in the united states district court · 2013-08-28 · anthony brown, byhisattorneys,...
Post on 01-Aug-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
•ANTHONY BROWN1120 Alexander AvenueCatonsville, MD 21228
Plaintiff,
v.
BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT601 East Fayette StreetBaltimore, Maryland 21222
Serve on:Legal AffairsBaltimore Police Departmentc/o 242 W. 29th StreetBaltimore, MD 21211
AND
BALTIMORE POLICE COMMISSIONER :FREDERICK H. BEALEFELD, IIIBaltimore Police Departmentc/o 242 W. 29th StreetBaltimore, MD 21211
AND
FORMER MAYOR SHEILA DIXON
Serve on:City SolicitorCity Hall, Room 101100 North Holliday St.Baltimore, MD 21202
AND
CITY COUNCIL OFBALTIMORE
•IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
OF THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
BALTIMORE DIVISION
Case No.: _
ROB11 CV0 1 3 6
c: ":l'-"" !j-t
•....., ;.:::..l c.....:;)""
)1--
-4-- --". -
- _:I:s.--,., ~J
C ~:"J :"J- --. .- r"-)~._.i} I_i. ~hf Z"..(') --0-~ "'_ ..•';i. ~< ~ .•. ,~.~- -Je- n -"1
,.< •.. ,
-- :- (1'1 OJ- W;t) ,-.L) --, ><
Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 1 of 24
•Serve on:
City SolicitorCity Hall, Room 101100 North Holliday St.Baltimore, MD 21202
AND
STATE OF MARYLAND
Serve on:Maryland Attorney General200 St. Paul PlaceBaltimore, Maryland 21202
AND
LIEUTENANT JOHN WINDLEBaltimore Police Departmentc/o 242 W. 29th StreetBaltimore, MD 21211
AND
SERGEANT ALLEN ADKINS.Baltimore Police Departmentc/o 242 W. 29th StreetBaltimore, MD 21211
Defendants....0000000 ...
•
"
COMPLAINT AND ELECTION OF JURY TRIAL
Anthony Brown, by his attorneys, Craig R. Schulman, David 1.Weinstein and Schulman, Treem
& Gilden, P.A., hereby file this Complaint against the above-captioned Defendants, for that:
NATURE OF CONTROVERSY
1. This is a civil action against Defendants for injuries and damages which Plaintiff, (former)
Detective Anthony Brown, sustained as a result of Defendants' negligent, grossly negligent,
2
Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 2 of 24
• •discriminatory, and/or retaliatory actions against him, in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act, 42 U.S.C. s2000e et seq. (hereinafter "Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. S1981, 42 U.S.C. S1983, 42 U.S.C.
SI985(3), 42 U.S.C. S1986, the Annotated Code of Maryland, and Maryland common law.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. Jurisdiction is proper over this matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. s2000e-5(f)(3), 28 U.S.C. S1331, and
28 U.S.C. s1367(a). Venue is proper in this jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C S1391(b) and 42 U.S.C.
s2000e-5(f)(3), in that all acts giving rise to these claims occurred in the District of Maryland.
3. All applicable administrative and procedural requirements have been satisfied. The Notice of
Right-to-Sue was issued by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on October
18,2010, and this suit is brought within ninety (90) days of Plaintiffs receipt of the Notice of Right-to-
Sue. The Notice of Right-to-Sue is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
PARTIES
4. Plaintiff, Anthony Brown, is and was at all times relevant herein, a citizen of the United States of
America. Plaintiff is an African-American male, and was, at all times relevant herein, at least 18 years
of age. For purposes of relief sought herein, Plaintiff is a person within the meaning of Title VII and 42
U.S.C. S1981.
5. Defendant, Baltimore City Police Department (hereinafter "the Department"), is an agency of the
State of Maryland pursuant to the Baltimore City Code of Public Laws gI6-2(a), and whose police
power is conferred by the Mayor and City Counsel of Baltimore, pursuant to the Baltimore City Charter,
Article II, S27. The Department is or was the employer of Plaintiff and Defendants Bealefe1d, Windle,
and Adkins, as set forth herein and within the meaning of Title VII. At all times relevant herein, the
Department condoned, ratified, authorized and/or engaged in the discriminatory practices, policies, and
3
Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 3 of 24
• •wrongful acts described in this Complaint through its agents/employees. For purposes of relief sought
herein, Defendant Department is a person within the meaning of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. S1983.
6. Defendant, Commissioner Frederick H. Bealefeld III (hereinafter "Bealefeld"), is and was at all
times relevant herein, the Commissioner of the Department. At all times relevant herein, Defendant
Bealefeld condoned, ratified, authorized and/or engaged in the discriminatory practices, policies and
wrongful acts described in this Complaint through its agents/employees. For purposes of relief sought
herein, Defendant Bealefeld is a person within the meaning of Title VII and 42 U.S.c. S1983, and an
employer as defined in 42 U.S.C. s2000e.
7. Defendant, Mayor Sheila Dixon (hereinafter "Dixon"), was at all times relevant herein, the Mayor
of the City of Baltimore. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Dixon ratified, authorized and/or
engaged in the discriminatory practices, policies and wrongful acts described in this Complaint through
its agents/employees. For purposes of relief sought herein, Defendant Dixon is a person within the
meaning of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. S1983, and an employer as defined in 42 U.S.C. s2000e.
8. Defendant, Mayor & City Council, (hereinafter "City"), is a municipal corporation governed by
Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maryland.
At all times relevant herein, Defendant City confers police powers upon the Department and supervises
all Baltimore Police Department Officials, and as such, either engaged in or ratified the discriminatory
customs, practices, policies, and wrongful acts described in this Complaint through the agents and
employees of the Baltimore Police Department in existence at the time. For purposes of relief sought
herein, Defendant City is a person within the meaning of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. S1983, and an
employer as defined in 42 U.S.C. s2000e.
4
Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 4 of 24
•9. Defendant, State of Maryland (hereinafter "State"), is a governmental entity, and is an employer as
defined in 42 U.S.C. s2000e. At all times relevant herein, Defendant State, through its agents and/or
employees, condoned, ratified, authorized and/or engaged in the discriminatory practices and wrongful
acts described in this Complaint. For purposes of relief sought herein, Defendant State is a person within
the meaning of Title VII.
10. At all times relevant herein, the Defendant, Detective John Windle (hereinafter "Windle"), was a
police officer employed by the Department and was acting as an agent, servant and/or employee of the
Department and was further acting during, in furtherance of and within the scope of said agency,
servitude, and/or employment. For purposes of relief sought herein, Defendant Windle is a person
within the meaning of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. S1983, as defined in 42 U.S.C. s2000e.
11. At all times relevant herein, the Defendant, Sergeant Allen Adkins (hereinafter "Adkins"), was a
police officer employed by the Department and was acting as an agent, servant and/or employee of the
Department and was further acting during, in furtherance of and within the scope of said agency,
servitude, and/or employment. For purposes of relief sought herein, Defendant Adkins is a person
within the meaning of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. S1983, and an employer as defined in 42 U.S.C. s2000e.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
12. Plaintiff began his employment with the Department on or about May 6, 1992. Prior to that date,
Plaintiff spent approximately nine (9) years as a member of the U.S. Army (1982-1991). Throughout
his entire career as a police and/or military officer, it has been well-documented and widely known
and/or presumed that Brown was diagnosed with Pseudofolliculitis Barbae (hereinafter referred to as
"PFB"), a skin condition common to African-American men, and therefore was deemed and/or
presumed to have a legitimate shaving profile at all times relevant throughout his professional career.
5
Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 5 of 24
• •PFB has been recognized by Maryland Courts as a disability because it is a condition significant enough
to impair a major life activity.
13. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff had achieved the rank of Detective with the Baltimore City
Police Department, and was working in that capacity with the Department at the time of the incident(s)
relevant to this Complaint. The Rules and Regulations, which govern and/or contain all policies and
procedures relevant to this Complaint, are known as the General Orders (hereinafter referred to as the
"G.O.").
14. General Order C-12 defines Professional Appearance Standards for active police officers. The
provisions of G.O. C-12, 15-19.1 generally prohibit any facial hair, but make an explicit exception in
section 19 for, "a member who is suffering from a skin condition such as PFB and is unable to shave."
If a member receives a waiver from the Professional Appearance Standards due to PFB, Section 19
allows him to "clip the beard as close as medically permitted (normally 'i4 inch in length)." Prior to the
incident at issue in this Complaint, Plaintiff had never had any "grooming issues" with the Department,
and had maintained the same type of facial hair appearance for most if not all of his time as a member of
the BPD without any issue or complaint.
15. On or about January 13, 2009, Defendant Adkins informed Plaintiff that he needed to his shaving
profile. On or about January 14, 2009, pursuant to Sgt. Adkins' request, Plaintiff visited his long time
dermatologist, Larry H. Gaston, M.D., who provided him with an updated letter confirming that he had
PFB, pursuant to Adkins' request. Said letter expressly stated that the condition (PFB) as one that, "can
produce a severe skin infection, which can lead to extensive scarring of the beard region of the face as a
consequence of shaving." Furthermore, Dr. Gaston recommended that Brown, "be exempted
6
Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 6 of 24
• •permanently from any type of shaving requirement, with a razor or a depilatory." Dr. Gaston's letter is
attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
16. On or about January 14, 2009, Plaintiff presented a copy of the above-referenced letter to
Defendant Adkins and Defendant Adkins' assistant.
17. On or about January 16, 2009, Plaintiff attended role call in preparation for the detail associated
with then President-Elect Obama's visit to Baltimore the next day. At that time, Defendant Windle gave
the officers their orders for the detail and effectively told them all that they needed to be "clean-shaven"
for the event.
18. At that time, Plaintiff raised his hand and indicated to Defendants Windle and Adkins that he had
medical documentation and/or a shaving profile excusing him from shaving pursuant to Defendant
Windle's instructions. Defendant Windle then indicated that he was not concerned about the fact that
Plaintiff had a shaving profile and gave him a direct order to shave anyway. Upon information and
belief, Sergeant Rhonda McCoy then raised her hand and effectively asked Defendant Windle whether
he, "understood what he was asking Plaintiff to do." Defendant Windle responded to Sgt. McCoy's
statement in a manner indicating that he did not care that Plaintiff had a shaving profile and reaffirmed
his order requiring the Plaintiff to shave.
19. Plaintiff was so concerned and upset about this order that he went to discuss the issue with Gene S.
Ryan (hereinafter "Ryan"), Vice President of the Baltimore Fraternal Order of Police (hereinafter
"F.O.P."). At that time, Ryan indicated that due to the fact that Brown was given a direct order, in the
event that he decided not to obey said direct order, he could and/or would be subject to immediate
suspension, and could and/or would lose his police powers and privileges if he failed to follow that
7
Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 7 of 24
• •order. In addition, Ryan also indicated that he had discussed the incident with Deputy Commissioner
Barksdale as well.
20. On or about January 17,2009, Plaintiff reported for duty on time, and had shaved to the best of his
ability, under the circumstances, without aggravating his skin condition. Almost immediately,
Defendant Windle walked directly over to Plaintiff and told Brown that he wanted him to be, "clean-
shaven." Defendants Windle and Adkins then indicated to Brown they had a razor on-hand for Brown
to use. Plaintiff then advised Defendants Windle and Adkins that if he used his razor, he would break
out severely. Then, in front of everyone present at that time, Defendants Windle and Adkins provided
Brown with a yellow plastic Bic razor and small bottle of shaving cream, and ordered Detective Brown
to shave right then and there in front of everyone without the use of water and/or a mirror. Despite the
Defendants' contentions to the contrary, Brown was not afforded the opportunity to use the bathroom
facilities with running water. In order to avoid further punishment, humiliation and embarrassment,
Brown reluctantly decided that he had no choice but to do as he was told and shave right then and there
in front of the entire Department. As a result, not only did Brown suffer tremendous humiliation,
embarrassment and mental anguish, but he also aggravated his PFB as well, causing him to suffer
tremendous physical pain, discomfort and disfigurement as well.
21. In the days immediately following this incident, Plaintiff was called into the Colonel's office along
with Defendant Adkins to discuss the incident and lingering issues between them. On or around January
24, 2009, Plaintiff was given an extremely poor rating on his green-sheet. The incident of January 17,
2009, and lingering issues thereafter remained unresolved, and Plaintiff was subsequently denied the
opportunity to choose his foot details and vacation days in the priority according to his seniority,
pursuant to existing Department policy and standards; and was further denied the opportunity to earn
8
Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 8 of 24
• •overtime, despite persistent requests to both Adkins and/or Windle to do so. Plaintiff was also denied of
opportunity to earn overtime based on the incorrect reports that he had missed three (3) prior overtime
shifts and was further denied other benefits that would normally be afforded to an officer of Plaintiff s
senior status and/or stellar performance record, and was forced to endure a significant reduction in pay
and loss of above-mentioned privileges as a result.
22. As a result, Plaintiff was forced to endure a tremendous reduction in pay and was caused to suffer
tremendous financial hardship, which is still impacting Brown and his family to this day. Furthermore,
it was Brown's poor performance rating as well as the fractured relationships with both Adkins and
Windle, stemming from this incident, which caused said superior officers to retaliate against Brown and
deny him opportunities to receive overtime and/or any and/or all other benefits which officers of his
rand and tenure are typically afforded. Plaintiff's bad performance rating and subsequent loss of the
above-mentioned privileges were direct results of the Defendants' retaliatory actions relating to this
matter.
23. On or about May 21, 2009, Plaintiff filed a statement with Lieutenant Colonel Oden. Then, on or
about May 28, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination against the Department with the
Maryland Commission on Human Rights (See attached Exhibit 3 and 4 - E.E.O.C. Intake Questionnaire
and Charge of Discrimination, respectively). Plaintiff reluctantly retired from the Department on or
about August, 13, 2009 due to the lingering effects and the retaliatory actions of the above-named
Defendants. Furthermore, Plaintiff had no intention of retiring from the Baltimore Police Department at
that time, and was essentially forced into that position due to Defendants' actions and/or retaliatory
actions which were the direct and proximate cause of the tremendous financial hardship that the Plaintiff
and his family was forced to endure.
9
Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 9 of 24
• •24. On or about October 18, 2010, Plaintiff received Notice of Right to Sue from the United States
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, dated October 18, 2010. Plaintiff has ninety (90) days
from the date that he received the Notice of Right-to-Sue, which was October 20, 2010. Therefore,
Plaintiff is required to file this lawsuit on or before January 18, 2010. Thus, this Complaint was timely
and properly filed as required under both Federal and State laws.
COUNT I -- Violation of Title VII and Maryland Fair Employment Practices - Disparate
Treatment (Against all Defendants)
25. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 24 above with the same force and effect as
if fully set forth herein.
26. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, g2000e et seq. provides in pertinent part that:
"it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse tohire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against anyindividual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges ofemployment, because of such individual's race, color, religions, sex, or nationalorigin."
27. Title 20, g601 et seq. of the Annotated Code of Maryland State Government Article (hereinafter
"Title 20"), provides in pertinent part that an employer may not:
"fail or refuse to hire, discharge, or otherwise to discriminate against any individualwith respect to the individual's compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges ofemployment, because of the individual's race, color, religions, sex, age, nationalorigin, marital status, sexual orientation, genetic information, or disability unrelatedin nature and extent so as to reasonably preclude the performance ofemployment. .."
28. For the first time in his career as a member of the Baltimore City Police Department, Plaintiff was
ordered to shave clean on or around January 14, 2009. In an effort to document his shaving profile,
Plaintiff provided documentation from his physician diagnosing his PFB. Despite such documentation,
10
Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 10 of 24
• •Defendant Windle ordered Plaintiff to shave and said, "this is not a negotiation." Defendant Windle has
subsequently said that, Plaintiff "has an annoying tendency to negotiate for an outcome that better suits
his point of view." Pursuant to the General Orders governing shaving profiles, Plaintiff shaved within
the allowable limit in an attempt to comply with Defendant Windle's orders. Despite this effort,
Defendants Windle and Adkins ordered Plaintiff to shave, and provided him with a plastic razor, but
denied him the basic shaving necessities of a mirror or water. They indicated to Plaintiff that if he liked
his job, he had better shave. Afraid to lose his job and livelihood, Plaintiff shaved without water or a
mirror, in front of colleagues.
29. Similarly, when Plaintiff tried to explain he condition to Defendant Adkins as one that only affects
African American men, Defendant Adkins indicated he was glad he did not have this problem because
he was half Caucasian and half African American.
30. In the months after the January 17, 2010 incident, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to choose
his foot details and vacation days in the priority pursuant to his seniority, in accordance with policy;
denied of the opportunity to earn overtime, despite persistent requests to do so; denied the opportunity to
earn overtime, based on the incorrect reports that he had missed three prior overtime shifts; denied other
benefits that would normally be afforded to an officer of Plaintiffs senior status and/or stellar
performance record; and suffered a subsequent reduction in pay and loss of above-mentioned privileges.
31. As such, Defendants violated Title VII and Title 20 by requiring Plaintiff to shave under unthinkable
conditions, despite the fact that his condition was documented and that the Department's policy was to
make exceptions for officers with shaving profiles; and causing Plaintiff to be denied opportunities
normally afforded to officers of the same standing and seniority. To Plaintiffs knowledge, no other
officers with PFB had been subjected to such treatment. Defendants further violated Title VII and Title
11
Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 11 of 24
,--~~----_._--~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~- ----
• •20 by engaging in policies and practices that maliciously, intentionally, and unlawfully discriminated
against Plaintiff, with race and color being the motivating factor for such policies and practices.
32. As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff has no adequate remedy or complete remedy at law.
Fearing the loss of his livelihood, Plaintiff was forced to shave in conditions that were dangerous to him.
As a result, he was caused to suffer severe, painful and permanent bodily injuries, humiliation,
embarrassment, loss of time and wages from his employment, future financial loss, emotional pain,
suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, other non-pecuniary losses over and
beyond back pay, interest on back pay, and Plaintiff was otherwise injured and damaged.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against individual Defendants for compensatory
damages in an amount no less than Two and a Half Million dollars ($2,500,000.00), punitive damages in
an amount deemed reasonable and appropriate by the Court or a jury, and any other relief, including but
not limited to, the injunctive relief to restore the Plaintiff the opportunity for privileges denied him by
Defendants, in addition to any and all additional relief that this Court or a jury deems reasonable and
appropriate.
COUNT II -- Violation of Title VII and Maryland Fair Employment Practices - Retaliation
(Against all Defendants)
33. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 32 above with the same force and effect as
if fully set forth herein.
34. Plaintiff engaged in protected activities, including but not limited to: contacting the F.O.P.
regarding discriminatory practices of Defendants Windle and Adkins; filing internal and/or external
grievances and complaints against Defendants; and complaining about discrimination in the Department
generally. Therefore, the Defendants were aware of Plaintiffs complaint.
12
Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 12 of 24
• •35. As a result of Plaintiffs communications with the F.O.P., filing of grievances and complaining
against Defendants, Plaintiff was subjected to material adverse actions and disparate treatment by
Defendants, specifically: a drastically lower rating on his green-sheet, his lowest ever; denial of the
opportunity to choose his foot details and vacation days in the priority pursuant to his seniority, in
accordance with a policy; denial of the opportunity to earn overtime, despite persistent requests to do
so; denial of opportunity to earn overtime based on the incorrect reports that he had missed three prior
overtime shifts; denial of any other benefits that would normally be afforded to an officer of Plaintiff s
senior status and/or stellar performance record; and a subsequent reduction in pay and loss of above-
mentioned privileges. Defendants violated Title VII and Title 20 by engaging in policies and practices
that maliciously, intentionally, and unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiff.
36. As a result of Defendants' retaliatory actions, Plaintiff has no adequate remedy or complete remedy
at law. Plaintiff was caused to suffer severe, painful and permanent bodily injuries, humiliation, loss of
time and wages from his employment, future financial loss, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience,
mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, other non-pecuniary losses over and beyond back-pay, interest
on back-pay, and Plaintiff was otherwise injured and damaged.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against individual Defendants for compensatory
damages in an amount no less than Two and a Half Million dollars ($2,500,000.00), punitive damages in
an amount deemed reasonable and appropriate by the Court or a jury, and any other relief, including but
not limited to, the injunctive relief to restore the Plaintiff the opportunity for privileges denied him by
Defendants, in addition to any and all additional relief that this Court or a jury deems reasonable and
appropriate.
13
Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 13 of 24
• •COUNT III -- Violation of Title VII and Maryland Fair Employment Practices - Constructive
Discharge (Against all Defendants)
37. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 36 above with the same force and effect
as if fully set forth herein.
38. The shaving incident of January 17, 2009 and subsequent and intentional actions taken by
Defendants made Plaintiffs working conditions intolerable. Plaintiffs race, his initial objection to
shaving due to his PFB, his communication with the F.O.P., and/or his internal and external complaints
regarding the mistreatment that he suffered by the Defendants were the motivating factors in the
aforementioned actions and/or behavior of the Defendants.
39. Plaintiffs resignation was a reasonably foreseeable result of Defendants blatant neglect and
disregard of Plaintiffs safety and health concerns, giving Plaintiff a poor review in the week following
the incident, limiting Plaintiff s opportunity to choose shifts and vacation, and denying Plaintiff the
opportunity to work overtime. Defendants Adkins and Windle acted with the intent of forcing Plaintiff
to resign. Therefore, Defendants violated Title VII and Title 20 by engaging in policies and practices
that maliciously, intentionally, and unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiff.
40. As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff has no adequate remedy or complete remedy at law.
Plaintiff was caused to suffer severe, painful and permanent bodily injuries, humiliation, loss of time and
wages from his employment, future financial loss, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental
anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, other non-pecuniary losses over and beyond back pay, interest on
back pay, and Plaintiff was otherwise injured and damaged.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against individual Defendants for compensatory
damages in an amount no less than Two and a Half Million dollars ($2,500,000.00), punitive damages in
14
Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 14 of 24
• •.
an amount deemed reasonable and appropriate by the Court or a jury, and any other relief, including but
not limited to, the injunctive relief to restore the Plaintiff the opportunity for privileges denied him by
Defendants, in addition to any and all additional relief that this Court or a jury deems reasonable and
appropriate.
COUNT IV -- Violation of 42 U.S.c. ~1981(against all Defendants)
41. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 40 with the same force and effect as if fully
set forth herein.
42. 42 U .S.C. S1981 provides in pertinent part that "all persons within the jurisdiction of the United
States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts and to the full
and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by
white citizens."
43. Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. S1981 by willfully and maliciously denying Plaintiff the opportunity
to choose his foot details and vacation days in the priority pursuant to his seniority, in accordance with
policy; denial of the opportunity to earn overtime, despite persistent requests to do so; denial of
opportunity to earn overtime based on the incorrect reports that he had missed three prior overtime
shifts; denial of any other benefits that would normally be afforded to an officer of Plaintiffs senior
status and/or stellar performance record; and a subsequent reduction in pay and loss of above-mentioned
privileges.
44. As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff has no adequate remedy or complete remedy at law.
Plaintiff was caused to suffer severe, painful and permanent bodily injuries, humiliation, loss of time and
wages from his employment, future financial loss, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental
15
Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 15 of 24
• •
IL __
anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, other non-pecuniary losses over and beyond back pay, interest on
back pay, and Plaintiff was otherwise injured and damaged.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against individual Defendants for compensatory
damages in an amount no less than Two and a Half Million dollars ($2,500,000.00), punitive damages in
an amount deemed reasonable and appropriate by the Court or a jury, and any other relief, including but
not limited to, the injunctive relief to restore the Plaintiff the opportunity for privileges denied him by
Defendants, in addition to any and all additional relief that this Court or a jury deems reasonable and
appropriate.
COUNT V --Violation of 42 U.S.c. ~1983(Against Department, Commissioner, Dixon, and City)
45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 44 with the same force and effect as if fully
set forth herein.
46. Defendants have, by the actions described herein, acted under the color of state law to discriminate
and/or retaliate against Plaintiff on the basis of race, by forcing him to shave despite a diagnosis of PFB
and denying privileges and benefits in subsequent months, thereby depriving Plaintiff of the rights,
privileges and immunities secured to him by the Constitution; the laws of the United States, the State of
Maryland, the City of Baltimore and the Baltimore City Police Department; and in direct violation of the
Civil Rights Act of 1871,42 U.S.C. 91983. Such injury has been and will continue to be irreparable.
47. As a direct and proximate result of these acts, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer loss of
employment, loss of income, loss of other employment benefits, and has suffered and continues to suffer
physical pain, distress, humiliation, great expense, embarrassment, and damage to reputation.
48. The acts of Defendants, in depriving Plaintiff of his constitutional and civil rights were willful and
malicious. As a result of Defendants' reckless and intentional acts, Plaintiff was caused to suffer severe,
16
Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 16 of 24
• •painful and permanent bodily injuries, humiliation, loss of time and wages from his employment, future
financial loss, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, other
non-pecuniary losses over and beyond back pay, interest on back pay, and Plaintiff was otherwise
injured and damaged.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against individual Defendants for compensatory
damages in an amount no less than Two and a Half Million dollars ($2,500,000.00), punitive damages in
an amount deemed reasonable and appropriate by the Court or a jury, and any other relief, including but
not limited to, the injunctive relief to restore the Plaintiff the opportunity for privileges denied him by
Defendants, in addition to any and all additional relief that this Court or a jury deems reasonable and
appropriate.
COUNT VI -- Violation of 42 U.S.c. 1985(3) (Against all Defendants)
49. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 48 with the same force and effect as if fully
set forth herein.
50. This claim is brought under 42 U.S.C. 1985(3). Section (3) prohibits in pertinent part, "two or more
persons in any State or Territory [to] conspire .. , for the purpose of depriving, either directly or
indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and
immunities under the laws ... " In this instance, Defendants Adkins and Windle conspired with and
amongst each other to deny Plaintiff the rights, privileges and immunities, and equal protection of the
laws to which he is entitled under the Constitution and laws of the United States in violation of 42
U.S.C. S1985(3). The purpose of the aforementioned conspiracy was to violate the constitutional rights
of the Plaintiff and as such violated 42 U.S.C. 1985(3).
17
Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 17 of 24
• •51. The actions and omissions committed by Defendants described herein were willful and malicious
and motivated by invidious racial animus toward African Americans; an individual with a documented
condition meeting the requirements of a shaving profile, also a condition recognized as a disability under
the laws of this state; and/or for exercising his Constitutional rights by voicing his complaints of
mistreatment and disparate treatment to the F.O.P., the Department, ~nd the E.E.O.C. At all times
relevant to this Complaint, the Defendants knew or should have reasonably known that the Plaintiff was
a member of one (l) and/or all of those classes.
52. As a direct result of this conspiracy, Defendants have caused Plaintiff to suffer great injury, and
have deprived him of his rights and privileges guaranteed to him under the Constitution and laws of the
United States. Furthermore, all of the individual Defendants, as public officials, knew and/or should
have known of the conspiracy in violation of Section 1985, but failed and/or refused to prevent, prohibit
and ameliorate the aforementioned conspiracies notwithstanding their abilities to do so. Said failure
and/or refusal to prevent, prohibit and/or ameliorate constituted a direct violation of 42 U.S.C. 1985.
53. The actions of Defendants, in depriving Plaintiff of his constitutional and civil rights were willful
and malicious. As a result of Defendants' reckless and intentional acts, Plaintiff was caused to suffer
severe, painful and permanent bodily injuries, humiliation, loss oftime and wages from his employment,
future financial loss, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life,
other non-pecuniary losses over and beyond back pay, interest on back pay, and Plaintiff was otherwise
injured and damaged.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against individual Defendants for compensatory
damages in an amount no less than Two and a Half Million dollars ($2,500,000.00), punitive damages in
an amount deemed reasonable and appropriate by the Court or a jury, and any other relief, including but
18
Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 18 of 24
• •not limited to, the injunctive relief to restore the Plaintiff the opportunity for privileges denied him by
Defendants, in addition to any and all additional relief that this Court or a jury deems reasonable and
appropriate.
COUNT VII -- Violation of 42 U.S.c. 1986 (Against Defendants Adkins and Windle)
54. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 53 with the same force and effect as if fully
set forth herein.
55. Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. S1985(3), as set forth herein. Defendants Adkins and Windle had
actual knowledge of the alleged discriminatory acts relevant to this Complaint because they conspired
against Plaintiff and ordered Plaintiff to shave, despite his condition, and subsequently subjected him to
retaliatory treatment for expressing concern about his condition and filing formal complaints against
them. As such, Defendants Adkins and Windle were directly involved in many of the acts and
circumstances that led to this Complaint.
56. As a result of Defendants' grossly negligent, reckless and/or intentional acts, Plaintiff was caused to
suffer severe, painful and permanent bodily injuries, humiliation, loss of time and wages from his
employment, future financial loss, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of
enjoyment of life, other non-pecuniary losses over and beyond back pay, interest on back pay, and
Plaintiff was otherwise injured and damaged.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against individual Defendants for compensatory
damages in an amount no less than Two and a Half Million dollars ($2,500,000.00), punitive damages in
an amount deemed reasonable and appropriate by the Court or a jury, and any other relief, including but
not limited to, the injunctive relief to restore the Plaintiff the opportunity for privileges denied him by
19
Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 19 of 24
r--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---- -----------------
• •Defendants, in addition to any and all additional relief that this Court or a jury deems reasonable and
appropriate.
COUNT VIII -- Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Against Defendants Adkins, Windle
and Department)
57. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 57 with the same force and effect as if fully
set forth herein.
58. This claim is brought pursuant to the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1367(a).
59. Defendants' behavior in forcing Plaintiff to shave in front of his peers without water and a mirror,
despite his diagnosed severe skin condition, constituted intentionally extreme and outrageous behavior.
60. As a result of Defendants' reckless and intentional acts, Plaintiff was caused to suffer severe,
painful and permanent bodily injuries, humiliation, loss of time and wages from his employment, future
financial loss, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, other
non-pecuniary losses over and beyond back pay, interest on back pay, and Plaintiff was otherwise
injured and damaged.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against individual Defendants for compensatory
damages in an amount no less than Two and a Half Million dollars ($2,500,000.00), punitive damages in
an amount deemed reasonable and appropriate by the Court or a jury, and any other relief, including but
not limited to, the injunctive relief to restore the Plaintiff the opportunity for privileges denied him by
Defendants, in addition to any and all additional relief that this Court or a jury deems reasonable and
appropriate.
20
Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 20 of 24
• •
Respectfully submitted,
~~#~David 1.Weinstein, EsquireCraig R. Schulman, EsquireSCHULMAN, TREEM & GILDEN, P.A.Suite 1800 - 18th FloorThe World Trade Center401 East Pratt StreetBaltimore, Maryland 21202Phone: 401/332-0850Fax: 401/332-0866Email: cschulman@schulmantreem.comMaryland Bar #: 37413Email: dweinstein@schulmantreem.comU.S. District Court #: 10715
21
Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 21 of 24
•JURY TRIAL DEMAND
•
Plaintiff hereby elects to have all issues in the above-captioned matter decided by a jury.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~.R:~David I. Weinstein, EsquireCraig R. Schulman, EsquireSCHULMAN, TREEM & GILDEN, P.A.Suite 1800 - 18th FloorThe World Trade Center401 East Pratt StreetBaltimore, Maryland 21202Phone: 401/332-0850Fax: 401/332-0866Email: cschulman@schulmantreem.comMaryland Bar #: 37413Email: dweinstein@schulmantreem.comU.S. District Court #: 10715
26
Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 22 of 24
• •CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this __ day of January, 2011, a copy of the foregoing Complaint was mailed fIrst class,postage pre-paid, to:
BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT601 East Fayette StreetBaltimore, Maryland 21222
Serve on:Legal AffairsBaltimore Police Departmentc/o 242 W. 29th StreetBaltimore, MD 21211
AND
BALTIMORE POLICE COMMISSIONERFREDERICK H. BEALEFELD, IIIBaltimore Police Departmentc/o 242 W. 29th StreetBaltimore, MD 21211
AND
FORMER MAYOR SHEILA DIXON
Serve on:City SolicitorCity Hall, Room 101100 North Holliday St.Baltimore, MD 21202
AND
MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OFBALTIMORE
Serve on:City SolicitorCity Hall, Room 101100 North Holliday St.Baltimore, MD 21202
AND
STATE OF MARYLAND
Serve on:Maryland Attorney General200 St. Paul PlaceBaltimore, Maryland 21202
27
Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 23 of 24
•AND
LIEUTENANT JOHN WINDLEBaltimore Police Departmentc/o 242 W. 29th StreetBaltimore, MD 21211
AND
SERGEANT ALLEN ADKINS.Baltimore Police Departmentc/o 242 W. 29th StreetBaltimore, MD 21211
•
~/~~David I. WeinsteinCraig R. Schulman
28
Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 24 of 24
top related