richard roe v. city of atlanta
DESCRIPTION
An HIV-positive man filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Atlanta and its police department in 2008 after he was denied a job based on his HIV status.TRANSCRIPT
FLIED IN CLERK'S OFFICEU.S.D.C. Atlanta~~. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSEP 0 52008
JAMES 7TEN, Cfe,kBy:
Depu ~
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIAATLANTA DIVISION
Defendants .
in detail below, Defendants conspired to subject Roe to an unlawful pre-
RICHARD ROE,an individual,
Plaintiff,
V .
CITY OF ATLANTA,ATLANTA POLICE DEPARTMENT,CADUCEUS OCCUPATIONALMEDICINE, LLC andALTON GREENS, MD
CIVIL ACTION FILENO.
1 rv Trial Demandeu
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Richard Roe ("Plaintiff ' or "Roe"), by his attorneys, files this
Complaint against Defendants, City of Atlanta, City of Atlanta Police Department,
Caduceus Occupational Medicine, LLC and Alton Greene, MD (collectively the
"Defendants"), and states as follows :
NATURE OF THE ACTION
Richard Roe brings this action to remedy improper testing and employment
discrimination based upon his having tested positive for the HIV virus . As alleged
Case 1:08-cv-02799-MHS Document 1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 1 of 28
-2-
employment HIV test and have, acting in concert, denied him employment as an
Atlantaa police officer because of his disability . Defendants did so despite the fact
that Roe is fully capable of performing all duties required of him as a police officer
and that he poses no safety risk in performance of this job . Defendants' conduct
has harmed Roe and violated his right to be free from disability-based
discrimination, his privacy rights, and his right to equal protection of the laws .
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
L This action is brought to remedy discrimination on the basis of
disability in violation of Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, as
amended, 42 U .S .C . §§ 12101 et seq . (the "ADA") and Section 504 of the Federal
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 , as amended, 29 U.S .C . § 794 et seq. ("Rehabilitation
Act"). This action is also brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the United States
and Constitution to remedy the violation of Roe's constitutional rights to privacy
and equal protection.
2. Roe timely filed a charge of discrimination against the City of Atlanta
Police Department with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
("EEOC") alleging a violation of the ADA. A redacted copy of the EEOC charge
is attached as Exhibit A. On July 1, 2008, the EEOC issued a Notice of Right to
Sue in the United States District Court. A redacted copy of the Notice of Right to
Case 1:08-cv-02799-MHS Document 1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 2 of 28
-3-
Sue is attached as Exhibit B . Roe filed his Complaint within ninety days of his
receipt of the Notice of Right to Sue.
3 . This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U .S .C . §§ 1331, 1337,
1343 ; 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a); and 29 U.S .C. §794(a)(2). Injunctive relief and
damages are sought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a); 29 U.S.C. § 794 (a)(2) ; and
42 U.S.C. § 1 983 .
4. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Roe's state law claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C . § 1367, as these claims arise from the same common nucleus
of operative facts from which the federal statutory and constitutional claims arise .
5 . Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U .S .C . § 1391(b). This is the judicial
district where Roe and Defendants reside and where the practices alleged to be
unlawful were committed .
PARTIES
6 . Plaintiff, Roe, is a Georgia resident, and is infected with the human
immunodeficiency virus .
7. Defendant City of Atlanta is an employer and municipality in the
State of Georgia . The City of Atlantaa is responsible for the operations of the
Atlanta Police Department, including but not limited to the creation and
implementation of all policies and practices of the Atlanta Police Department . The
Case 1:08-cv-02799-MHS Document 1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 3 of 28
-4-
City of Atlanta employs 15 or more persons and is an employer and a covered
entity under the ADA (42 U .S.C. §§ 12111(2), (5)) . Also, upon information and
belief, the City of Atlantaa receives federal financial assistance relating to the
operation of the Atlanta Police Department, and, therefore constitutes a "program
or activity" covered under the Rehabilitation Act (29 U .S .C . § 794) .
8 . Defendant Atlanta Police Department is a governmental entity . The
Atlanta Police Department employs 15 or more persons and is an employer and a
covered entity under the ADA (42 U .S .C . §§ 12111(2), (5)) . Also, upon
information and belief, the Atlanta Police Department receives federal financial
assistance relating to its operation and, therefore constitutes a "program or
activity" covered under the Rehabilitation Act (29 U .S .C. § 794) .
9. Defendants City of Atlanta and Atlanta Police Department are subject
to the jurisdiction of this court and may be served with the Complaint and
Summons by delivering a copy of the same to : Elizabeth Chandler, City Attorney,
City of Atlanta Law Department, 55 Trinity Avenue, SW, Atlanta GA, 30303-
3520.
10 . Defendant Caduceus Occupational Medicine, LLC (hereinafter
"Caduceus") is a Georgia limited liability company doing business in Fulton
County, Georgia. Defendant Caduceus' principal office address is 3 Cascade
Case 1:08-cv-02799-MHS Document 1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 4 of 28
-5-
Pointe DR SW, Atlanta, GA 30331 . Defendant Caduceus may be served with
process through its registered agent, Dr . Stephen A. Dawkins, 3 Cascade Pointe
DR SW, Atlanta, GA 30331 .
11 . Defendant Alton Greene, MD (hereinafter "Dr. Greene"), is a natural
person who committed tortious acts against Plaintiff in Fulton County, Georgia .
Defendant Dr. Greene is a physician licensed to practice medicine in Georgia .
Defendant Dr. Greene may be served at his place of his employment : Caduceus
Occupational Medicine, Midtown Clinic, 145 North Avenue NE, Atlanta, Georgia,
30308.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Atlanta Police Department's Medical Screening Enterprise
12. The hiring process conducted by the City of Atlanta Police
Department to identify and retain new officers is a lengthy process involving many
steps .
13 . The steps of the Atlanta Police Department hiring process involve the
completion of an application and background check on all applicants, and a pre-
employment medical examination .
14 . Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this Complaint,
the City of Atlanta has maintained a policy and/or custom of not hiring persons to
Case 1:08-cv-02799-MHS Document 1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 5 of 28
- 6-
be Atlanta police officers who test positive for the human immunodeficiency virus
("HIV").
15 . Defendant Caduceus is a multi-site Occupational Medicine Practice
founded in April, 1999 . Caduceus has eight locations (seven in Atlanta, Georgia
and one in Macon, Georgia) .
16. As explained on Caduceus' website : "[Caduceus'] occupational health
professionals have partnered with business, industry and government to provide a
full range of Occupational Medicine needs including : drug screens, physical
examinations, workers' compensation services/injury treatment, and numerous
custom designed service offerings ."
17 . Upon information and belief, at some time prior to August 14, 2006,
the Atlanta Police Department partnered with Defendants Caduceus and Dr .
Greene to provide physical examinations and drugs screens to Atlanta Police
Department applicants .
18 . Also upon information and belief, the partnership agreement between
the Atlanta Police Department and Defendants Caduceus and Dr . Greene required
Defendants Caduceus and Dr . Greene to test police officer applicants for HIV .
19. Defendants Caduceus and Dr. Greene knew of the Atlanta Police
Department's intent to refuse or decline to hire police officer applicants with HIV .
Case 1:08-cv-02799-MHS Document 1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 6 of 28
-7-
20 . Defendants Caduceus and Dr . Greene tested Atlanta police officer
applicants for HIV and used those test results to eliminate those applicants with
HIV from consideration for employment as Atlanta police officers, while part of
the operations of, and employed as the agents of, the City of Atlanta and the
Atlanta Police Department .
Richard Roe's Police Officer Application and Medical Screening
1 . In or around January of 2006, Plaintiff Roe submitted an application
to become a police officer with the Atlanta Police Department .
22 . Roe was, and is, fully qualified to be a police officer with the Atlanta
Police Department .
23 . At all times relevant, Roe has been living with HIV .
24. Roe's infection with HIV is a physical impairment that substantially
limits one or more of his major life activities, such that he is a person with a
disability as defined under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act .
25 . Roe has a record of physical impairment (his infection with HIV) that
substantially limits one or more of his major life activities, such that he is a person
with a disability as defined under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act .
26 . Throughout the application process prior to his medical examination,
the Atlanta Police Department recruiters were very diligent in following up with
Case 1:08-cv-02799-MHS Document 1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 7 of 28
-8-
Roe to usher him through the different phases of the application process, and
maintained regular contact with Roe via email and telephone .
27. As part of the application process, Roe submitted to, and passed, a
written test, psychological examination, computerized voice stress analysis and
background check .
28. In or around August of 2006, Roe was referred to Defendants
Caduceus and Dr . Greene by the Atlanta Police Department for a medical
examination.
29. More specifically, Verveteen Sanders, an Atlanta Police Department
recruiter, contacted Defendants Caduceus and Dr . Greene and scheduled Roe's
medical examination for August 14, 2008 .
30. On or about August 14, 2008 Roe visited the Caduceus Occupational
Medicine Midtown clinic located at 145 North Avenue NE, Atlanta, Georgia,
30308, for the medical examination that had been scheduled by the Atlanta Police
Department .
31 . While at Caduceus, Roe was examined by a medical doctor who was
an employee of Caduceus .
32. At the examination, the doctor employed by Caduceus informed Roe
that Defendants would draw his blood in order to test for illegal narcotics only .
Case 1:08-cv-02799-MHS Document 1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 8 of 28
-9-
33 . At no time did any of the Defendants inform Roe that his blood would
be tested for HIV .
34. Defendants Caduceus and Dr. Greene never counseled Plaintiff about
a HIV test and never offered Plaintiff the opportunity to refuse a HIV test .
35 . Roe consented to have his blood drawn for a drug test, and his blood
was drawn that day.
36 . Roe did not consent to have his blood tested for HIV .
37. After the examination, Dr. Greene certified to the Atlanta Police
Department on August 14, 2006 that Roe could "safely participate in the City of
Atlanta Police Department's pre-employment physical fitness test . . ."
38. On September 7, 2006, Defendant Greene met with Roe at Caduceus'
midtown Atlanta office and informed him that Defendants had performed a HIV
test on his blood, and that he had tested positive for the HIV virus .
39. Upon information and belief, Roe's blood was tested for HIV at the
direction of Defendants .
40 . Prior to the September 7, 2006 meeting, Roe did not know that
Defendants had tested him for HIV .
Case 1:08-cv-02799-MHS Document 1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 9 of 28
-lo-
41 . At the September 7, 2006 meeting, Defendant Greene told Roe that
the Atlanta Police Department maintains a policy of not hiring police officers
infected with the HIV virus .
42 . Also at the September 7, 2006 meeting, Defendant Greene told Roe
that he would return Roe's medical file to the Atlanta Police Department with a
statement that: "Officer cannot have contact with the public ."
43 . Since the September 7, 2006 meeting with Defendant Greene, the
Atlanta Police Department has not contacted Roe .
44 . Roe has left several messages with the Atlanta Police Department to
which the Atlanta Police Department has failed to respond .
45 . On or about October 31, 2006, Roe obtained a note from a certified
nurse practitioner and HIV specialist, Gayle F . Arberg, stating that there is no
reason that Roe could not assume the full duties of a police officer, and that his
condition was well controlled and not transmitted through casual human contact .
A true and correct copy of the October 31, 2006 note from CNP Arberg is attached
hereto as Exhibit C .
46 . Roe provided a copy of CNP Arberg's October 31, 2006 letter to
Defendants .
Case 1:08-cv-02799-MHS Document 1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 10 of 28
-11-
47 . Upon information and belief, Defendants used the HIV test of
Plaintiff conducted at his pre-employment medical examination to discriminate
against Plaintiff.
48. Defendants City of Atlanta and the Atlanta Police Department have
failed and refused to hire Roe because of his disability, infection with HIV .
49. In rejecting Roe, Defendants regarded Roe as disabled by, among
other things, considering him substantially limited in his interactions with others
and in his ability to perform a range of jobs, and by discriminating against him
based on myths, fears, negative reactions, and stereotypes associated with HIV
infection .
50. Upon information and belief, the Atlanta Police Department has hired
numerous officers since September 7, 2006 and continues its search for additional
officers .
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEFVIOLATION OF TITLE I OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIESACT AGAINST THE CITY OF ATLANTA AND THE ATLANTA POLICE
DEPARTMENT
51 . Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates herein by reference each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 50, as if fully set forth herein .
52 . Roe is a qualified individual with a disability as defined by the ADA
(42 U.S .C. § 12111(8)) .
Case 1:08-cv-02799-MHS Document 1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 11 of 28
- 1 2-
53 . Roe can perform the essential functions of the job of police officer,
with or without accommodation .
54. The City of Atlanta and the Atlanta Police Department violated Title I
of the Americans with Disabilities Act by, among other things, requiring Roe to
undergo medical examinations as part of the Atlanta Police Department's
application process and using the results of that medical examination to
discriminate against him .
55 . The City of Atlanta and Atlanta Police Department further violated
Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act by denying Roe employment because
of his actual and perceived disability .
56 . As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct of the City of
Atlantaa and the Atlanta Police Department, Roe has suffered and will continue to
suffer great harm, including but not limited to lost wages and benefits, humiliation,
mental anguish and emotional distress .
Case 1:08-cv-02799-MHS Document 1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 12 of 28
- 13-
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEFVIOLATION OF SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT
AGAINST DEFENDANTS CITY OF ATLANTA AND ATLANTA POLICEDEPARTMENT
57. Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates herein by reference each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 56, as if fully set forth herein .
58. Roe is a qualified individual with a disabi lity within the meaning of
the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C . § 706(8).
59. Roe can perform the essential functions of the job of police officer,
with or without accommodation .
60. The City of Atlanta and the Atlanta Police Department violated
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by requiring Roe to undergo medical
examinations as part of Defendants' application process prior to making Roe any
offer of employment.
61 . The City of Atlanta and the Atlanta Police Department further
violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by denying Roe employment
because of his disability .
62 . As a direct and proximate result of the City of Atlanta's and the
Atlanta Police Department's unlawful conduct, Roe has and will continue to suffer
Case 1:08-cv-02799-MHS Document 1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 13 of 28
-14-
great harm, including but not limited to lost wages and benefits, humiliation,
mental anguish, and emotional distress .
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEFFEDERAL CIVIL CONSPIRACY UNDER 42 U.S.C. 4 1983 AGAINST ALL
DEFENDANTS
63 . Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates herein by reference each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 62, as if fully set forth herein .
64. Upon information and belief, at some time prior to August 14, 2006,
the Defendants reached an understanding and agreement to deprive Plaintiff, and
others similarly situated, of federal statutory and constitutional rights, to wit : the
Defendants agreed to identify, and eliminate from consideration for employment as
Atlanta police officers, any applicants with HIV .
65 . In particular, the Defendants conspired to deprive Plaintiff and others
of: (1) the right to be free from discrimination based upon disability as protected
by Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act ; (2) the
right to equal protection under the United States Constitution ; and, (3) the right to
privacy under the United States Constitution as incorporated in the due process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment .
Case 1:08-cv-02799-MHS Document 1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 14 of 28
-15-
66. In furtherance of the Defendants' conspiracy, Defendants City of
Atlanta and Atlanta Police Department : (1) retained Defendants Caduceus and Dr.
Greene to perform blood tests that identified applicants infected with HIV; (2)
upon information and belief, informed them of their intent to discriminate against
any applicants that were found to be infected with HIV, and (3) contacted
Defendants Caduceus and Dr . Greene to arrange an examination of Plaintiff Roe .
67 . Also in furtherance of the Defendants' conspiracy, Defendants
Caduceus and Dr. Greene tested Plaintiff for HIV without his knowledge or
consent and with knowledge that the Atlanta Police Department maintained a
policy of not hiring police officers with the HIV virus .
68. Also in furtherance of the Defendants' conspiracy, Defendants City of
Atlanta and Atlanta Police Department have failed and refused to hire Plaintiff
because of his HIV .
69. At all times relevant hereto, each of the Defendants was either a State
entity or a willful participant in joint action with the State or its agents .
70 . As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' unlawful
conspiracy, Roe has and will continue to suffer great harm, including but not
limited to lost wages and benefits, humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional
distress .
Case 1:08-cv-02799-MHS Document 1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 15 of 28
-16-
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEFVIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 4 1983 (RIGHT OF EQUAL PROTECTION)
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
71 . Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates herein by reference each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 70, as if fully set forth herein .
72 . Acting under color of state law, Defendants classified and treated Roe
differently from others because of his HIV infection, denying him employment on
that basis . Defendants have no sufficient justification for their discriminatory
treatment of Roe .
73 . In so doing, Defendants operated in total interdependence such that
the Defendants enjoyed a symbiotic relationship and were each a joint participant
in the enterprise .
74. Defendants' conduct violated Roe's right to equal protection under the
United States Constitution and 42 U.S .C . § 1983 .
75 . Defendants acted intentionally in depriving Roe of his constitutional
right to equal protection .
76. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions, Roe has and
will continue to suffer great harm, including but not limited to lost wages and
benefits, humiliation, mental anguish and emotional distress .
Case 1:08-cv-02799-MHS Document 1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 16 of 28
-17-
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEFVIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 1983 (RIGHT TO PRIVACY) AGAINSTALL
DEFENDANTS
77. Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates herein by reference each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 76, as if fully set forth herein .
78 . Americans have a constitutional right to privacy that springs from
several of the Bill of Rights amendments, and is incorporated in the due process
protected by the fourteenth amendment .
79. Acting under color of state law, Defendants tested Plaintiff for HIV
and inquired into Plaintiff's HIV status without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent .
80. In so doing, Defendants operated in total interdependence such that
the Defendants enjoyed a symbiotic relationship and were each a joint participant
in the enterprise .
81 . Defendants' conduct violated Roe's right to privacy under the United
States Constitution and 42 U .S .C. § 1983 .
82 . Defendants acted intentionally in depriving Roe of his constitutional
right to privacy .
83 . As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions, Roe has and
will continue to suffer great harm, including but not limited to lost wages and
benefits, humiliation, mental anguish and emotional distress .
Case 1:08-cv-02799-MHS Document 1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 17 of 28
- 18-
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEFGEORGIA COMMON LAW INVASION OF PRIVACY: INTRUSION UPON
SECLUSION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
84. Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates herein by reference each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 83, as if fully set forth herein .
85 . Under the Georgia Constitution, Plaintiff has a constitutional right to
medical privacy.
86. Defendants tested Plaintiff for HIV and inquired into Plaintiff s HIV
status without Plaintiff s knowledge or consent .
87 . Defendants' conduct constitutes a physical invasion into the plaintiffs
seclusion or private affairs .
88 . Defendants' prying and intrusion is an invasion of privacy that would
be highly offensive or objectionable to a reasonable person .
89. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, Plaintiff
has suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial .
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEFBATTERY AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
90 . Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates herein by reference each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 89, as if fully set forth herein .
Case 1:08-cv-02799-MHS Document 1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 18 of 28
-19-
91 . As set forth more fully above, on or about August 14, 2006,
Defendants drew blood from Plaintiff under the false pretense that the blood would
be tested only for the use of illegal narcotics .
92 . In fact, Defendants knew at the time that they drew blood from
Plaintiff that Defendants would test the blood for HIV .
93 . Defendants subsequently tested Plaintiffs blood without Plaintiffs
consent .
94 . Defendants' actions constitute a battery on Plaintiff under Georgia
law.
95 . As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, Plaintiff
has suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial .
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEFBREACH OF LEGAL DUTY UNDER AIDS CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION STATUTE AGAINST DEFENDANTS CADUCEUS ANDDR. GREENE
96 . Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates herein by reference each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs I through 95, as if fully set forth herein .
97. O.C .G.A. § 31-22-9 .2(c) provides in relevant part that : "each health
care provider who orders an HIV test for any person shall do so only after
Case 1:08-cv-02799-MHS Document 1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 19 of 28
-20-
counseling the person to be tested[,] and that : "Unless exempted under this
subsection, the person to be tested shall have the opportunity to refuse the test ."
98. O.C.G.A. § 51-1-6 provides : "When the law requires a person to
perform an act for the benefit of another or to refrain from doing an act which may
injure another, although no cause of action is given in express terms, the injured
party may recover for the breach of such legal duty if he suffers damage thereby ."
99. The plaintiff is within the class of persons that O .C .G.A. §§ 31-22-9 .2
was intended to protect, and the unauthorized testing of Plaintiff for HIV is the
precise harm this section was intended to prevent .
100. Defendants Caduceus and Dr . Greene each had a duty under O .C.G.A.
§§ 31-22-9.2 to refrain from testing Plaintiff for HIV without his consent .
101 . Defendants Caduceus and Dr . Greene unnecessarily, intentionally, and
in conscious disregard for plaintiff s rights breached their duty by ordering a HIV
test for Plaintiff without the necessary consent or counseling .
102 . Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of this breach of legal duty
by Defendants Caduceus and Dr. Green.
103 . Pursuant to O .C .G.A. § 51-1-6, the plaintiff is entitled to recover
damages for Defendants' breach of legal duty in an amount to be determined at
trial .
Case 1:08-cv-02799-MHS Document 1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 20 of 28
-21-
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEFINTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST
ALL DEFENDANTS
104. Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates herein by reference each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 103, as if fully set forth herein .
105. The actions of Defendants, including testing Plaintiff for HIV without
his consent, and refusing to consider Plaintiff for further employment based upon
the results of that test, were intentionally done, and were such as would naturally
tend to embarrass, humiliate and frighten individuals in Plaintiff s circumstance .
106. This conduct was also extreme and outrageous, and did in fact cause
severe emotional distress to Plaintiff within the meaning of Georgia law .
107. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants
Caduceus and Dr . Greene, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount to be
determined at trial .
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEFNEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS CADUCEUS AND DR. GREENE
108. Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates herein by reference each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 107, as if fully set forth herein .
Case 1:08-cv-02799-MHS Document 1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 21 of 28
-22-
109 . The actions of Defendants, including testing Plaintiff for HIV without
his consent, and refusing to consider Plaintiff for further employment based upon
the results of that test, were negligently or recklessly done, and were such as would
naturally tend to embarrass, humiliate and frighten individuals in Plaintiff's
circumstance .
110. Defendants' conduct was such as would naturally tend to embarrass,
humiliate and frighten individuals in Plaintiff's circumstance .
111 . This conduct was also extreme and outrageous, and did in fact cause
severe emotional distress to plaintiff within the meaning of Georgia tort law .
112. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants
Caduceus and Dr. Greene, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount to be
determined at trial .
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEFPUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST DEFENDANTS CADUCEUS AND DR.
GREENE
113 . Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates herein by reference each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 112, as if fully set forth herein .
114 . In the underlying actions that form the basis for this complaint,
Defendants Caduceus and Dr. Greene acted with willful misconduct, malice,
Case 1:08-cv-02799-MHS Document 1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 22 of 28
-23-
wantonness, oppression, and/or with entire want of care such as rises to the level of
conscious indifference to the consequences, for which plaintiff is entitled to
recover punitive damages against those Defendants .
TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEFATTORNEYS' FEES UNDER GEORGIA LAW AGAINST ALL
DEFENDANTS
115. Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates herein by reference each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 114, as if fully set forth herein .
116. Defendants have acted in bad faith and been stubbornly and
maliciously litigious, thereby causing Plaintiff unnecessary trouble and expense .
117. Plaintiff has no choice but to file suit against Defendants because
Defendants have refused to hire Plaintiff, compensate Plaintiff for his injuries or
otherwise cooperate with Plaintiff in resolving this matter .
118. Defendants are therefore liable to Plaintiff for all of Plaintiff 5 costs
and expenses of litigation, including attorney's fees, pursuant to O .C .G.A. § 13-6-
11 .
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court :
Enjoin and permanently restrain Defendants City of Atlanta and
Case 1:08-cv-02799-MHS Document 1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 23 of 28
-24-
Atlanta. Police Department from refusing to employ individuals with disabilities,
including persons with HIV ;
2 . Place Roe in the position of police officer with the same seniority that
he would have occupied but for Defendants' conduct ;
3 . Award Roe all lost wages, bonuses, benefits, and other compensation
that he would have received but for Defendants' unlawful conduct ;
4 . Award Roe damages to compensate him for his humiliation, and
mental anguish caused by Defendants' unlawful conduct ;
5. Award Roe punitive damages against Defendants Caduceus and Dr .
Greener
6. Award Roe his attorneys ' fees and costs against the City of Atlanta
and the Atlanta Police Department pursuant to 42 U .S .C .A. § 12205 and 42
U.S .C .A §1983 .
7. Award Roe his reasonable attorneys' fees and costs against
Defendants Caduceus and Dr. Greene pursuant to 42 U. S .C .A . § 1983 ;
8 . Award Roe his attorneys' fees and costs against all Defendants as
allowed by Georgia law.
9 . Award Roe prejudgment interest on any damage and attorneys' fee
award; and
Case 1:08-cv-02799-MHS Document 1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 24 of 28
fully submi ed,Respect
-25-
10. Provide such other relief as this Court deems just and proper .
Dated: September 5 , 2008
D. GRIDERAttorney for PlaintiffGeorgia Bar No. 3104732300 Melante DriveAtlanta, GA 30324Phone : (404) 245-3910Fax: (404) 352-1119Email : [email protected]
A EVEN H. K VALAttorney for PlaintiffGeorgia Bar No. 42890562B Lenox Point, N.E.Atlanta, GA 30324Phone : (404) 513-6651Fax: (404) 352-1119Email: shkoval@aol .com
Case 1:08-cv-02799-MHS Document 1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 25 of 28
-26-
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 5. 1B
In accordance with Local Rule 7 .1D, N.D.Ga., I hereby certify that the
foregoing has been prepared with one of the font and point selections approved by
the Court in Local Rule 5 .1B, N.D.Ga. This document was prepared using Times
New Roman (1 4 pt.) .
This 5th day of September, 2008
By
Michael D. Grider
Case 1:08-cv-02799-MHS Document 1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 26 of 28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
1 :O8CV_279- - 9
Defendants .
VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT AND CERTIFICATION
ss.COUNTY OF FULTON
-1-
RICHARD ROE,an individual,
Plaintiff,
V.
CITY OF ATLANTA,ATLANTA POLICE DEPARTMENT,CADUCEUS OCCUPATIONALMEDICINE, LLC andALTON GREENE, MD
CIVIL ACTION FILENO.
STATE OF GEORGIA
Plaintiff Ricuir 0 ~OL , having first been duly sworn and upon oath, deposes and
says as follows:
1 . I am a Plaintiff in this civil proceeding .
2. I have read the above-entitled civil Complaint prepared by my attorneys and I
believe that all of the facts contained in it are true, to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry .
Case 1:08-cv-02799-MHS Document 1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 27 of 28
L42z q
OFFICIAL SEALNICOLE B. EAKES
Notary Public, GeorgiaGWINNETT COUNTY
.j f ~ My Commission ExpiresAUGUST 28, 2010
-2-
3 . I believe that this civil Complaint is well grounded in fact and warranted by
existing law or by a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or
reversal of existing law.
4. I believe that this civil Complaint is not interposed for any improper purpose,
such as to harass Defendant, cause unnecessary delay to Defendant, or create a
needless increase in the cost of litigation to Defendant .
5 . I have filed this civil Complaint in good faith and solely for the purposes set forth
in it .
6. Each and every exhibit I have provided to my attorney and which has been
attached to this Complaint is a true and correct copy of the original, except where
redactions have been made to protect private information .
7 . 1 have not altered, changed, modified, or fabricated these exhibits, except as
indicated .
Subscribgd~and sworn to before methis ~ ay of September, 2008 .
o Public
Case 1:08-cv-02799-MHS Document 1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 28 of 28