Complaint: Moody v. Department of Transportation, et al.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
A. JASON MOODY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO:
)
THE ALABAMA DEPARTMENT )
OF TRANSPORTATION, )
BOBBY THOMAS, CHAD )
STANDRIDGE, JOHNNY HORN, )
RANDY MUVELHILL, DONALD )
WARREN, MATTHIAS JONES )
DEMETRIUS DEAVERS, )
DARRELL NORTHCUTT, )
LONNIE WHITE, CHRIS )
JENNINGS, GARY SMITH, )
JOHN TEAL, and JOHNNY L. )
HARRIS, )
)
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW the plaintiff, by and through his undersigned
counsel
and files hereby his complaint against the defendants, and each
of them, as
follows:
INTRODUCTION
This action is brought to vindicate the plaintiff's rights under
the
Constitution of the United States, the Alabama State
Constitution and the
various laws of the United States and the State of Alabama.
FILED
2012 Dec-10 PM 12:04
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 1 of
34
2
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, Jason Moody is an adult resident of Blount
County,
Alabama, and at all times material hereto has been employed by
defendant
Alabama Department of Transportation.
2. The Alabama Department of Transportation is an agency of
the
State of Alabama, responsible for,
inter
alia,
maintaining the roadways of
the state.
3. Bobby Thomas, upon information and belief, is an adult
resident of
Blount County, Alabama, and at all times material hereto was
employed by
ALDOT in its Oneonta facility.
4. Chad Standridge, upon information and belief, is an adult
resident
of Blount County, Alabama, and at all times material hereto was
employed
by ALDOT in its Oneonta facility.
5. Johnny Horn, upon information and belief, is an adult
resident of
Blount County, Alabama, and at all times material hereto was
employed by
ALDOT in its Oneonta facility.
6. Randy Muvelhill, upon information and belief, is an adult
resident
of Blount County, Alabama, and at all times material hereto was
employed
by ALDOT in its Oneonta facility.
7. Donald Warren, upon information and belief, is an adult
resident of
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 2 of
34
3
Blount County, Alabama, and at all times material hereto was
employed by
ALDOT in its Oneonta facility.
8. Matthias Jones, upon information and belief, is an adult
resident of
Blount County, Alabama, and at all times material hereto was
employed by
ALDOT in its Oneonta facility.
9. Darrell Northcutt, upon information and belief, is an
adult
resident of Blount County, Alabama, and at all times material
hereto was
employed by ALDOT in its Oneonta facility.
10. Lonnie White, upon information and belief, is an adult
resident
of Blount County, Alabama, and at all times material hereto was
employed
by ALDOT in its Oneonta facility.
11. Chris Jennings, upon information and belief, is an adult
resident of Blount County, Alabama, and at all times material
hereto was
employed by ALDOT in its Oneonta facility.
12. Gary Smith, upon information and belief, is an adult
resident of
Blount County, Alabama, and at all times material hereto was
employed by
ALDOT as a District Engineer.
13. John Teal, upon information and belief, is an adult resident
of
Blount County, Alabama, and at all times material hereto was
employed by
ALDOT in its Oneonta facility.
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 3 of
34
4
14. Johnny L. Harris, upon information and belief, is an
adult
resident of Montgomery County, Alabama.
JURISDICTION
15. Plaintiff files this Complaint and invokes the jurisdiction
of this
Honorable Court under and by virtue of the Fourth, Fifth and
Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as well as
the
following statutes:, 42 U.S.C.§1983; 42 U.S.C. § 1985; 42 U.S.C.
§ 1986; 42
U.S.C. § 2000e,
et
sec., 42,
U.S.C. § 12111, et sec, 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28
U.S.C. § 1343, and 28 U.S.C. § 1467. Plaintiff's state law claims arise from
the same nucleus of operative facts as his claims arising under
federal law,
and are therefore appropriate for supplemental jurisdiction.
Plaintiff has
exhausted his administrative remedies by timely filing charges
of
discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
and
has received a dismissal and notice of rights. (Please see
Exhibit A, Notice
of Rights).
16. The violations of plaintiff's rights which are alleged
herein
occurred within Blount County, Alabama, and are therefore within
the
Northern District of the State of Alabama, Southern
Division.
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 4 of
34
5
FACTS
17. Plaintiff
Jason
Moody (hereinafter “plaintiff” or “Moody”), has
been employed with the Alabama Department of Transportation
(hereinafter
“ALDOT”)
for
over ten years, and at the time of the events made the
basis
of this lawsuit was a Highway Maintenance Technician 1
(“HMT1”).
Plaintiff was assigned to the Blount County, Alabama division of
ALDOT,
and worked out of the Oneonta, Alabama facility.
18. Bobby Thomas and Chad Standridge are former employees of
ALDOT also working at the Oneonta facility at all times material
hereto.
Randly Mulvehill, Demetrius Devers, Darrell Northcutt, Lonnie
White,
Chris Jennings, John Teal and Johnny Horn are, upon information
and
belief, current employees of ALDOT, who worked alongside the
plaintiff at
all times material hereto.
19. Donald Warren, at all times material hereto, was a
superintendent of the district where plaintiff was employed, and was at least
two levels superior to the plaintiff in the chain of
command.
20. Matthias Jones, at all times material hereto was a
supervisor in
the Oneonta facility and was superior to plaintiff in the chain
of command.
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 5 of
34
6
21. Gary Smith, upon information and belief, is a District
Engineer,
with supervisory responsibility for all other individual
defendants named
herein.
22. Johnny L. Harris is a First Division Engineer for ALDOT,
who
recommended plaintiff be suspended, as more fully described,
infra.
23. Moody is a Caucasian male, who was 34 years old at the
time
of the events giving rise to this litigation. Moody is
approximately 5’3” and
weighs approximately One Hundred Twenty-Five (125) pounds.
24. Plaintiff suffers from developmental disabilities, and
is
functionally illiterate. His co-workers and supervisors were
aware of his
disability prior to the events described
infra.
25. On or about December 10, 2010, plaintiff and his
co-workers
were on the premises of the Oneonta ALDOT facility and were,
upon
information and belief, clocked in to work.
26. Plaintiff was talking to several of his co-workers during
a
"smoke break." The group of men were joking around, when
Chad
Standridge (hereinafter “Standridge”)
lunged
at Moody as if to grab him.
Moody fled the group and attempted to dodge away but ran into
Bobby
Thomas (
hereinafter
“Thomas”),
who forcibly restrained the plaintiff.
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 6 of
34
7
27. The men then dragged Moody to the hydraulic lift pole
located
in the Oneonta ALDOT garage, retrieved duct tape from an ALDOT
vehicle,
and bound him to the pole with the duct tape.
28. Defendants placed Moody facing the pole and then duct
taped
his wrists together around the pole. They taped his head so that
he could not
move it, and taped around his torso to keep him still. Although
this is not
the first time that these men have restrained the plaintiff in
this fashion, their
actions on this day did not stop with false imprisonment.
29. Upon information and belief, the individuals present at
this
point were: Matthias Jones (hereinafter “Jones”), Standridge,
Thomas,
Randy Mulvelhill (hereinafter “Mulvelhill”), Johnny Horn
(hereinafter
“Horn”), Lonnie White (hereinafter “White”), and Chris
Jennings
(hereinafter “Jennings”).
30. After they secured plaintiff to the pole, Horn pulled
Moody's
pants down, leaving him tied to the pole in his underwear.
31. Thomas, approaching plaintiff from behind said, "you're
gonna
feel this" at which point he struck plaintiff on the buttocks
approximately
four times with a metal "lift bar."
1
1
Since plaintiff was bound facing
the opposite way, he cannot be sure that Thomas was
the individual who struck him, although he believes it to have
been Thomas.
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 7 of
34
8
32.
After
being beaten with the “lift bar,” Moody was forcibly
sodomized with a Mountain Dew
™
bottle.
Since he was unable to see
behind him plaintiff is unsure who wielded the bottle, although
defendants
showed him the bottle prior to assaulting him. Upon information
and belief,
however, Thomas was the perpetrator.
33. Several members of the group took pictures of plaintiff
taped to
the pole with his pants down. At about this point someone
suggested that
they "go get Donald [Warren]." Donald Warren
(hereinafter,
“Warren”), is a
superintendent, a supervisory employee.
34. Upon being summoned, Warren left his office and joined
the
group inside the garage. Instead of taking any action to assist
Moody,
Warren instead approached the plaintiff and placed a baby bottle
in his
mouth. (Earlier in the day the crew had happened upon a very
badly injured
dog which had apparently been hit by a car. She died soon after
they found
her. The dog was nursing puppies, so someone on the crew took
the
puppies until homes could be found for them. Upon information
and belief
this has happened on prior occasions, and various employees will
feed
orphaned puppies or kittens with a baby bottle that they keep
available for
that purpose. Plaintiff was told by Warren that the milk in the
bottle was
from the injured dog, and that he had been just feeding the
puppies with it.
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 8 of
34
9
The actual source of the milk in the bottle is unknown, but it
was suggested
by Warren that it had been "milked" from the injured dog,
presumably in an
effort to further humiliate and traumatize the plaintiff.)
35. Plaintiff remained taped to the hydraulic pole for between
half
an hour to an hour. During that period of time, Jones, another
supervisor,
witnessed the ongoing assault and did nothing to help plaintiff,
other than
instruct the others to cut him down. Jones did this twice before
the group
actually released the plaintiff. While plaintiff heard Jones
give this
directive, due to his limited field of vision and mobility, he
is uncertain
whether Jones was present for the entire incident. Therefore,
upon
information and belief, plaintiff alleges that Jones was present
and witnessed
the entire series of events.
36. Upon information and belief, several of the defendants
took
photos of the plaintiff during his ordeal, specifically White
and Northcutt.
These photos were later transmitted to Teal, who, upon
information and
belief, posted them to the internet.
37. Photos of Moody bound to the pole were also posted on
the
bulletin board located in the main facility outside the door to
the District
Engineer’s office, opposite his secretary’s desk.
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 9 of
34
10
38. Various threats were made to the plaintiff, both during
the
assault and afterwards, by Thomas and others, which caused Moody
to
reasonably fear for his life and, to a lesser extent, his job if
he complained.
However, a short while after this incident, Moody was informed
that pictures
and videos of his ordeal were posted on facebook.com, at which
point
Moody spoke to Human Resources about what had happened.
Moody
complied in all respects with the ensuing investigation, despite
receiving
occasional threats from the co-workers who were involved.
39. During the investigation, various individuals were
dispatched
from the ALDOT offices in Montgomery to interview all the
persons
involved. These interviews, which included one of the plaintiff,
were video
recorded. Ellen Leonard, Esq, Special Counsel to ALDOT,
interviewed the
plaintiff at the Oneonta facility. The plaintiff was not advised
of his rights
under Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), and was not
given any
form of representation or accommodation to assist him in the
process,
despite ALDOT’s actual knowledge of his developmental
disabilities.
40. Durin
g
the plaintiff’s interview it was communicated to him
that ALDOT was in possession of the photographs taken of him
during the
events of December 10, 2010. Plaintiff is unaware of how many
such
photographs or videos exist, or what they depict. Plaintiff is
also unaware of
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 10 of
34
11
how many of said photographs or videos may have been posted on
the
internet. Plaintiff was not provided copies of any of said
photographs or
videos.
41. Plaintiff received little to no sympathy from ALDOT
employees after his ordeal, even being told by Gary Smith
(hereinafter
“Smith”) that “[he] deserved everything [he] got.”
42. After the assault various co-workers would taunt plaintiff
about
it at every opportunity. Plaintiff’s
derogatory
nickname amongst his coworkers
is “killer,”
2
and
whenever someone purchased a Mountain Dew™
beverage one of the defendants would say, “Watch ou
t
for the Mountain
Dew™, Killer,”
or
words to that effect.
43. After ALDOT began conducting an investigation into the
events of December 10, 2010, supervisory employees began
retaliating
against plaintiff in various ways. A recitation of all the
harassment, insult
and retaliatory acts by ALDOT and its employees would require
more
verbiage than a complaint under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure’s
“short and plain statement” dictate would all
ow.
However, a synopsis of
major events follows:
2
It was explained by Standridge that
the nickname was given because “[plaintiff] will
kill you by talking.” This is, upon information and belief, a
reference to plaintiff’s
developmental disabilities and his penchant for attempting to
talk himself out of conflict
due to his relatively diminutive size.
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 11 of
34
12
44. Prior to the events made the basis of this litigation,
plaintiff, a
single parent, informed his superiors that in order to ensure
that his son
boarded the school bus in the mornings, he would occasionally
arrive at
work a few minutes after his designated start time. This pattern
was
accepted by his chain of command, and did not result in any
untoward
discipline. However, after the investigation began, plaintiff
was written up
several times for tardiness.
45. Several hours of overtime work which plaintiff sought
were
denied to him and awarded to various defendants instead.
46. ALDOT sent personnel to Oneonta to interview witnesses to
the
incident, after which Thomas and Mulvelhill both separately
approached the
plaintiff and threatened his life should he discuss what
happened, or consult
law enforcement.
47. A few months after the assault upon plaintiff, while the
EEOC
investigation was ongoing, plaintiff was working in the back of
a truck, with
a co-employee at the wheel, when the vehicle suddenly moved,
causing him
to fall from the bed of the truck and injure himself. Upon
information and
belief, the driver deliberately caused the vehicle to jolt,
resulting in
plaintiff’s injuries.
When
he expressed concern about this to his supervisors
they explained it away as an accident, without investigation.
The plaintiff,
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 12 of
34
13
fearful for his safety and concerned for his life, went along
with his
supervisors and did not push the issue.
48. Eventually plaintiff was reassigned to work at a rest area
on
Highway 59 near Ashville, Alabama, effectively removing him from
the
Oneonta facility. Plaintiff was understandably overjoyed by this
turn of
events, but his relief was short-lived, as he was soon replaced
with a less
senior employee. The reason given for his reassignment was that
he brought
someone to the rest area with him to assist him in reading the
necessary
checklists and other documents.
49. Plaintiff was sent back to Oneonta, despite a written
request to
be allowed either: reassignment to the rest area with a
reasonable
accommodation, or assignment to a State Park within the Blount
County
District. Both requests were denied, leaving plaintiff back in
the vicinity of
his attackers.
50. Ultimately, in August, 2012, plaintiff received a notice
of
proposed suspension,
from
Johnny L. Harris (hereinafter “Harris”), which
was delivered to him by Smith. The notice provided a window of
Three (3)
days in which to appeal and request a hearing. At the time of
the August 20,
2012 proposed suspension, plaintiff was represented by counsel,
a fact of
which ALDOT was actually and specifically aware. Nevertheless,
Smith
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 13 of
34
14
presented Moody with the notice, had someone read it aloud to
him,
instructed him that he was required to sign it as a condition of
his
employment, and sent him home with the paperwork, without
providing any
accommodation for him to complete it, never contacting counsel
to afford
plaintiff due process. Thus, plaintiff, who Smith knows to be
illiterate, was
unable to complete the document, and failing to completely
understand the
ramifications, allowed the Three (3) days to pass. Plaintiff was
ultimately
suspended, without a hearing for a period of Ten (10) days,
which caused
him immediate financial difficulties. This suspension was based
solely on
unsubstantiated allegations made by and to individuals named in
this
litigation. Although the alleged conduct ranged in dates from
the previous
year to the date of the suspension, no action was taken on any
matter listed
in the suspension letter until
after
plaintiff’s conciliation failed at the EEOC,
and after the Department of Justice concluded its investigation
into this
matter.
51. As a result of the vicious and degrading assault upon
the
plaintiff, and the consistent reminders of the event, courtesy
of his coworkers,
he has been caused to suffer extreme emotional distress and
mental
anguish. Plaintiff has been under the care of more than one
mental health
professional, and has been diagnosed with depression and
anxiety, and
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 14 of
34
15
possible Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. After receiving this
diagnosis,
plaintiff was prescribed medication to alleviate his symptoms,
including
various anti-depressants and an anti-anxiolytic.
52. Plaintiff was afraid to tell his former wife (to whom he
was
engaged at the time of the assault) the details of what he had
endured, but
eventually did so after seeking therapy. Unfortunately, the
emotional
distress plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer caused
significant problems
in his marriage, which was terminated by divorce in July
2012.
53. Plaintiff continues to seek mental health assistance as he
is able
to do so, and remains on medication at present.
COUNT I
Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Alabama Department of Transportation
54. Plaintiff adopts and realleges each factual averment as if
fully
set forth herein.
55. Plaintiff was employed by ALDOT on December 2010, at
which time he was sexually assaulted by co-workers and
supervisory
employees.
56. Plaint
iff
was bound to a hydraulic lift pole on the employer’s
premises, his pants were removed, and he was struck on the
buttocks.
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 15 of
34
16
Plaintiff was restrained by the use of duct tape, which was
purchased by his
employer. Plaintiff was then sodomized with an object.
57. Supervisory employees of ALDOT were present for and
witnessed this assault, even participating therein.
58. Plaintiff suffered a tangible detriment in the terms and
conditions of his employment on account of his gender, male, in
violation of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
59.
As
a proximate result of defendant’s actions, plaintiff has
been
caused to suffer physical pain and emotional distress. Seeking
treatment for
his emotional distress and mental anguish has caused plaintiff
to miss work,
thereby causing him lost wages.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, plaintiff demands
judgment against the Alabama Department of Transportation, in
such an
amount as a jury may assess as just, including compensatory and
punitive
damages, and the co
sts
of this action, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.
COUNT II
Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
Alabama Department of Transportation
60. Plaintiff adopts and realleges each factual averment as if
fully
set forth herein.
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 16 of
34
17
61. Plaintiff has a disability which affects substantial
life
functions. Plaintiff is developmentally disabled, and is
functionally
illiterate. His disability affects all major life functions,
including cognition,
reading and decision making.
62. In the alternative, plaintiff is perceived by his employer
to be a
disabled person as defined by the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
63.
Because
of the plaintiff’s disability he has been subjected to
harassment and ridicule by his co-workers, culminating in the
abusive
assault described hereinabove.
64. Plaintiff has been duct taped to the hydraulic lift pole on
other
occasions by his co-workers, for purposes of humiliation and
degradation,
and the perpetrators felt confident that they could engage in
such assaults
withou
t
fear of reprisal because of plaintiff’s disability.
65. This discrimination against plaintiff proximately resulted
in
humiliation, emotional distress and mental anguish, and other
discriminatory
acts by ALDOT personnel have kept him from promotion and
other
employment opportunities.
66. Plaintiff has been discriminated against on the basis of
his
disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 17 of
34
18
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, plaintiff demands
judgment against the Alabama Department of Transportation, in
such an
amount as a jury may assess as just, including compensatory and
punitive
damages, and the costs of this action, including a reasonable
attorney’s fee.
COUNT III
Violation of the Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights Afforded by
the
Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States. 42 U.S.C. §1983
The Alabama Department of Transportation, Thomas,
Standridge,
Horn, Northcutt, Jones, Mulvelhill, Warren, White, and
Jennings
67. Plaintiff adopts and realleges each factual averment as if
fully
set forth herein.
68. Plaintiff is afforded a liberty interest, protected by the
Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution in his person, to be
free from
unreasonable seizure.
69. Plaintiff possesses a constitutional right to be free from
bodily
restraint without due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments.
70. Plaintiff was seized, restrained, and assaulted, in
violation of
his rights to be free from such treatment of his person.
71. The individuals who perpetrated these violations upon
the
plaintiff were acting under color of state law at the time same
occurred, thus
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 18 of
34
19
violating 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and further, were ratified and
encouraged in
their behavior by supervisory personnel.
72. These violation
s
of plaintiff’s constitutional rights proximately
caused him damages, including, but not limited to, physical pain
and injury,
emotional distress and mental anguish.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, plaintiff demands
judgment against defendants The Alabama Department of
Transportation,
Thomas, Standridge, Horn, Northcutt, Jones, Mulvelhill, Warren,
White, and
Jennings, in such an amount as a jury may assess as just,
including
compensatory and punitive damages and the costs of this action,
including a
reason
able
attorney’s fee.
COUNT IV
Discriminatory Retaliation in Violation of Title VII of
The Civil Rights Act and The Americans with Disabilities Act
The Alabama Department of Transportation
73. Plaintiff adopts and realleges each factual averment as
if
fully set forth herein.
74. Plaintiff engaged in a protected activity, namely filing
Charges
of Discrimination against ALDOT for sexual and disability
discrimination.
75. From the time plaintiff first engaged in this protected
activity
until the present, ALDOT, by and through its various employees,
has
engaged in retaliation against the plaintiff, in the manner set
forth above.
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 19 of
34
20
76. Such retaliatory acts on the part of defendant have
caused
damage to the plaintiff, including lost wages, and mental
distress and
emotional anguish.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, plaintiff demands
judgment against the Alabama Department of Transportation, in
such an
amount as a jury may assess as just, including compensatory and
punitive
damages and the costs of this action,
including
a reasonable attorney’s fee.
COUNT V
False Imprisonment
Defendants Thomas, Standridge, Horn, Muvelhill, Warren,
Jones,
Deavers, Northcutt, White and Jennings
77. Plaintiff adopts and realleges each factual averment as if
fully
set forth herein.
78. Plaintiff was physically restrained by the defendants named
in
this count, and his movement was forcibly restricted.
79. The plaintiff was then bound to a hydraulic lift pole with
duct
tape, and left there for a lengthy period of time.
80. Plaintiff did not consent to this restraint, and in fact
asked
repeatedly to be released.
81. Defendants falsely imprisoned plaintiff without consent or
any
legal justification.
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 20 of
34
21
82. Defendants committed false imprisonment against the
plaintiff
willfully, recklessly and/or with gross negligence.
83. As a proximate result of these actions by defendants,
plaintiff
was caused to suffer damages, including,
inter
alia, physical
pain and
emotional distress and mental anguish.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, plaintiff demands
judgment against defendants Thomas, Standridge, Horn, Muvelhill,
Warren,
Jones, Deavers, Northcutt, White and Jennings, in such an amount
as a jury
may assess as just, including compensatory and punitive damages,
and the
costs of this action, incl
uding
a reasonable attorney’s fee.
COUNT VI
Assault
Defendants Thomas, Standridge, Horn, Muvelhill, Warren,
Jones,
Deavers, Northcutt, White and Jennings
84. Plaintiff adopts and realleges each factual averment as if
fully
set forth herein.
85. Defendants named in this Count performed acts which
reasonably caused plaintiff to fear for his safety, and created
in him the
apprehension of an immediate battery.
86.
Plaintiff’s
apprehension was reasonable under the
circumstances.
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 21 of
34
22
87. Defendants committed these acts (more particularly
described
above) intentionally, willfully and/or with gross
negligence.
88.
As
a proximate result of the defendants’ conduct, plaintiff
was
caused to fear an immediate battery, and was caused to suffer
damages.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, plaintiff demands
judgment against defendants Thomas, Standridge, Horn,
Mulvelhill, Warren,
Jones, Deavers, Northcutt, White and Jennings, in such an amount
as a jury
may assess as just, including compensatory and punitive damages,
and the
costs of this action, incl
uding
a reasonable attorney’s fee.
COUNT VII
Assault
Defendants Thomas and Mulvelhill
89. Plaintiff adopts and realleges each factual averment as if
fully
set forth herein.
90. After the events of December 10, 2010, when
investigations
began into the de
fendants’
conduct, Thomas and Mulvelhill, on separate
occasions, threatened the plaintiff’s life if he reported their
actions.
91. These statements placed the plaintiff in reasonable
apprehension of an immediate battery
92. Defendants committed these acts (more particularly
described
above) intentionally, willfully and/or with gross
negligence.
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 22 of
34
23
93.
As
a proximate result of the defendants’ conduct, plaintiff
was
caused to fear an immediate battery, and was caused to suffer
damages.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, plaintiff demands
judgment against defendants Thomas and Mulvelhill, in such an
amount as a
jury may assess as just, including compensatory and punitive
damages, and
the costs of this action, including a reasonable attorney’s
fee.
COUNTS VIII, IX, X, XI and XII
Battery
Defendants Thomas, Standridge, Horn, Muvelhill, Warren,
Jones,
Deavers, Northcutt, White and Jennings
94. Plaintiff adopts and realleges each factual averment as if
fully
set forth herein.
95. The defendants named in this count touched plaintiff in
a
harmful and offensive manner when they took hold of the
plaintiff’s person
and bound him with duct tape to the hydraulic lift pole. (Count
VIII).
96. Defendant Thomas, upon information and belief, struck
plaintiff in the buttocks four times with a metal bar. In the
alternative, some
other defendant struck plaintiff with said bar. As his head was
immobilized,
plaintiff was unable to see behind him. (Count IX).
97. Defendant Thomas, upon information and belief, sodomized
plaintiff with a Mountain Dew
™
bottle. In the alternative, some other
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 23 of
34
24
defendant performed this act. As his head was immobilized,
plaintiff was
unable to see behind him. (Count X).
98.
Defendant
Warren placed a baby bottle in plaintiff’s mouth,
telling him that the bottle had been used to feed puppies.
Warren also told
plaintiff that the milk inside the bottle had been retrieved
from a dead dog.
(Count XI).
99. Defendant Horn pu
lled
the plaintiff’s pants down without
pl
aintiff’s
permission. (Count XII).
100. Upon information and belief, the other defendants
participated
in these acts, encouraged said acts and/or otherwise ratified
this behavior.
101. Defendants engaged in these acts intentionally, willfully
and/or
with gross negligence.
102. As a proximate cause of defendants several incidents of
battery
the plaintiff was caused to suffer damages, including but not
limited to,
physical pain and mental distress and emotional anguish.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, plaintiff demands
judgment against defendants Thomas, Standridge, Horn,
Mulvelhill, Warren,
Jones, Deavers, Northcutt, White and Jennings, in such an amount
as a jury
may assess as just, including compensatory and punitive damages
and the
costs of this action, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 24 of
34
25
COUNT XIII
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Defendants Thomas, Standridge, Horn, Muvelhill, Warren,
Jones,
Deavers, Northcutt, White and Jennings
103. Plaintiff adopts and realleges each factual averment as if
fully
set forth herein.
104. The defendants named in this Count, and each of them,
participated in a brutal physical assault of the plaintiff, duct
taping him to a
pole, removing his clothing, battering him, and ultimately
sodomizing him
with a Mountain Dew™ bottle.
105. The defendants mocked him, took pictures of him tied to
the
pole, told him they were putting milk from a dead dog in his
mouth,
physically beat him and sexually assaulted him.
106. The actions of the defendants, and each of them, are so
egregious in nature and so extreme in degree as to exceed the
bounds of
civilized society.
107.
As
a proximate result of the defendants’ actions, the
plaintiff
was caused to suffer extreme emotional distress and mental
anguish.
Plaintiff’s emotiona
l
distress was so severe that he sought treatment, and
was prescribed medication.
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 25 of
34
26
108. Plaintiff suffered physical symptoms of his emotional
distress,
including headaches, weight loss, difficulty sleeping and loss
of appetite,
among others.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, plaintiff demands
judgment against defendants Thomas, Standridge, Horn,
Mulvelhill, Warren,
Jones, Deavers, Northcutt, White and Jennings, in such an amount
as a jury
may assess as just, including compensatory and punitive damages
and the
cost
s
of this action, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.
COUNT XIV
Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision and Retention
The Alabama Department of Transportation,
Warren, Jones, Smith and Harris
109. Plaintiff adopts and realleges each factual averment as if
fully
set forth herein.
110. ALDOT employs or employed each of the individual
defendants named in this action, including Warren, Jones, Smith
and Harris,
each of whom is a supervisor in his own right.
111. The defendants named in this Count allowed an atmosphere
of
harassment and discrimination to exist in the Oneonta facility,
and failed to
properly screen applicants for employment, train them in
rudimentary
matters or supervise them during their work.
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 26 of
34
27
112. Warren actively participated in the assault and battery
upon the
plaintiff. Jones was present and took no action whatsoever to
stop the
assault aside from telling his subordinates to cut the plaintiff
loose.
113. Smith ratified the behavior of the other individual
defendants,
telling the plaintiff that “he had it coming,”
and
subsequently participated
directly in retaliatory behavior.
114. Harris ratified retaliatory behavior by issuing the letter
of
suspension to the plaintiff.
115. ALDOT has not, upon information and belief, terminated
the
employment of any of the named individual defendants who
participated in
this outrage. Instead, the plaintiff is still forced to work
with these men
every day.
116. The defendants named in this Count, and each of them,
owed
plaintiff a duty to act reasonably in the hiring, training,
supervision and
retention of employees and subordinates.
117. Defendants breached said duty by hiring individuals with
a
propensity for behavior such as that described in this
Complaint.
Defendants further breached that duty by failing to train or
supervise
employees to prevent harassment.
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 27 of
34
28
118. Prior to the events made the basis of this litigation,
plaintiff had
been duct taped to the hydraulic pole on other occasions. On one
such
occasion the ladies who worked in the office wrote on his
stomach in
lipstick. Photographs of this were taken and circulated
throughout the
Oneonta facility.
119. Thus, supervisory personnel were actually aware of the
likelihood of this to happen again, and took no action to
prevent it or to stop
it once it began. In point of fact, Warren actively
participated.
120.
Defendants’
breach of their duties to the plaintiff proximately
resulted in the plaintiff’s humiliation and suffering, and
caused damages
including physical pain and emotional distress and mental
anguish.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, plaintiff demands
judgment against The Alabama Department of Transportation,
Warren,
Jones, Smith and Harris, in such an amount as a jury may assess
as just,
including compensatory damages and the costs of this action,
including a
reasonable attorney’s fee.
COUNT XV
False Light Invasion of Privacy
Defendants Thomas, Standridge, Horn, Muvelhill, Warren,
Jones,
Deavers, Northcutt, White, Jennings and Teal
121. Plaintiff adopts and realleges each factual averment as if
fully
set forth herein.
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 28 of
34
29
122. While plaintiff was bound to the hydraulic lift pole and
brutally
assaulted, the defendants named in this Count took photographs
and possibly
videos of the plaintiff.
123. Although plaintiff has not seen said photos or videos,
upon
information and belief, such images depict the plaintiff, bound
hands, head
and torso to the lift pole, with his pants removed. Said images
may also
depict the Mountain Dew™ bottle near the plaintiff’s rectum.
124. These images were circulated among the employees of the
Oneonta facility, and were posted on the bulletin board in the
facility.
125. Upon information and belief, these images were posted
to
internet sites, such as facebook.com. Plaintiff was informed of
the existence
of said postings by various individuals in the community, and by
Special
Counsel to the Department of Transportation, during his
interview.
126. Publication of these images of the plaintiff, without
permission,
caused the plaintiff to appear in a false and defamatory light
in the public
eye.
127. Publication of these images was made with malice on the
part
of the defendants, and/or with reckless disregard to the harm
which would be
caused to plaintiff.
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 29 of
34
30
128. These images showing the plaintiff bound and
brutalized,
would be offensive to a reasonable person.
129. The publication of these images proximately caused damages
to
the plaintiff, including mental anguish and emotional distress.
Plaintiff’s
reputation in the community was damaged and he was subjected
to
harassment and ridicule.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, plaintiff demands
judgment against defendants Thomas, Standridge, Horn, Muvelhill,
Warren,
Jones, Deavers, Northcutt, White, Jennings and Teal, in such an
amount as a
jury may assess as just, including compensatory and punitive
damages and
the costs of this action, including a reasonable attorney’s
fee.
COUNT XVI
Negligence
Defendants Thomas, Standridge, Horn, Muvelhill, Warren,
Jones,
Deavers, Northcutt, White, Jennings and Teal
130. Plaintiff adopts and realleges each factual averment as if
fully
set forth herein.
131. The defendants named in this Count, and each of them, owed
a
duty to the plaintiff to act in a reasonable manner to prevent
causing injury
to him.
132. Defendants breached said duty on December 10, 2010,
through
both action and inaction, as more fully described above.
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 30 of
34
31
133.
Defendants’
breach of this duty proximately resulted in injury
to the plaintiff, including physical pain, restraint of his
freedom, and mental
distress and emotional anguish.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, plaintiff demands
judgment against defendants Thomas, Standridge, Horn, Muvelhill,
Warren,
Jones, Deavers, Northcutt, White, Jennings and Teal, in such an
amount as a
jury may assess as just, including compensatory damages and the
costs of
this action, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.
COUNT XVII
Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights, 42 U.S.C. §
1985(2)
Defendants Thomas and Mulvelhill
134. Plaintiff adopts and realleges each factual averment as if
fully
set forth herein.
135. After superiors outside the Oneonta facility learned of the
acts
perpetrated upon plaintiff, ALDOT launched an investigation.
When
Thomas and Mulvelhill learned that they were to be interviewed
concerning
the events of December 10, 2010, they approached the plaintiff
and
threatened to hurt or kill him if he were to testify.
136. This is a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985, in that Thomas
and
Mulvelhill agreed to intimidate the plaintiff to obstruct
justice, and carried
out overt acts in furtherance of said conspiracy.
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 31 of
34
32
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, plaintiff demands
judgment against the defendants Thomas and Mulvelhill, in such
an amount
as a jury may assess as just, and the costs of this action,
including a
reasonable attorney’s fee.
COUNT XVIII
Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights, 42 U.S.C. §
1985(3)
Defendants Thomas, Standridge, Horn, Muvelhill, Warren,
Jones,
Deavers, Northcutt, White and Jennings
137. Plaintiff adopts and realleges each factual averment as if
fully
set forth herein.
138. Defendants named in this Count agreed to deprive plaintiff
of
his civil rights, and committed overt acts in furtherance of
said conspiracy
when they ganged up, bound the plaintiff to a lift pole and
sexually assaulted
him.
139. As a proximate result of the completed conspiracy,
plaintiff was
deprived of his civil liberties and caused to suffer damages,
including
physical restraint, pain and mental anguish and emotional
distress.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, plaintiff demands
judgment against defendants Thomas, Standridge, Horn, Muvelhill,
Warren,
Jones, Deavers, Northcutt, White and Jennings, in such an amount
as a jury
may assess as just, including compensatory and punitive damages,
and the
costs of this action, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 32 of
34
33
COUNT XIX
Neglect to Prevent Interference with Civil Rights, 42 U.S.C. §
1986
Defendants Warren and Jones
140. Plaintiff adopts and realleges each factual averment as if
fully
set forth herein.
141. Defendants Warren and Jones were both present and
witnessed
the violations of plaintiff’s civil rights, as detailed above.
Both Warren and
Jones are supervisory employees, and had the authority to order
their
subordinates to stop abusing the plaintiff.
140. Warren and Jones had actual knowledge that their
subordinates
were committing or about to commit a violation of 42 U.S.C. §
1986, and
took no action to prevent said violation.
141. The neglect of Warren and Jones proximately resulted in
the
deprivation of the plaintiff’s civil liberties, as described
above.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, plaintiff demands
judgment against defendants Warren and Jones, in such an amount
as a jury
may assess as just, including the costs of this action and a
reasonable
attorney’s fee.
<s> Mary-Ellen Bates___
Mary-Ellen Bates
Gary A. Hetzel
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Case 2:12-cv-04056-RRA Document 1 Filed 12/10/12 Page 33 of
34
34
OF COUNSEL:
Bates, Hetzel, PC
The McAdory Building
2013 1
st
Avenue
North, Suite 450
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Telephone: (205) 453-0060
Facsimile: (205) 453-0042
PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY STRUCK JURY
