds, a former PAB employee wrote:
“I hear she sexually harassed someone at her last job also.” One friend of Wilson’s– who had
long been told by Wilson that Mr. Reynolds was “in love” with her – read the essay and realized:
Shani is “delusional.”
323. Another friend of Wilson’s contacted Mr. Reynolds to tell him they “believed”
Mr. Reynolds because of Wilson’s behavior toward them.
324. A number of community activists and leaders responded to Mr. Reynolds’s essay
by contacting City officials – including Board member Setel – to inform them that Mr.
Reynolds’s complaint should be believed because they, too, had been victims of Wilson’s
behavior.
325. In the wake of Mr. Reynolds’s essay becoming public, Wilson made a flurry of
emails, texts, and phone calls asking friends and community members to disbelieve, attack, and
lie about Mr. Reynolds. Wilson’s requests quickly bore fruit.
326. Minutes after Mr. Reynolds’s essay was posted, Hushla Re – a staffer for New
York State Representative Sarah Clark and “best friend” of Wilson’s – tweeted that the essay
was a “story [of] a white man covering his tracks of ineptitude” by “harming” Wilson and
“making her out to be the Black jezebel.”
59
327. Hushla Re also tweeted that Mr. Reynolds was a “blatant narcissist,” an “abuser”
making “false allegations,” someone making “ridiculous allegations,” “retaliating” against
Wilson by “coming out with this BS a year [after it happened],” accusing people who believed
him of doing Black women “harm by simply taking his word for it.”
328. Another of Wilson’s friends, Monroe County Legislator Rachel Barnhart,
responded to Mr. Reynolds’s essay by smearing him on Twitter as “a paid director of an
organization who didn’t do much during two years at the helm.”
329. PAB Board member Nickoloff took to social media to promote a post calling Mr.
Reynolds’s sexual harassment complaint “meaningless vitriol” and asking individuals to “stand
by my friend Shani Wilson.”
330. Wilson – knowing Mr. Reynolds’s sexual orientation – took an unusually cruel
step by attempting to ensure that he would be functionally exiled from the Rochester queer
community.
331. Wilson successfully asked an LGBTQ organization, of which Wilson is a Board
member, to make a Facebook post claiming that Wilson was a “victim of attacks on their
character” thanks to Mr. Reynolds. Two other major queer organizations in Rochester supported
the post.
332. Another friend of Wilson’s in the Rochester queer community posted on
Facebook that Mr. Reynolds was “l[ying] his ass off” and “moved heaven & earth to weaponize
systems to punish” Wilson.
333. A number of Wilson’s friends, however, declined her requests to lie about Mr.
Reynolds.
60
334. For example, when Kevin Beckford was called by Wilson and asked to state a
belief that Wilson and Mr. Reynolds had engaged in a consensual relationship, Beckford told
Wilson he could not make that statement because it was untrue. Wilson responded by hanging up
on Beckford, a longtime friend, and never speaking to him again.
335. Wilson made the same request to another close friend, who gave the same
response Beckford did. Again, Wilson’s response was to hang up on the individual and never
contact them again.
336. When Wilson resigned on June 10, 2022 – after days of refusing to do so – she
publicly claimed that her resignation from the PAB was “the best thing for this organization.”
However, Wilson’s resignation was not “voluntary” or magnanimous, but rather was driven by
City officials – who told her that, if she failed to resign, former co-workers would publicly speak
out in support of Mr. Reynolds, testifying to her longstanding pattern of workplace
misconduct.In other words, Wilson’s resignation was aimed at furthering not the public interest,
but her campaign to undermine Mr. Reynolds’s claims.
VII. DEFENDANTS FURTHER RETALIATE AGAINST MR. REYNOLDS BY

DEFAMING HIM AND ILLEGALLY LEAKING HIS PERSONNEL FILE
337. Defendants’ immediate response to Mr. Reynolds’s June 7, 2022 essay was to
defame him through a statement drafted by attorneys working for the City that would brand Mr.
Reynolds a liar.
338. The statement, made by Wilson, called the contents of Mr. Reynolds’s complaint
“unequivocally false.”
339. Defendants circulated this statement to members of the media, causing it to be
published across New York State and the United States on websites like Yahoo News, in
61
newspapers like the Democrat & Chronicle, magazines like City Newspaper, on television
stations, on social media, and elsewhere in print and on the internet.
340. Wilson’s statement – which conveyed that Mr. Reynolds was, in connection with
his profession as a city administrator and attorney, a liar – was false.
341. Moreover, Defendants knew it was a lie to brand Mr. Reynolds’s story as
“unequivocally false,” as at the very same time they made the statement they were privately
admitting that much of Mr. Reynolds’s story was true.
342. In a letter submitted to the Division of Human Rights on June 8, 2022, Defendants
stated: “Many of the interactions between Mr. Reynolds and Wilson as alleged in the Complaint
did occur[.]” Defendants said Wilson had “admitted to” Mr. Reynolds she had an “attraction to
him.” Defendants said Wilson told Mr. Reynolds “she was uncomfortable with his interest” in
another woman and Defendants agreed that Wilson’s behavior required “corrective action.”
343. In addition to drafting and publishing a defamatory statement about Mr.
Reynolds, the City’s response to his essay was to leak portions of his personnel file to the public.
344. According to City policy, complaints against City employees are placed into that
person’s personnel file, which is supposed to be kept confidential. As Banks can be heard telling
PAB employees in an audio recording of a meeting held on June 13, 2022, “Those documents
shouldn’t have been leaked and every person – whether a staff, a person, or a volunteer – has a
right to confidentiality and that right was violated.” On the same recording, Setel can be heard
admitting that the leak was “shocking” and “disturbing.”
345. As Defendants admitted in a November 29, 2022 letter to the Division of Human
Rights, portions of Mr. Reynolds’s personnel file were “leaked” to the media on or about June 8,
2022. As Setel can be heard telling PAB employees in the audio recording of a meeting held on
62
June 13, 2022, one leaked portion of Mr. Reynolds’s personnel file “was made public within 12
hours of its transmission to the [City’s] attorney.”
346. While Defendants claim they have “been unable to determine the source of the
‘leak,’” the only individuals with access to Mr. Reynolds’s personnel file were the City’s agents.
347. The relevant portions of the file were: (i) Maye’s May 11, 2022 complaint; and
(ii) a statement signed by Board member Setel on June 7, 2022 that claimed that Mr. Reynolds’s
May 5, 2022 complaint lacked credibility because his “demeanor and affect, at the time of his
reading his allegations seemed desperate and hysterical.”
348. As a result of the leak, the contents of Mr. Reynolds’s personnel file were
published across New York State and the United States on websites like Yahoo News, in
newspapers like the Democrat & Chronicle, magazines like City Newspaper, on television
stations, on social media, and elsewhere in print and on the internet.
349. Defendant’s release of a defamatory statement and leak of portions of Mr.
Reynolds’s personnel file to the media had the same foreseeable and intended effect as the May
13, 2022 press release: to make Rochesterians assume the worst of Mr. Reynolds, doubt his
credibility, and subject him to immense humiliation.
350. In the wake of Defendants’ statements, members of the public went to social
media to call Mr. Reynolds “pathetic,” “full of shit,” “mentally ill,” a “perv,” a “terrible liar,” a
“cry baby,” a “joke,” an “idiot” who was “selling” a “bogus” narrative, a person “lying through
their teeth to save their skin,” and someone “looking for a pay day.” Some responded by asking
Mr. Reynolds if Wilson “asked you for a mustache ride” or if he “fuck[ed] her.”
63
351. Wilson’s friend, Monroe County Legislator Rachel Barnhart, tweeted that the
leaked personnel file was proof that Mr. Reynolds made the PAB “a disaster” and was ousted
thanks to a “staff revolt.”
352. City officials widely circulated the contents of Mr. Reynolds’s leaked personnel
file within City government. For example, in a text message sent to fellow City Councilmembers
on or about June 8, 2022, Council President Melendez circulated copies of news articles covering
the leak to members of City Council, telling them – in sum and substance – that “the hits”
against Mr. Reynolds “keep coming.”
353. Despite the punishment Defendants had inflicted on Mr. Reynolds for speaking
out on June 7, 2022, he continued to share his story of harassment with community members and
urge them to act to protect PAB employees from further harassment and retaliation.
354. At the same time, whenever PAB employees became the subject of sexual
harassment, baseless complaints, pretextual discipline, forced resignations, and unlawful
terminations, they often reached out to Mr. Reynolds for help. Mr. Reynolds responded by
connecting them with attorneys, journalists, community members, and others who could help
them address and oppose the discrimination and retaliation they were facing.
355. Defendants – including and especially Wilson – responded to these efforts to
oppose governmental abuse and misconduct by escalating their efforts to silence Mr. Reynolds.
356. For example, Ted Forsyth – co-founder of the Police Accountability Board
Alliance – told Alliance members on or about July 21, 2022, that he had “hear[d]” from City
officials who were denying the truth of Mr. Reynolds’s claims. Given what City officials were
telling him, Forsyth said the Alliance should “not [be] worrying about Conor” and “not [be]
inviting him” to speak with its members. Forsyth petitioned the Alliance to send a letter to Mr.
64
Reynolds that said its members “don’t want to communicate with” him until the City’s
investigation was completed. Forsyth also petitioned the Alliance to send a “letter of appreciation
and thanks” to the City officials who had suspended Mr. Reynolds.
357. Pamela Kim – one of Wilson’s friends who remained in close contact with her
throughout Mr. Reynolds’s suspension – buttressed Forsyth’s request. Kim asked that the
Alliance ensure that Mr. Reynolds “not speak” to its members by “put[ting] something in
writing.” Calling Mr. Reynolds’s behavior “strange,” Kim said that members of the public could
not “rely on him” to tell the truth “while he’s suspended.” Kim urged Alliance members to
question Mr. Reynolds’s judgement, stating, “How do we know that Conor doesn’t know why he
wasn’t suspended?”
358. Shortly thereafter, on August 4, 2022, Mr. Reynolds received a text message from
Forsyth chastising him for “talking to everyone about your case.” Forsyth requested that Mr.
Reynolds “remain silent.” On Facebook, Forsyth would later post that Mr. Reynolds was
peddling “total bs,” that he “should be fucking ashamed,” and stating, “Thank God Shani got out
of this hellhole.”
359. Despite Defendants’ efforts, the members of the Alliance voted to “write to the
[PAB] Board and insist [Mr. Reynolds] be reinstated.”
360. On August 19, 2022, the Alliance drafted a demand letter that cited the “illegal”
nature of Mr. Reynolds’s suspension and the “extremely slow speed” of the City’s
“investigation.”
361. Upon learning of activists’ plan to call for Mr. Reynolds’s reinstatement,
Defendants launched an effort to squelch the statement, resulting in the Alliance dropping its
65
plan to issue the reinstatement letter. As one person involved wrote, “there was pushback on the
letter from her [Shani].”
362. Upon learning that Mr. Reynolds refused to stop speaking with his co-workers,
former employees, and community members about Defendants’ campaign of harassment and
retaliation – and sensing that those protected activities were threatening their grip on the PAB –
Defendants chose to double down on their pattern of retaliation-through-defamation.
363. On October 12, 2022 – one day after PAB’s union called on the City to terminate
Defendant Bascoe for having “stoked and enabled an atmosphere of harassment, intimidation,
retaliation, and confusion” within the PAB – Defendants issued a press release titled “PAB Calls
for State Investigation Into Former Executive Director.”
364. The press release was drafted and published by, inter alia, Defendants Bascoe,
Nickoloff, Setel and Banks.
365. The press release said that the New York State Attorney General needed to
investigate Mr. Reynolds, as he had committed the “crime[s]” of “[c]ollusion and interference
with a governmental investigation” by “holding alleged meetings with current and former PAB
staff, members of the Police Accountability Board Alliance, and others including a meeting at his
home this past weekend with former staff and other parties.”
366. This statement, that Mr. Reynolds was engaging in serious crimes of felony
obstruction of justice, obstructing governmental administration, and conspiracy, was false – and
Defendants knew so or should have known so when they made it.
367. Defendants admitted as much on November 16, 2022 when they informed the
public that “[n]o party” – including Mr. Reynolds – had “interfered with, or attempted to
influence” the City’s “investigation.”
66
368. Moreover, Defendants know that the actions they “allege” Mr. Reynolds engaged
in – namely, speaking with co-workers and community members about opposing discrimination
and retaliation – is activity protected, rather than prohibited, by the law.
369. The defamatory statement was published across New York State and the United
States on websites like that run by the PAB and AmericanPoliceOfficersAlliance.com, on
television stations like WHAM 13 News, on social media, and elsewhere in print and on the
internet.
370. The statement continues to be published on the City’s websites.
371. Prior to issuing this statement, Defendant Bascoe had told PAB employees he was
so angry with Mr. Reynolds that he wanted to “slap the fuck out of” him.
VIII. THROUGH SHAM “INVESTIGATION,” DEFENDANTS HUMILIATE AND

TERMINATE MR. REYNOLDS
A. The City Launches an “Independent Investigation” Overseen By Wilson’s

Friends And Performed By Attorneys Defending Against Mr. Reynolds’s
Claims
372. On or about May 19, 2022, Defendants created a six-member “Select Committee”
charged with guiding City Council in overseeing and directing an “investigation” into Mr.
Reynolds and any complaints he had made.
373. The six-member “Select Committee” included: (i) Wilson’s “soul mate,” City
Councilmember Smith; (ii) Wilson’s “best friend,” PAB Board member Setel; (iii) PAB Board
member Brown, who had long expressed anger at, and disbelief in, Mr. Reynolds; (iv)
Councilmember LaShay Harris, a longtime associate of Wilson’s in the medical field; and (v)
Councilmember Gruber, one of the politicians Wilson said Mr. Reynolds needed to be
“protected” from.
67
374. In tasking these individuals with directing the City’s response to Mr. Reynolds’s
complaints (and any raised about him), Defendants guaranteed that the “investigation” would be
little more than a tool to attack Mr. Reynolds’s claims and justify his termination.
375. Defendants further secured this guarantee on May 19, 2022, when the City
announced to the public that it would hire the law firm of Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete,
LLP (“Constangy”) to conduct an “investigation” into “complaints by personnel of the Police
Accountability Board.”
376. What Defendants failed to say publicly was that, according to the contract the
City signed with Constangy, the firm was also responsible for “provid[ing] legal representation”
to the City “in response to” Mr. Reynolds’s complaints.
377. In short, the City hired Constangy to both investigate and defend against Mr.
Reynolds’s complaints.
378. Before Constangy had conducted a single interview, Defendants told the public
that Mr. Reynolds’s claims were “unequivocally false” and told the State Division of Human
Rights his claims were baseless and made in “bad faith.”
379. Given these statements, the only way Constangy could perform their competing
tasks in their clients’ interest was to declare Mr. Reynolds’s claims unsubstantiated – which,
unsurprisingly, is what Constangy ended up doing.
B. City Allows Attorney with Known, Deep “Conflict of Interest” To Perform

“Investigation”
380. To veil the true nature of the “investigation,” Defendants framed Constangy’s
work as being led by a “third-party independent investigator” – namely, Constangy attorney
Taren Greenidge.
381. In reality, Greenidge was anything but “independent.”
68
382. At the time Greenidge was hired, it was widely known in Rochester that she was
friends with one or more City officials who worked to solicit “concerns” about Mr. Reynolds and
file baseless complaints against him.
383. The most widely known of these friendships was with Defendant Bascoe, who
was promoted on May 25, 2022 to serve as an “interim” PAB Executive Director until, at
minimum, Greenidge’s “investigation” concluded.
384. The friendship between Bascoe and Greenidge was deep and longstanding.
Indeed, in photographs posted across the internet (and available in local publications) at the time
of her hiring by the City, Greenidge could be seen socializing with Bascoe.
385. Bascoe and Greenidge also served together on multiple commissions and panels.
See, e.g., https://www.harrisbeach.com/insights/harris-beach-rochester-black-bar-association/;
https://www.facebook.com/mcbany/posts/the-mcba-Board-of-trustees-has-taken-this-year-of-
pause-to-focus-on-racial-equit/4179287445435610/; https://nydailyrecord.com/2017/10/19/three-
bars-join-together-to-raise-important-discussion-at-cle-diversity-inclusion-and-retention/;
https://nydailyrecord.com/2015/09/01/on-the-town-rbba-event-supports-minority-internship-
endowment/.
386. The relationship between Greenidge and Bascoe was so strong that, on or about
May 2022, Greenidge disclosed this relationship as a “conflict of interest” to City officials via
email.
387. This conflict presented itself in five ways:
i. First, Greenidge was tasked with investigating at least one

complaint made against her friend;
ii. Second, Greenidge was tasked with investigating at least one

complaint made by her friend;
69
iii. Third, the longer Greenidge’s “investigation” lasted, the longer

her friend retained his promotion;
iv. Fourth, if Greenidge’s “investigation” substantiated Mr.

Reynolds’s harassment and retaliation claims, there was a
strong likelihood he would return to work – and, thus, cause
her friend to lose his temporary promotion; and
v. Fifth, if Greendige’s “investigation” successfully called for Mr.

Reynolds’s termination, it was possible her friend would
receive a permanent promotion to the PAB Executive Director
position.
388. With knowledge of these issues, Defendants should have done what any
reasonable person would do to maintain the integrity of a purportedly “independent”
investigation; i.e., remove Greenidge from any role in investigating Mr. Reynolds or the claims
he filed.
389. Instead, the City simply told Greenidge to have “no contact with” Bascoe during
the course of her work and have someone else “interview and collect any relevant
documentation” from him.
390. In sum, the City allowed Greenidge to decide the merits of complaints made
against her friend, decide the merits of complaints filed by her friend, and decide an
“investigation” where her friend stood to benefit from one particular outcome.
391. Unsurprisingly, Greenidge would end up making all these decisions in Bascoe’s
favor.
392. Just as unsurprisingly, on or about May 2022, Bascoe told a group of PAB
employees – including Brandy Cooper, Mary Elliott, Karen Mattu, Barry and Colton Kells – that
he would “be okay” because Greenidge had been hired to lead the “investigation.”
70
C. Defendants Refuse to Promptly Investigate Mr. Reynolds’s Complaint
393. Under City policy, the City was supposed to conduct an investigation and provide
a “preliminary response” to Mr. Reynolds “within 15 working days after the investigation
began,” with a “final decision” being made “within 30 - 45 working days.”
394. On May 8, 2022, Board member Setel informed Mr. Reynolds, “your sexual
harassment claim against Shani is being investigated by the City.”
395. On May 16, 2022, City Council Chief of Staff Smith told Mr. Reynolds that the
investigation would take “weeks.”
396. On May 19, 2022, City Council passed legislation requiring the investigation to
“be completed in the next 30 days if practical or as soon as possible.”
397. During a public meeting held on May 20, 2022, Council President Melendez
stated that the investigation would be a “30 to 45 day endeavor.”
398. Despite these policies and statements, it took the City until November 16, 2022 –
that is, over 130 working days and more than six calendar months – to provide Mr. Reynolds
with any kind of response into his complaint.
399. Moreover, it took the City until September 19, 2022 – that is, over 90 working
days and more than four calendar months– to even interview Mr. Reynolds about his complaint.
400. While City policy states that “[e]xtension” of its investigatory “time frames may
occur due to the complexity of a particular complaint,” Defendants did not claim this was true in
Mr. Reynolds’s case.
401. Instead, Defendants state Mr. Reynolds was “not interviewed in the initial stage of
the investigation” complaint because of their desire to “complete collection of available, relevant
information” about other complaints examined by Constangy – including complaints that had
nothing to do with him. This is no justification for refusing to conduct a prompt investigation.
71
402. Defendants cared so little for promptly investigating Mr. Reynolds’s complaint
that, as PAB Chair Knox explained during an October 6, 2022 Board meeting, he was told that
the investigation “didn’t have a time frame” for completion.
403. These delays reflected not only the City’s indifference and hostility to Mr.
Reynolds’s complaints, but also Defendants’ efforts to find after-the-fact justifications for his
pretextual suspension.
404. Indeed, in the months after his suspension, Mr. Reynolds repeatedly asked the
City via phone call and email to provide him with specific notice of the charges or potential
grounds for disciplinary action.
405. For over four months, the City refused to provide Mr. Reynolds with any sense of
the charges that justified his suspension.
406. The purpose of this lengthy silence was simple: the City needed time to hunt for
and solicit after-the-fact reasons to fire Mr. Reynolds.
407. For example, in the weeks after Mr. Reynolds’s suspension, members of the
“Select Committee” and/or the lawyers they oversaw:
i. Entered the office of PAB associate general counsel A.J.

Durwin and asked if he had “any complaints” he wished to file
against Mr. Reynolds;
ii. Combed through the entirety of Mr. Reynolds’s emails for

possible policy violations that, before his suspension, had never
been identified or raised; and
iii. Held interviews with Mr. Reynolds’s employees where they

were asked if they had any “concerns” they wished to raise
about Mr. Reynolds.
72
408. After four months of searching for pretext, on September 15, 2022, the City sent
Mr. Reynolds what it later told the public was a fifteen-item “list of the allegations known to
have been made against” him.
409. In truth, what Mr. Reynolds received was not sent a specific list of charges against
him, undermining his ability to respond to those allegations. Instead, it was what Defendants
called a “general summary of the topics that w[ould] be discussed” during an interview with him
scheduled for less than a week later.
410. This “summary” stated that, beyond his own complaints and those against third
parties, the City wanted to interview him about just four broad “topics”:
i. Maye’s May 11, 2022 “complaint;”
ii. “Failure to adhere with PAB Charter Section 18-7 regarding

required training;”
iii. “Disclosure of, without proper authorization, non-public

information or records in violation of the City’s Code of
Ethics;” and
iv. “Employee concerns and alleged policy violations including

allegations related to: hiring and interview practices, job
title/delegation changes, creation of PAB policies that were
duplicative and/or inconsistent with City of Rochester
established policies, changing of job titles to allow people to
retain their positions who had been hired without the proper
qualifications or which resulted in employee demotion,
allowing or directing employees to work in capacities outside
of their established job duties or level.”
411. As the City admits, the fourth “topic” of “[e]mployee concerns” had been
presented to the PAB Board on May 5, 2022 and – in a meeting held on May 7, 2022 – been
found by the Board to not justify any disciplinary action against Mr. Reynolds, let alone his
suspension.
73
412. The three remaining “topics” were not communicated to the PAB’s Board before
they voted to suspend Mr. Reynolds on May 12, 2022.
413. As Defendants admitted in the final “investigation” report written in November
2022, the allegations underlying the “topics” related to training and disclosure of non-public
information were discovered after Mr. Reynolds’s suspension.
414. And as PAB Board member Setel admitted during a PAB all staff meeting
recorded on June 13, 2022, the PAB’s Board had “never seen” Maye’s May 11, 2022 complaint
– meaning that it could not have been a basis for his suspension on May 12, 2022.
D. Amid “Investigation,” Those Leading It Label Mr. Reynolds’s Complaint As

False – and Organize Public Support for His Harasser
415. In a letter provided to the media on May 13, 2022, City Council President
Melendez promised the public that the City would investigate Mr. Reynolds’s complaint “with
neutrality.”
416. Nevertheless, five months before the City concluded its “investigation” – and
months before the City even interviewed Mr. Reynolds regarding his claims – the City issued
official and public statements concluding his claims were false. For example:
i. On June 7, 2022, the City drafted and publicly disseminated a

statement from Wilson calling Mr. Reynolds’s complaint
“unequivocally false;”
ii. On June 8, 2022, the City submitted a statement to the New

York Division of Human Rights stating that Mr. Reynolds’s
complaint both “lacked credibility” and was made in “bad
faith;”
iii. On June 8, 2022, the City leaked documents to the media

calling Mr. Reynolds’s complaint “desperate,” “hysterical,”
and “laughable;” and
iv. On June 10, 2022, the City drafted and publicly disseminated a
second statement from Wilson calling Mr. Reynolds’s
complaint “false.”
74
417. Defendants underscored these messages by having those oversee the
“investigation” make public calls to support and give money to Mr. Reynolds’s harasser.
418. For example, upon replacing Wilson as PAB Chair in June 2022, PAB Board
member Larry Knox issued a lengthy public statement during a Board meeting praising his
predecessor, with Board members Brown, Nickoloff, and Setel smiling and nodding along in
support.
419. “I do want to give a thank you and appreciation to our former Board Chair Shani
Wilson,” Knox said. “She put in a lot of good work for a lot of years to help make this happen,
and for the last two years worked, you know, tirelessly every day to get to the success of this
Board. And I just want to thank her for her time. I know she’s still going to be out there
encouraging us. And I just want to really put a thank you in to Shani for the time she put in
making sure we keep working [toward] that vision that all of us on this Board, including Shani,
want.” Shortly thereafter, on or about September 4, 2022, an event was held to garner public and
financial support for Wilson as she moved out of Rochester.
420. This fundraiser was attended by least two of the officials overseeing the
“investigation” into Mr. Reynolds and his claims against Wilson, namely, Councilmember Smith
and PAB Board member Setel.
421. In a post made on September 4, 2022 to her Facebook page about the event,
Councilmember Smith wrote: “Attending a fund raiser for Shani Wilson and expressing how
much I will miss her and her leadership. She is extremely principled and I will miss her
dearly!!!”
422. In photos accompanying the post, Smith can be seen embracing Wilson while
Setel sits on a chair at the event.
75
423. On or about this time, Councilmember Mary Lupien – who was responsible for
helping “implement” any recommendations flowing from the “investigation” – posted on social
media both photos of her hugging Wilson and statements of praise for Wilson.
424. These public statements of support for Wilson, combined with the public
statements proclaiming the falsehood of Mr. Reynolds’s complaints, communicated that –
regardless of what the facts were –Mr. Reynolds was not to be believed.
425. Even after Mr. Reynolds was terminated, Defendants continued to use
government resources to urge support for Wilson. For example, in a public meeting held on
January 19, 2023, Nickoloff – after giving “thanks to my family, to my church, to Shani” – stated
his “hope that the rest of the community can recognize” that “Shani … drove herself into the
ground to make sure” the PAB would be in a “great position.”
E. City Conducts “Investigation” In Patently Biased, Retaliatory Manner
426. Across its six-month span, Defendants took pains to ensure their “investigation”
reached the foregone conclusion of justifying Mr. Reynolds’s termination and undermining his
claims.
427. Despite purporting to “thoroughly vet” Mr. Reynolds’s sexual harassment
complaint, Defendants refused to collect or review a wealth of evidence supporting his
allegations. For example, except for Wilson’s work emails, investigators neither requested nor
reviewed the text message and email history of the Board members and other City officials who
Mr. Reynolds alleged used these mediums to retaliate against him.
428. While banning Mr. Reynolds from speaking with co-workers during the
investigation, Defendants allowed others subject to the “investigation” – including Wilson,
Maye, and Bascoe, all of whom had been accused of retaliatory behavior – to speak with other
City officials and employees.
76
429. Key individuals – including those whose testimony disproved some of the
“substantiated” allegations against Mr. Reynolds – say they were never contacted during the
“investigation.”
430. For example, the journalist who requested that Mr. Reynolds send the emails at
the center of the improper disclosure allegation – and who understood that PAB Board members
had authorized the sending – was never interviewed.
431. The City’s investigators also openly “steered” witness testimony and collection of
documents away from substantiating Mr. Reynolds’s claims.
432. For example, the City refused to contact Wilson’s prior employers, past co-
workers, former PAB Board members, and community activists who would testify that Mr.
Reynolds was simply the latest in a long line of Wilson’s victims – and that Wilson openly
complained about Mr. Reynolds “rejecting” her.
433. Witnesses interviewed stated that the “investigation” report’s key conclusions
relied on misattributed and misquoted testimony. This is an unsurprising fact, given that – in the
City’s own words – “none of the witness interviews were recorded,” meaning there is no way to
verify what witnesses actually told the City.
434. For example, to justify its conclusion that Mr. Reynolds was not sexually
harassed, the “investigation” relied heavily on a single individual’s testimony that Mr. Reynolds
had expressed “mutual interest” in Wilson – despite the individual saying they gave testimony to
the exact opposite effect.
435. Defendants themselves have admitted that the “investigation” contained errors.
For example, during a December 1, 2022 public meeting, Setel stated that investigators’
77
conclusions reflected a “misunderstanding” about Board training – a key subject in the
investigation.
F. “Investigation” Concludes with Transparently Pretextual Call for Mr.

Reynolds’ Firing
436. The City’s “investigation” concluded in a report dated November 16, 2022.
437. The report was split into three parts: one that dealt with Mr. Reynolds’s claims
against Wilson; one that dealt with “concerns” and “complaints” about Mr. Reynolds; and a final
part dealing with claims against other PAB employees.
438. In all three sections, the investigators contorted themselves to serve their clients’
interests and punish Mr. Reynolds.
439. In the section regarding Mr. Reynolds’s claims, the report misstated those claims
in ways that allowed Defendants to ignore blatant violations of Mr. Reynolds’s rights.
440. For example, in defining Mr. Reynolds’s retaliation complaint, the report states
that its analysis was limited to “the only purported adverse employment action that he alleges” –
that is, being “placed on leave” in May 2022. Defendants knew this was false.
441. In the documents and testimony submitted to investigators, Mr. Reynolds had
complained about a range of other adverse employment actions listed supra, including but not
limited to: the leaking of his personnel file; the Board ordering him to not speak about his
“harassment experience” with his “staff or subordinates”; and Defendants “incorrectly treating
ordinary performance-related concerns … as formal complaints of misconduct.”
442. If the report had analyzed these allegations – for which there is immense
documentary evidence in support of Mr. Reynolds’s claims – it would have been forced to
conclude he had been subject to retaliation.
78
443. Despite ignoring much of the evidence proving Mr. Reynolds was harassed by
Wilson, the report nevertheless concludes that Wilson engaged in behavior toward Mr. Reynolds
that was “not appropriate,” “clearly inappropriate, “incredibly inappropriate,” and “wholly
improper.”
444. This “corroborated” behavior included having “discussions about sexual
preferences and history” and “shar[ing] with Dwyer Reynolds that she had romantic feelings for
him at his home on November 19, 2020.”
445. This “corroborated” behavior included Wilson telling multiple individuals she
“had to act like a dominatrix and Dwyer Reynolds like a submissive which included humiliating
him at work.”
446. Finally, the report found that “Dwyer Reynolds’ allegation that Wilson pressured
him to end a romantic relationship with her friend was corroborated.”
447. Nevertheless, the report concluded – on the sole basis of unidentified witnesses
having “attested to the existence of a mutual romantic interest” between Wilson and Mr.
Reynolds – that this was not sexual harassment because Wilson’s behavior was not “unwelcome
or retaliatory.”
448. This statement contorts reality to ignore the obvious: that a boss coercing a
subordinate they have “feelings for” into ending a sexual relationship with another person is, by
definition, “unwelcome” – and is thus sexual harassment.
449. As City Councilmember Martin told a group of community members the night the
report was released, the report’s conclusion flew in the face of its on factual findings, which
showed that Mr. Reynolds had been sexually harassed.
79
450. In the section dealing with “concerns” and “complaints” about Mr. Reynolds, the
report found that every allegation made before his suspension – allegations that constituted every
claim of substantial misconduct, like discrimination and retaliation – was “unsubstantiated.”
451. Despite clearing Mr. Reynolds of both all serious misconduct and all misconduct
that could have theoretically justified his suspension, the report called for Mr. Reynolds to be
terminated on the basis of four trivial activities: (1) accepting, after his suspension, the City’s
return of a computer used at work that contained City files and making a back-up of files he
believed revealed official misconduct by senior City officials; (2) sharing six emails requested by
reporters in early 2021 at the direction of his bosses; (3) not attending training sessions on police
oversight he organized and scheduled for his new employees; and (4) allowing a recent law
graduate to, in line with common procedure in the legal profession, study for the bar exam when
not tasked with other work.
452. These four activities all involved activities that in fact do not violate City policy,
were authorized by City officials, were so widespread as to receive such authorization implicitly,
or involved harmless errors that no City official would ever be reprimanded for.
453. To deny this truth – and create a pretextual basis for terminating Mr. Reynolds –
the report again engaged in remarkable contortions.
454. For example, in declaring Mr. Reynolds’s sharing of emails with reporters was
done in “blatant disregard of the City’s Code of Ethics Section 7,” the report relies on a non-
existent version of the provision – and, as such, materially misstates the relevant rule.
455. According to the report, the violated provision “expressly states, ‘No City officer
or employee may disclose non-public information or records concerning ny [sic] aspect of the
80
government of the City, nor may he use such information to the advantage or benefit of himself
or any other person.’”
456. The actual text of Section 7 as it appears in the current Code of Ethics reads: “No
City officer or employee shall disclose without proper authorization nonpublic information or
records concerning any aspect of the government of the City, nor shall be or she use such
information to the advantage or benefit of himself or herself or any other person.” See City
Charter Section 2-18(C)(7) (emphasis added).
457. In misreading the rule, investigators were able to ignore the crux of Mr.
Reynolds’s defense: that he only shared materials pursuant to authorization from his supervisors
on the Board.
458. A similar misreading supported the report’s conclusion that Mr. Reynolds
actionably disregarded the City Charter’s training requirements for PAB staff by performing
work at the behest of City Council instead of attending a series of training sessions he created for
his employees in spring 2022.
459. According to the report, Mr. Reynolds “violat[ed] the PAB Charter requirements
that all staff attend annual training” on a list of fifteen enumerated subjects. In truth, the
Charter’s training requirements – found at Section 18-7 – merely requires that staff engage in
“ongoing training” in the enumerated areas. As Mr. Reynolds told investigators, he had already
been trained in many of the areas, helped develop the training programs in others, and was
planning on receiving further training in other areas. Even if the Charter had required “annual”
training in all enumerated areas, it was only May when Mr. Reynolds was suspended – meaning
he had seven more months to complete the training without violating any Charter provision.In
recognition that the “substantiated” claims could not merit discipline on their own, the report
81
relied on hyperbole, character attacks, and patently frivolous grounds to justify Mr. Reynolds’s
suspension.
460. For example, the report called for Mr. Reynolds to be terminated not only because
of these “substantiated” allegations, but because he “defend[ed] his actions” – a defense made at
the request of investigators, who explicitly asked him to explain his actions.
461. In the final portion of the report, dedicated to dealing with claims against Bascoe,
Maye, and other PAB employees, the report frames these individuals as “Witnesses,” rather than
subjects.
462. In assessing the claims against these “Witnesses,” the report often finds that
inappropriate behavior occurred, yet refuses to conclude that any policies were violated (or that
any disciplinary action need be taken). To reach these conclusions – the benefit of which inure to
at least one friend of the lead investigator, Greenidge – the report again uses twisted logic.
463. For example, after finding that Maye engaged in bullying behavior, the report
concluded that no discipline was necessary because “there is no policy that covers bullying or
toxic work environment claims.” As the PAB union publicly noted after the report’s release, this
conclusion ignores the existence of the City’s Workplace Violence policy, which explicitly
prohibits “bullying.”
464. In sum, the warped logic of these conclusions reflected the biases and overtly
improper aims of the “investigation” which generated the report itself.
G. Defendants Violate Mr. Reynolds’s Rights By Publicly Releasing the

“Investigation” Report
465. In a brief filed in New York state court on June 16, 2022, City Corporation
Counsel Linda Kingsley defended – at length – the City’s longstanding policy banning the public
82
release of “unsubstantiated allegations” made against not only “police officers,” but all
municipal employees “[g]enerally.”
466. As Kingsley explained to the court, “disclosure of records related to
unsubstantiated complaints would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.”
467. Just months later, however, Defendants would – through publication of the
Constangy report – publicly disclose nearly a dozen unsubstantiated allegations against Mr.
Reynolds, along with underlying assertions the City found to be baseless.
468. Specifically, as PAB Board Chair Knox explained in a public meeting held on
October 20, 2022, Defendants allowed the “[Select] Committee” – comprised of Wilson’s friends
– to determine what facts and information from the investigation “don’t need to be [made]
public” given “concerns” about Mr. Reynolds’s “privacy.”
469. Defendants cannot claim this massive, unprecedented violation of the City’s non-
disclosure policies was accidental or immaterial.
470. Indeed, through its investigative “report,” Defendants asserted that releasing
“nonpublic” information, regardless of the justification for doing so, is enough to constitute an
actionable violation of the City’s ethics code.
471. Moreover, of the many then-current City employees who had unsubstantiated
allegations against them listed in the report – including, for example, Bascoe – Mr. Reynolds was
the only one whose name was not redacted or anonymized to, in the report’s words, “protect
[their] confidentiality.”
472. This differential treatment of Mr. Reynolds, combined with the City’s
longstanding knowledge of and opposition to the damages imposed by disclosure of
83
unsubstantiated allegations, make clear that the City’s aim in publishing the report was to harm
Mr. Reynolds.
473. Likewise, by releasing the details of its investigation into Mr. Reynolds’s own
claims of sexual harassment, the City knowingly published the lurid details about the heinous
treatment he suffered – a humiliation that any reasonable employer would know justifies keeping
the details of any complaint of sexual harassment confidential, even those found to be
“unsubstantiated.”
474. In redacting countless pages of the report that discuss Mr. Reynolds’s complaint –
and releasing the “redacted” report publicly while disseminating the “unredacted” report within
City government – Defendants again furthered their goal of discrediting and embarrassing Mr.
Reynolds.
475. By redacting the most troubling portions of Mr. Reynolds’s allegations (and
supporting evidence), Defendants sought to publicly downplay the allegations he had made. As
Board member Nickoloff noted in a public meeting held on November 3, 2022, if the report were
to “take things” said by witnesses like Mr. Reynolds “out of context without permission,” it “not
only hurts the perception of what’s going on but also hurt the trust in the agency.”
476. By circulating the most intimate portions of Mr. Reynolds’s allegations (and
supporting evidence) within City government, Defendants sought to embarrass Mr. Reynolds by
disseminating his private medical information and sexual history to a wide range of City officials
outside the Department of Human Resources.
477. In sum, the mere release of the report – as much as its contents – served to make
the “investigation” a tool of humiliation and punishment.
84
H. Defendants Mislead the Public About the Investigation’s Conclusions – And

Again Defame Mr. Reynolds
478. Knowing that the report’s findings failed to justify terminating Mr. Reynolds,
Defendants openly lied to the public about its contents and nature.
479. For example, in a post made on Facebook on November 16, 2022, Banks – the
PAB’s Chief of Public Affairs, whose job was to issue statements on behalf of the agency –
issued a statement on behalf of “we,” the PAB, along with a link to the City’s “report.”
480. In the statement, Banks said: “This investigation has revealed Conor to be the
dishonest, manipulative, vindictive person his ENTIRE senior staff had numerous complaints
about. We, the senior staff who reported him back in May 2022 for multiple acts [of] City policy
violations, retaliation, racism and sexism finally feel vindicated.”
481. As Banks knew at the time, all three parts of this statement were false.
482. First, rather than vindicating complaints of retaliation, racism, and sexism, the
report explicitly found these complaints were “unsubstantiated.”
483. Second, a wide range of “senior staff” in the agency – including Mike Higgins,
Will Cleveland, De’Jon Hall, Vanessa Cheeks, and others – never made a complaint about Mr.
Reynolds.
484. Third, the “report” included no findings or conclusions suggesting Mr. Reynolds
was dishonest, manipulative, or vindictive.
485. This statement conveyed that Mr. Reynolds was, in connection with his
profession as a city administrator and attorney, a liar and abusive manager.
486. Banks’ defamatory statement was made maliciously, as a retaliatory effort to
punish Mr. Reynolds for resisting official misconduct – including by having filed, in May 2022,
a complaint about Banks sexually harassing another City employee.
85
I. Overriding His Staff’s Wishes and His Statutory Rights, Defendants

Terminate Mr. Reynolds Without Cause
487. On November 17, 2022 – one day after the City published the “report” – the
PAB’s Board held a meeting to address Mr. Reynolds’s complaint.
488. At a press conference called by the PAB’s union just before the Board meeting,
Mr. Reynolds’s employees decried the biased nature of the report and its call for Mr. Reynolds to
be terminated. The union issued a demand that the City “reinstate” Mr. Reynolds immediately.
489. The Board’s meeting began with PAB union members calling on Board members
to meet their “demand.” Rather than responding to this request, Board members voted to enter an
“executive session” to discuss a “personnel matter.”
490. Hours later, Mr. Reynolds received a phone call from the PAB Board’s Chair,
Knox. Knox told Mr. Reynolds that the Board had voted to terminate him. Knox refused to
inform Mr. Reynolds the basis for his suspension, only noting that the vote had not been
unanimous.
491. On information and belief, there are no records or minutes from the November 17,
2022 meeting that state why Mr. Reynolds was terminated.
492. The following day, November 18, 2022, the City sent Mr. Reynolds a letter that
read: “Effective November 17, 2022, your employment as Executive Director of the Police
Accountability Board has been terminated.” The letter gave no explanation as to why Mr.
Reynolds had been terminated.
493. As Executive Director, Mr. Reynolds could only be “remove[d]” for “good
cause,” according to Section 18-6(C)(5) of the Rochester City Charter.
494. Given this good cause protection, Defendants owed Mr. Reynolds an extensive set
of pre-termination and post-termination due process.
86
495. In the 24-hour window between informing Mr. Reynolds of specific notice of the
charges or potential grounds for discipline being considered and terminating him, the City failed
to explain the underlying evidence and witnesses – including by, among other things, redacting
countless pages of the report.
496. During the same 24-hour window, Defendants ignored a request from Mr.
Reynolds’s attorneys made via email to the PAB Board, requesting that he be given an
opportunity to address the claims against him and clear his name.
497. In addition to withholding pre-termination due process, Defendants withheld from
Mr. Reynolds essentially all post-termination due process he was owed.
498. For example, Defendants still have not told Mr. Reynolds the reasons for his
termination. Nor have they held an evidentiary hearing before a neutral arbiter allowing him to
present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. Nor have they provided him with any information
about – let alone any form of – post-termination appeal.
499. In sum, Defendants have entirely ignored Mr. Reynolds’s due process rights –
rights which, if he had been allowed to exercise, would have allowed him to retain his job and
helped him restore his public reputation.
IX. DEFENDANTS REFUSE TO SUSPEND, LET ALONE TERMINATE, A

SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEE
500. Perhaps the clearest proof that Defendants subjected Mr. Reynolds to a retaliatory
suspension, investigation, and termination comes through their treatment of an employee in a
remarkably similar situation to Mr. Reynolds – namely, his temporary successor as Executive
Director, Bascoe.
87
501. Shortly after Bascoe was appointed as interim Executive Director on May 25,
2022, Bascoe faced many complaints of either a similar or more serious nature than those raised
against Mr. Reynolds.
502. During his tenure as Executive Director, employees filed formal complaints
against Bascoe, accusing him of, inter alia, being intoxicated during work meetings, sexual
harassment, using racial slurs, going on vacation on City time, falsifying time cards, using
government resources for personal use, and retaliating against those who raised complaints
against him. Indeed, the complaints against Bascoe were so widespread that PAB employees
formed a union in direct response to his mistreatment. In November 2022, the union submitted a
complaint to the City about Bascoe engaging in “blatant abuse of power, squandering of public
funds, and corruption.”
503. As one PAB employee later stated, “I was struck by how mild and limited the
allegations against Conor were compared to the ones that more than 18 staff members came
together to voice about Duwaine [Bascoe] . . . [which] are far broader and more egregious.”
504. Despite these complaints, Bascoe was never suspended. Nor was he ever subject
to a gag order, the leak of his personnel file, defamatory statements, termination, or any of the
other punishments Defendants imposed on Mr. Reynolds.
505. Instead, Defendants took what PAB Chair Larry Knox called a “relaxed”
approach to staff complaints, as “things can be a little off sometimes” when an organization is
“just starting off.” As part of this “relaxed” approach, Nickoloff was tasked with drafting a
“seven-page potential plan” that would help “figur[e] out activities and things to help address”
staff complaints. These “activities” included “a Fun Day Friday,” “board games,” an “internal
newsletter,” and “playing cards” with Bascoe.
88
506. Rather than punish Bascoe, Defendants eventually asked a management
consulting firm, CCSI, to conduct “sessions” with employees in July 2022 to help address the
agency’s “culture.” In a summary report, CCSI noted that the “responses” to the sessions
included complaints about “secrecy,” “punishment,” “dishonesty,” and “using positions of
political power to further personal/career ambitions.” In a concluding recommendation, CCSI
asked to conduct a third “session” with employees, with “PAB leadership not be in attendance”
because of the complaints employees had made about them.
507. Despite these findings, Defendants took no action against Banks, Bascoe,
Campbell, Maye, Nickoloff, or Setel. “Not a question asked of staff to get to the bottom of
anything,” one employee said. “Not an investigation or observations in here in the office.
Nothing.”
508. Given this refusal to act, in early October 2022, the majority of the PAB’s
workers demanded that the PAB’s Board meet with them to hear their complaints. While the
Board had been quick to schedule an emergency meeting between all Board members and all
employees who had raised “concerns” about Mr. Reynolds in May, employees demanding to
speak about Bascoe in October said Defendants “den[ied] us the opportunity to collectively
express our concerns to the entire Board.” Setel, who had organized and spearheaded the
emergency meeting with employees in May, openly voted against a proposal to hold a similar
meeting on October 6, 2022. As Knox can be heard stating in an audio recording made later that
evening, the Board decided “we wouldn’t meet with all the people who signed [complaints]”
against Bascoe.
509. And while Defendants refused to allow Mr. Reynolds to speak with Board
members before they heard from employees with “concerns” in May, Defendants’ immediate
89
response to the complaints made in October was not to hear from complainants, but instead hold
a 45 meeting with Bascoe on October 6, 2022 to give him a chance to – in the words of one
employee – “respond to our accusations.”
510. In the context of the “concerns” raised about Mr. Reynolds, Defendants told state
investigators that the Board rightfully “determined that it would proceed with investigating the
staff complaints” through “listening sessions.” But in the context of complaints raised about
Bascoe, Defendants said the Board had an obligation to not investigate. As Setel told employees
during a public meeting held on December 1, 2022, “Our role at the Board is not to investigate
HR complaints.”
511. On October 11, 2022, the PAB’s workers formed a union and issued a public
demand for Bascoe to be fired “immediately” – and for workers to be given a role in “any future
decisions” related to reinstating Mr. Reynolds. In response, Defendants continued their “relaxed”
approach to the complaints against Bascoe, with City Council’s leadership stating that Bascoe
should “not be removed.”
512. In a press release, Defendants outlined a “plan” that, rather than investigating or
suspending Bascoe, involved “hir[ing] a mediator to address internal agency issues” and
“creat[ing] an internal task force” to “address issues around organizational culture.” The “task
force” proposed that employees resolve their issues by, inter alia, attending a “team-building
ropes course” with Bascoe at a local summer camp. Tellingly, Defendants waited until after they
had decided to terminate Mr. Reynolds to address or investigate the complaints about Bascoe.
How they did so is further proof that Mr. Reynolds was subject to disparate treatment.
513. Just as they had done in Mr. Reynolds’s case, Defendants hired an outside law
firm to help the City investigate the claims against Bascoe. Unlike the “investigation” into Mr.
90
Reynolds, however, Defendants did not publicly broadcast the one into Bascoe. They did not
give public updates on its progress. They never leaked or publicized any of the underlying
allegations. And they never released the investigation’s final report or ultimate conclusions.
514. While Mr. Reynolds’s “defend[ing] his actions” led to public censure and
punishment, Defendants encouraged Bascoe to put on a defense. Indeed, PAB Chair Knox told
countless individuals on or around October 11, 2022 that Bascoe deserved a chance to “defend
himself.”
515. Whatever the City ultimately concluded about Bascoe, they refused to terminate
him, instead allowing him to quietly resign on his own terms – and issuing statements of support
in his honor.
516. And while the City has been conspicuously silent about Bascoe since he left his
employment, Defendants have continued to make public and disparaging comments about Mr.
Reynolds after his termination, including through a letter signed by six City Councilmembers –
Willie Lightfoot, Mitch Gruber, LaShay Harris, Michael Patterson and Jose Peo – telling “the
Community” that Mr. Reynolds “grossly mismanaged this new agency and wasted tax-payer
dollars.”
517. The difference between Bascoe and Mr. Reynolds, two similarly situated
employees, is simple: Bascoe never filed a sexual harassment complaint against a powerful and
beloved City official. Mr. Reynolds did.
91
CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Discrimination in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Against the City
518. Mr. Reynolds hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in all of the
preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
519. Defendant City has discriminated against Mr. Reynolds on the basis of both his
gender and sexual orientation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title
VII”) by, inter alia, subjecting him to an unlawful hostile work environment, quid pro quo sexual
harassment and discriminatory disparate treatment.
520. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful discriminatory conduct
in violation of Title VII, Mr. Reynolds has suffered, and continues to suffer, monetary and/or
economic harm for which he is entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief.
521. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful discriminatory conduct
in violation of Title VII, Mr. Reynolds has suffered and continues to suffer severe mental
anguish and emotional distress, including but not limited to depression, humiliation,
embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem, loss of self-confidence and emotional
pain and suffering, for which he is entitled to an award of monetary relief and other relief.
522. Defendant’s unlawful discriminatory actions constitute malicious, willful and
wanton violations of Title VII for which Mr. Reynolds is entitled to an award of punitive
damages.
92
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Discrimination in Violation of the Equal Protection Clause)
Against the City and Shani Wilson
524. Defendant City, through and with agents acting under color of state law and in
their individual capacity, including Defendant Wilson, as well as Defendant Wilson individually,
have discriminated against Mr. Reynolds on the basis of both his gender and sexual orientation in
violation of the Equal Protection Clause by, inter alia, subjecting him to an unlawful hostile work
environment, quid pro quo sexual harassment and discriminatory disparate treatment.
Defendants City and Wilson also aided and abetted this unlawful conduct.
525. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful discriminatory conduct
in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, Mr. Reynolds has suffered, and continues to suffer,
monetary and/or economic harm for which he is entitled to an award of monetary damages and
other relief.
in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, Mr. Reynolds has suffered and continues to suffer
severe mental anguish and emotional distress, including but not limited to depression,
humiliation, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem, loss of self-confidence and
emotional pain and suffering, for which he is entitled to an award of monetary relief and other
relief.
527. Defendants’ unlawful discriminatory actions constitute malicious, willful and
wanton violations of the Equal Protection Clause for which Mr. Reynolds is entitled to an award
of punitive damages.
93
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Discrimination in Violation of the New York State Human Rights Law)
Against the City and Shani Wilson
529. Defendants City and Wilson have discriminated against Mr. Reynolds on the basis
of both his gender and sexual orientation in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law
(“NYSHRL”) by, inter alia, subjecting him to an unlawful hostile work environment, quid pro
quo sexual harassment and discriminatory disparate treatment. Defendants City and Wilson also
aided and abetted this unlawful conduct.
in violation of the NYSHRL, Mr. Reynolds has suffered, and continues to suffer, monetary
and/or economic harm for which he is entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief.
in violation of the NYSHRL, Mr. Reynolds has suffered and continues to suffer severe mental
532. Defendants’ unlawful discriminatory actions constitute malicious, willful and
wanton violations of the NYSHRL for which Mr. Reynolds is entitled to an award of punitive
damages.
94
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Retaliation in Violation of Title VII)
Against the City
533. Plaintiff hereby repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation in the
preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
534. By the actions described above, among others, the City retaliated against Mr.
Reynolds in violation of Title VII because he protested unlawful discrimination.
535. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful retaliatory conduct in
violation of Title VII, Mr. Reynolds has suffered, and continues to suffer, monetary and/or
violation of Title VII, Mr. Reynolds has suffered and continues to suffer severe mental anguish
and emotional distress, including but not limited to depression, humiliation, embarrassment,
stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem, loss of self-confidence and emotional pain and suffering,
for which he is entitled to an award of monetary relief and other relief.
537. Defendant’s unlawful retaliatory actions constitute malicious, willful and wanton
violations of Title VII for which Mr. Reynolds is entitled to an award of punitive damages.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Retaliation in Violation of the Equal Protection Clause)
Against the City
539. By the actions described above, among others, Defendant City, through and with
agents acting under color of state law and in their individual capacity, including the remaining
95
Defendants, as well as the remaining Defendants individually, retaliated against Mr. Reynolds in
violation of the Equal Protection Clause because he protested unlawful discrimination.
violation of the Equal Protection Clause, Mr. Reynolds has suffered, and continues to suffer,
monetary and/or economic harm for which he is entitled to an award of monetary damages and
other relief.
violation of the Equal Protection Clause, Mr. Reynolds has suffered and continues to suffer
severe mental anguish and emotional distress, including but not limited to depression,
relief.
542. Defendant’s unlawful retaliatory actions constitute malicious, willful and wanton
violations of the Equal Protection Clause for which Mr. Reynolds is entitled to an award of
punitive damages.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Retaliation in Violation of the First Amendment)
Against all Defendants
544. By the actions described above, among others, Defendants retaliated against Mr.
Reynolds in violation of the First Amendment because he engaged in protected speech.
96
545. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful retaliatory conduct in
violation of the First Amendment, Mr. Reynolds has suffered, and continues to suffer, monetary
and/or economic harm for which he is entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief.
violation of the First Amendment, Mr. Reynolds has suffered and continues to suffer severe
mental anguish and emotional distress, including but not limited to depression, humiliation,
547. Defendants’ unlawful retaliatory actions constitute malicious, willful and wanton
violations of the First Amendment for which Mr. Reynolds is entitled to an award of punitive
damages.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Retaliation in Violation of the NYSHRL)
549. By the actions described above, among others, Defendants retaliated against Mr.
Reynolds in violation of the NYSHRL because he protested unlawful discrimination.
violation of the NYSHRL, Mr. Reynolds has suffered, and continues to suffer, monetary and/or
violation of the NYSHRL, Mr. Reynolds has suffered and continues to suffer severe mental
97
552. Defendants’ unlawful retaliatory actions constitute malicious, willful and wanton
violations of the NYSHRL for which Mr. Reynolds is entitled to an award of punitive damages.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Retaliation in Violation of the New York Civil Service Law § 75-b)
Against the City
554. By the actions described above, among others, the City retaliated against Mr.
Reynolds in violation of the New York Civil Service Law § 75-b (“§ 75-b”) because he protested
unlawful discrimination and other unlawful conduct.
555. As a direct and proximate result Defendant’s unlawful retaliatory conduct in
violation of § 75-b, Mr. Reynolds has suffered, and continues to suffer, monetary and/or
violation o § 75-b, Mr. Reynolds has suffered and continues to suffer severe mental anguish and
emotional distress, including but not limited to depression, humiliation, embarrassment, stress
and anxiety, loss of self-esteem, loss of self-confidence and emotional pain and suffering, for
which he is entitled to an award of monetary relief and other relief.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Defamation Per Se)
Against the City and Campbell
98
558. As described above, on October 12, 2022, Defendants City and Campbell drafted
and published a statement on May 8, 2022 that stated Mr. Reynolds caused such a “heightened
sense of anxiety, apprehension in coming to work, and fear of retaliation”—for both the “senior
staff” of the PAB and the agency’s 30 other “staff”—that he had to be “investigated” and “placed
on a paid administrative leave.”
559. The statement was false, and Defendants knew or should have known that it was
false when it was published.
560. The statement was made with actual malice, ill will, spite, and with wanton,
reckless, or willful disregard for its injurious effects on Mr. Reynolds and his rights.
561. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ defamatory statement, Mr.
Reynolds has suffered, and continues to suffer, monetary and/or economic harm for which he is
entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief.
Reynolds has suffered and continues to suffer severe mental anguish and emotional distress,
including but not limited to depression, humiliation, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of
self-esteem, loss of self-confidence and emotional pain and suffering, for which he is entitled to
an award of monetary relief and other relief.
563. Defendants’ unlawful defamatory statement caused Mr. Reynolds to suffer
reputational harm by exposing him to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion and disgrace.
564. Defendants’ unlawful defamatory statement was made with actual malice and Mr.
Reynolds is entitled to an award of punitive damages.
99
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Defamation Per Se)
Against the City and Wilson
566. As described above, Defendants City and Wilson drafted and published a
statement on June 7, 2022 that Mr. Reynolds’s complaint of sexual harassment and retaliation
against Wilson was “unequivocally false” and “retaliat[ory].”
567. The statement was false, and Defendants knew or should have known it was false
when it was made.
100
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Defamation Per Se)
Against the City, Bascoe, Nickoloff, Setel and Banks
574. As described above, on October 12, 2022, Defendants City, Bascoe, Nickoloff,
Setel and Banks drafted and published a press release titled “PAB Calls for State Investigation
into Former Executive Director.”
575. The press release said that the New York State Attorney General needed to
investigate Mr. Reynolds, as he had committed the “crime[s]” of “[c]ollusion and interference
with a governmental investigation” by “holding alleged meetings with current and former PAB
staff, members of the Police Accountability Board Alliance, and others including a meeting at his
home this past weekend with former staff and other parties.”
576. The statement was false, and Defendants knew or should have known it was false
when it was made.
101
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Defamation Per Se)
Against the City and Wilson
583. As described above, Defendants have admitted that Wilson repeatedly stated that
Mr. Reynolds was a “narcissistic abuser.”
584. These statements were false, and Defendants knew or should have known they
were false when they were made.
585. These statements were made with actual malice, ill will, spite, and with wanton,
586. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ defamatory statements, Mr.
587. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ defamatory statements, Mr.
102
588. Defendants’ unlawful defamatory statements caused Mr. Reynolds to suffer
589. Defendants’ unlawful defamatory statements were made with actual malice and
Mr. Reynolds is entitled to an award of punitive damages.
THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Defamation Per Se)
Against Banks
591. As described above, Banks stated: “This investigation has revealed Conor to be
the dishonest, manipulative, vindictive person his ENTIRE senior staff had numerous complaints
about.”
592. This statement was false, and Banks knew or should have known it was false
when they were made.
593. This statement wase made with actual malice, ill will, spite, and with wanton,
594. As a direct and proximate result of Banks’s defamatory statement, Mr. Reynolds
has suffered, and continues to suffer, monetary and/or economic harm for which he is entitled to
an award of monetary damages and other relief.
595. As a direct and proximate result of Banks’s defamatory statements, Mr. Reynolds
has suffered and continues to suffer severe mental anguish and emotional distress, including but
not limited to depression, humiliation, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem,
103
loss of self-confidence and emotional pain and suffering, for which he is entitled to an award of
monetary relief and other relief.
596. Banks’s unlawful defamatory statement caused Mr. Reynolds to suffer
597. Banks’s unlawful defamatory statement was made with actual malice and Mr.
FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Deprivation of Property Under the 14th Amendment (via Section 1983))
Against the City
598. Mr. Reynolds hereby repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation
in all of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
599. Mr. Reynolds had a property interest in his continued employment as executive
director of the PAB, as he could only be removed from that position for “good cause” according
to Section 18-6(C)(5) of the Charter of the City.
600. Defendant City deprived Mr. Reynolds of this constitutionally protected interest
when it terminated him on November 18, 2022.
601. Before terminating Mr. Reynolds, the City failed to give Mr. Reynolds the
requisite due process by, among other things, refusing to give him: (i) specific notice of the
charges or potential grounds for discipline being considered; (ii) an explanation of the evidence
and witnesses pertaining to the potential discipline; and (iii) an informal opportunity to present
his response to the charges to the decision maker.
602. After terminating Mr. Reynolds, the City failed to give Mr. Reynolds the requisite
due process by, among other things, refusing to: (i) inform him of the reasons for his termination;
(ii) hold an evidentiary hearing; and (iii) and provide him with any form of appeal process.
104
603. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct in violation of
the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, Mr. Reynolds has suffered, and continues
to suffer, monetary and/or economic harm for which he is entitled to an award of monetary
damages and other relief.
the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, Mr. Reynolds has suffered and continues to
suffer severe mental anguish and emotional distress, including but not limited to depression,
relief.
605. Defendant engaged in these practices with malice and with reckless indifference
to Mr. Reynolds’s federally protected rights.
FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Deprivation of Liberty—Stigma-Plus—Under the 14 th Amendment (via Section 1983))
Against the City
606. Mr. Reynolds hereby repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation
in all of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
607. At the time of his termination, Mr. Reynolds had a liberty interest in his freedom
to engage in any of the common occupations of life, including by defending his good name,
reputation, honor and integrity from public charges from a government employer that he acted
dishonestly and immorally.
608. Defendant City deprived Mr. Reynolds of this constitutionally protected interest
when, in the course of terminating him, it made statements about him on or about June 8, 2022,
on or about October 18, 2022, and on or about November 16, 2022.
105
609. These statements were made public when City officials disseminated them to
members of the media and published them on government-owned websites.
610. These statements were false, as proven by, among other things, the City’s own
admissions about their falsehood, hyperbolic character and unsubstantiated nature.
611. These statements were sufficiently derogatory to injure Mr. Reynolds’s reputation
and deprive him of the freedom to take advantage of other employment opportunities, as they
imputed, among other things, that Mr. Reynolds was such a “poor leader” and engaged in such
widespread managerial misconduct so pervasive and severe that he could not be employed in a
role allowing him to supervise others.
612. Defendant City knowingly imposed this harm on Mr. Reynolds, as they have
admitted that the release of the relevant statements subject employees like Mr. Reynolds to an
“unwarranted invasion of privacy.”
613. In terminating Mr. Reynolds in close temporal proximity to the public release of
these statements, the City implicitly affirmed the truth of these false statements.
614. The City gave Mr. Reynolds neither notice of the reasons for his termination nor,
as requested, an opportunity to clear his name.
the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, Mr. Reynolds has suffered, and continues
to suffer, monetary and/or economic harm for which he is entitled to an award of monetary
damages and other relief.
the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, Mr. Reynolds has suffered and continues to
suffer severe mental anguish and emotional distress, including but not limited to depression,
106
relief.
617. Defendant engaged in these practices with malice and with reckless indifference
to Mr. Reynolds’s federally protected rights.
SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
619. Defendants’ aforementioned conduct constituted behavior toward Mr. Reynolds
that was so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of
decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
620. This conduct was intended to cause (and/or disregarded the substantial probability
of causing) Mr. Reynolds severe emotional distress.
621. This conduct caused Mr. Reynolds to suffer the abovementioned serious and
permanent personal injuries.
622. Mr. Reynolds is entitled to recover the full extent of the damages caused by this
behavior, including such punitive damages as may be allowed by law.
107
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court enter judgment in his favor and against
Defendants, containing the following relief:
A. A declaratory judgment that the actions, conduct and practices of Defendants
complained of herein violate the laws of the United States and the State of New York;
B. An injunction and order permanently restraining Defendants and their partners,
officers, owners, agents, successors, employees and/or representatives, and any and all persons
acting in concert with them, from engaging in any such further unlawful conduct, including the
policies and practices complained of herein;
C. An award of damages against Defendants, in an amount to be determined at trial,
plus prejudgment interest, to compensate Plaintiff for all monetary and/or economic damages,
including, but not limited to, loss of past and future income, wages, compensation, seniority, and
other benefits of employment;
D. An award of damages against Defendants, in an amount to be determined at trial,
plus prejudgment interest, to compensate Plaintiff for all non-monetary and/or compensatory
damages, including, but not limited to, compensation for her mental anguish, humiliation,
embarrassment, stress and anxiety, emotional pain and suffering, and emotional distress;
E. An award of punitive damages, in an amount to be determined at trial;
F. Prejudgment interest on all amounts due;
G. Reinstatement;
H. An award of costs that Plaintiff has incurred in this action, including, but not
limited to, expert witness fees, as well as Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to the
fullest extent permitted by law; and
108
I. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues of fact and damages stated herein.
Dated: August 30, 2023

New York, New York WIGDOR LLP
By: ____________________________
Michael J. Willemin
85 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 257-6800
Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
mwillemin@wigdorlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SCHNITTER CICCARELLI MILLS PLLC
By: ____________________________
Ryan J. Mills
8685 Sheridan Drive

Williamsville, NY 14221
Telephone: (716) 639-7690
Facsimile: (716) 639-7317
rmills@scm-law.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
109

Reynolds Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reynolds Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reynolds Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 6:23-cv-06506 Document 1 Filed 08/30/23 Page 1 of 109

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

personnel file, and a termination premised on obviously pretextual grounds.

his entire career, faced a complaint or negative performance review.

6. What Defendants did to Mr. Reynolds is also a perfect illustration of employer

required them to do so.

8. Defendants exacted this toll on Mr. Reynolds by launching a six-month campaign

isolate, and silence him.

attorney who the City admitted had a “conflict of interest.”

had engaged in “clearly inappropriate” behavior. Shortly before disseminating unsubstantiated

so “constituted an unwarranted invasion of privacy.”

11. Defendants were so single-mindedly focused on humiliating, silencing, and

and personal relationships and finances.

problem of City government is not limited to Rochester’s police department.

15. Defendant City of Rochester was and is a municipal corporation located in

office of and within the City.

supervisor. Defendant Setel is sued in her individual and official capacity.

days after his receipt of said Right to Sue letter.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

I. THE CITY HIRES WILSON KNOWING THAT SHE HAS A HISTORY OF

26. In November 2019, Rochesterians overwhelmingly voted to create the PAB, an

1 & 18-3(B) of the Rochester City Charter.

Board Alliance (“the Alliance”), a coalition of activists and organizations dedicated to

supporting the PAB’s work.

4(G) of the Rochester City Charter.

and to direct the Executive Director.”

was appointed as Chair of the PAB Board.

35. For example, Wilson is a self-described “best friend” of City Councilmember

then-City Council Chief of Staff B.J. Scanlon.

became a City Councilmember in January 2022.

served in those roles throughout Mr. Reynolds’s tenure as Executive Director.

her to run for public office.

B. Wilson’s History of Sexual Misconduct and Retaliation Was Known By the

she worked as a physician’s assistant at Trillium Healthcare (“Trillium”), which specializes in

mental health treatment.

or get them terminated.

45. Wilson herself discussed the latter with Mr. Reynolds.

openly celebrated at the PAB’s offices in front of Mr. Reynolds.

her departure from Trillium.

the Rochester City Council and the PAB Board.

into Mr. Reynolds, an obvious conflict of interest.

52. Another individual with knowledge of Wilson’s misconduct at Trillium was

discuss his allegations of sexual harassment with PAB employees.

56. Perhaps because of these deep-seated friendships and incestuous relationships,

misconduct – including misconduct relating to sexual harassment, retaliation, or inappropriate

discipline regarding workplace misconduct.

regarding sexual harassment or retaliation. 1

we were, which means being trained at all, frankly.”

how to handle those kinds of things.”

That is exactly what happened to Mr. Reynolds.

II. WILSON LAUNCHES A CAMPAIGN OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT

A. Mr. Reynolds is Hired as PAB Executive Director and Wilson Promptly

faculty, fellows, and over thirty students.

political consulting work.

workplace complaint or negative performance review.

to hire an Executive Director for the PAB.

submitted his application.

and really [ ] only choice” for the position.