BatesHetzel.com
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Mary-Ellen Bates, Esq.
  • Gary A. Hetzel, Esq.
  • Contact Us
  • What We Do
  • Frequently Asked Questions

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

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.