in the united states district court · 2013-08-28 · anthony brown, byhisattorneys,...

•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 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


• •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


• •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


•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


• •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


• •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


• •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


• •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


• •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


• •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


,--~~----_._--~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~- ----

• •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


• •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.






appropriate.

13


• •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.


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.



14


• •.




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.


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


• •

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.






appropriate.

COUNT V --Violation of 42 U.S.c. ~1983(Against Department, Commissioner, Dixon, and City)


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


• •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.






appropriate.

COUNT VI -- Violation of 42 U.S.c. 1985(3) (Against all Defendants)


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


• •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





18


• •not limited to, the injunctive relief to restore the Plaintiff the opportunity for privileges denied him by


appropriate.

COUNT VII -- Violation of 42 U.S.c. 1986 (Against Defendants Adkins and Windle)


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.





19


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)


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







appropriate.

20


• •

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: [email protected] Bar #: 37413Email: [email protected]. District Court #: 10715

21


•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: [email protected] Bar #: 37413Email: [email protected]. District Court #: 10715

26


• •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


AND

MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OFBALTIMORE


AND

STATE OF MARYLAND

Serve on:Maryland Attorney General200 St. Paul PlaceBaltimore, Maryland 21202

27


•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


in the united states district court · 2013-08-28 · anthony brown, byhisattorneys,...

Documents