14cv585 garland 1 compmedia.al.com/news_birmingham_impact/other/john garland lawsuit.pdf5....

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RECEIVED

JOHN L. GARLAND )()(

Plaintiff, )(

V. )(

)(ALABAMA STATE UNIVERSITY; GWENDOLYN )(E. BOYD,, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY; ZILLAH )(FLIJKER, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY; WILLIAM H.)(HARRIS; CARMEN DOUGLAS; SWkRR0N )(HERRON-WILLIAMS; NECOAL DRIVER; )(BERNADETFE WILLIAMS-YORK; )(DOTHEL W. EDWARDS, JR.; FICTITIOUS )(DEFENDANTS A - Z, INDIVIDUALLY AND )(OFFICIALLY, )(

)(DEFENDANTS. )(

.201 1.1 JUN I I A 8: 23

DEBRA P. HACET1, CLKU.S. DISTRICT COURT

Case No.€V j2L T ALA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action for legal and equitable relief to redress unlawful discrimination in

employment on the basis of race, color, sex, gender and national origin in violation of 42 U.S.C.

2000e et seg , as amended, (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. §2000d et seq. (Title VI), 42 U.S.C. § 1981,

1981a and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988; in violation of Title IX of the Education

Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et.seg., to redress retaliation taken against Plaintiff for

his opposition to discriminatory practices and for filing an EEOC charge; to redress the denial

under color of law, of freedom of speech and petition pursuant to the First and Fourteenth

Amendments and the equal protection of the law pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the

United States Constitution; to redress the harms imposed in violation of state contract and tort

1

Case 2:14-cv-00585-MEF-TFM Document 1 Filed 06/11/14 of 42

law; and to redress the deprivation of Plaintiffs rights, privileges and immunities protected by

the Constitution.

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343; pursuant to

Title VII of the civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), et seg, and 42 U.S.C.

2000e3(a) (retaliation); and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (0(3) & (g). In addition, the

jurisdiction of this Court is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 & 2202 (Declaratory Judgment Act).

Jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims based on Alabama law exists under the Doctrine of

Supplemental Jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

3. The acts complained of herein relate to Plaintiffs place of employment in Montgomery

County, Alabama, within the Middle District of Alabama. 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

4. Prior to filing this civil action, Plaintiff timely filed a written charge with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") within 180 days of the discriminatory act

asserting discrimination and retaliation. After the EEOC held the Charge for over one year ai:icl

after Alabama State University expressed no interest in conciliation, and because time limitations

exist on non-Title VII claims, Plaintiff requested a Notice of Right-to-Sue. The EEOC has

acknowledged Plaintiffs' request and referred the request to the Department of Justice. Despite

Plaintiff's requests no Right-to-Sue has yet been issued, nor any explanation provided for the

delay. If the EEOC has not filed a civil action within 180 days from filing of a charge of

discrimination, the charging party is entitled to bring an independent enforcement action against

the respondent on his own. 42 U.S.C. (e)-5(f)(l). More than 180 days have expired since

Plaintiff filed his charge with the EEOC. Plaintiff has exhausted all conditions precedent to suit.

II. PARTIES

2


5. Plaintiff, John L. Garland, (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff' or "Dr. Garland") is a man

over 21 years of age, an aggrieved person, and a person discriminated against and an employee

within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964. Plaintiff resides in Montgomery

County, Alabama, and at all times has been a United States citizen.

6. Defendant, Alabama State University (hereinafter referred to as "ASU" or "the University"), is

an entity subject to suit under Title VII of the "Civil Rights Act of 1964", as amended, 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e et sec., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981,1981(a), 1983 and state contract and tort law. The

defendant employs at least fifteen (15) persons and constitutes an employer within the meaning

of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (b), (g), & (h). ASU operates an educational program or activity and is the

recipient of federal financial assistance.

7. Defendant, Gwendolyn E. Boyd, in her official capacity, is the President and Chief Executive

Officer of the University, a state entity, has the ultimate authority over the operations and

policies of the University, and as such, is subject to suit under Title VII of the "Civil Rights Act

of 1964", as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et.-seg., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 1981(a), 1983, and

state contract and tort law. Defendant is over 21 years of age and employed in the Northern

Division of the Middle District of Alabama.

8. Defendant, Zillah Fluker, in her official capacity as Vice-President of Human Resources of the

University, has authority over the implementation and enforcement of personnel policies and

procedures, including training, disciplinary matters, and investigations of employee grievances,

and as such, is subject to suit in her official capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et -seq., and 42

U.S.C. § 1981, 1981(a), 1983, and state tort law. Defendant is over 21 years of age and

employed in the Northern Division of the Middle District of Alabama.


9. Defendant, Sharron Herron-Williams, as former Interim Associate Provost for Academic

Affairs is named officially and individually, and as such, she is subject to suit under Title VII of

the "Civil Rights Act of 1964", as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981,

198 1(a), 1983, 1985, 1986, and state tort law. Defendant is over 21 years of age and employed

in the Northern Division of the Middle District of Alabama.

10. Defendant, William H. Harris, is former President of the University, and at relevant times

had ultimate authority over the operations and policies of the University, and as such, is subject

to suit in his individual capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 1981a, 1983, 1985, 1986 and state tort

law. Defendant is over 21 years of age and at all relevant times was employed in the Northern

Division of the Middle Disttict of Alabama.

11. Defendant, Carmen Douglas, former Vice-President of Human Resources, at relevant times

had authority over the implementation and enforcement of personnel policies and procedures,

including training, supervision and retention of employees, disciplinary matters, and

investigations of employee grievances, and as such, is subject to suit in her individual capacity

under and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 1981(a) 1983, 1985, 1986, and state tort law. Defendant is over 21

years of age and employed in the Northern Division of the Middle District of Alabama.

12. Defendant Necoal Driver, is Department Chair in the Department of Education's Counseling

Program and as Such, is subject to suit in her individual capacity under 42 U.SC. §.S 1981,

1981a, 1983, 1985, 1986, and state tort law. Defendant is over 21 years of age and employed in

the Northern Division of the Middle District of Alabama.

13. Defendant, Bernadette Williams-York, is Associate Dean in the College of Health Sciences

and at relevant times had supervisory authority over Plaintiff, and as such, is subject to suit in her

individual capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 1981a, 1983, 1985, 1986, and state tort law.4


Defendant is over 21 years of age and employed in the Northern Division of the Middle District

of Alabama.

14. Defendant Dothel W. Edwards, Jr., was at relevant times Chair of Rehabilitation Studies and

Coordinator of the Rehabilitation Counseling Program and the direct supervisor of Plaintiff in

the Department of Rehabilitation Studies, College of Health Sciences and as such, is subject to

suit in his individual capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 1981a, 1983, 1985, 1986, and state tort

law. He is over 21 years of age and employed in the Northern Division of the Middle District of

Alabama.

15. Fictitious Defendants A-Z are those officials and employees of the University who

participated in or are responsible for discriminating against, retaliating against, and harassing

Plaintiff on the basis Of race, color and sex/gender who negligently retained or supervised those

who did, or otherwise impinged upon Plaintiff's federally protected rights, and/or conspired

and/or agreed to do the same, on the basis of race, color, national origin, and sex, and/or who

neglected or failed to prevent the wrongful actions of the conspirators. They are over 21 years of

age and are sued in their individual and official capacities.

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

16. Dr. John L. Garland, ("Plaintiff' or "Dr. Garland") is a male U.S. Citizen and a tribal

member of the Choctaw Nation born on October 31, 1967. His skin color is white and he is

perceived by colleagues to be white and Caucasian.

17. Dr. Garland has a Ph.D. in Counseling and Personnel Services from the University of

Maryland, College Park, a graduate Certificate in Rehabilitation Counseling from the University

of Arkansas—Little Rock, a Master's degree in College Teaching, a Bachelor's degree in

5


Business Administration from Northeastern State University in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, and over

10 years of experience in his field.

18. The University hired Dr. Garland in August 2008 as an Adjunct Instructor and re-hired him

in January 2009 as an Assistant Professor, Master of Rehabilitation Counseling Program in the

Department of Rehabilitation Studies (Rehab Studies Dept.), College of Health Sciences

("COHS")

19. At the time the University recruited and hired Dr. Garland, it also recruited and hired his

Caucasian and same-sex partner of over 22 years, Dr. Steven B. Chesbro, ("Chesbro") as an

Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Physical Therapy in the COHS. ASU was

aware Of the relationship at the time of recruitment and hire.

20. Drs. Garland and Chesbro married one another in Maryland in February 2013. Maryland

recognizes the legality of same-sex marriage.

21. During all stages of the recruiting and employment process, Drs. Garland and Chesbro were

open about their personal relationship and sexual orientation.

22. It is common in higher education for opposite-sex couples, or married opposite-sex couples,

who are both respected academics to be recruited and hired simultaneously.

23. The University currently employs other opposite-sex partners in other departments and

colleges.

24. Consistent with ordinary practices for newly hired faculty who are in the final stage of their

doctoral education, the University placed a statement in Dr. Garland's January 2009 employment

contract regarding completion of his Ph.D., and the Certified Rehabilitation Counselor (CRC)

exam.

25. Dr. Garland completed both requirements and performed beyond expectations.6


26. In 2010, Dr. Chesbro was appointed Dean of the College of Health Sciences and Dr. Garland

had been a tenure track Assistant Professor for one and one-half years at that time.

27. The University is an Historically Black University ("HBCU") and a state institution of higher

education. Drs. Garland and Chesbro are non-Black faculty members, as defined by the

University's Human Resources Policies and Procedures Manual.

28. Dr. Chesbro is currently the only Dean of a College at the University who is not identified as

African-American or Black.

29. As evidenced by their student and peer reviews, Garland and Chesbro were well-regarded by

many students and faculty at all relevant times.

30. In March 2012, Dr. Garland received the prestigious William L. "Bud" Thomas, Jr.,

Mentoring Award from the University of Maryland-College Park for his work in teaching and

mentoring graduate students.

31. In April 2012, Dr. Garland won an award for outstanding faculty member of the year in the

COHS as voted on by students and reviewed by associate deans from other colleges.

32. At all relevant times, as evidenced from the allegations set forth below, the University was a

hostile work environment with regard to race and gender.

33. A small, powerful group at the University believes that Drs. Garland and Chesbro have no

place at the University simply because of their non-African-American or non-Black identity

This group, including combinations of the individually named Defendants, have conspired to

destroy the careers and employment of these two dedicated teachers.

34. Some administrators and faculty welcome and support Drs. Garland and Chesbro as

colleagues, while others reluctantly accept their presence as a necessary evil due to legal

considerations.7


35. On or about October 2009, Dr. Edwards, an African-American male, was made Coordinator

of the Rehabilitation Counseling Program in the COHS. Edwards was Dr. Garland's immediate

supervisor.

36. On or about July, 2011, Dr. Bernadette Williams-York ("Williams-York"), an African

American woman, was named Associate Dean of the COHS. She supervised Edwards and

controlled the daily activities of Dr. Garland's Department.

37. From the beginning of Dr. Garland's employment, Edwards expressed his opinion, stated or

implied, that Dr. Garland did not belong at the University and Was not "suited to [the

University's] type of students" because Dr. Garland is not African-American.

38. After Dr. Chesbro was named Dean of the COHS, some faculty and students objected to the

presence of Garland and Chesbro on the faculty. These individuals expressed a fear that the

COHS had "gone white," and referred to the COHS as "the White House."

39. Faculty and students made these derogatory references despite the fact that more African-

American students and faculty served in the COHS under Dr. Chesbro than ever before.

40. Dr. Garland served on several University search committees With Edwards for the purpose of

fairly screening, ranking, and recommending applicants for selection to positions at the

University.

41. Edwards expressed his dislike for Drs. Garland and Chesbro because of their race, color, and

sexual orientation.

42. Edwards disagreed with the University's decision to hire Dr. Garland.

43. Edwards repeatedly made statements to Dr. Garland such as: "You don't belong here," "Why

are you here?" Because he knew that the University had a legitimate need to hire Dr. Garland

based on the skills he brought to the Department, it was clear to t)r. Garland that his comments8


were directed to Dr. Garland's race, color, and sexual orientation.

44. Edwards repeatedly and blatantly demonstrated a racial bias while serving on University

search committees as set forth below.

45. In spring 2010, the Rehabilitation Studies Department search committee's top-ranked

candidate for an open position was believed to be a white female by committee members after a

phone interview.

46. This candidate had a disability and requested an accommodation

47. Especially because faculty and students in the Rehabilitation Studies Department focus on

working with people with disabilities, committee members believed this candidate to be a

perfect fit for the position.

48. Edwards objected to recommending this candidate for the position and alleged that it Was

because she was "married to someone in the military."

49. Dr. Garland complained to Edwards about this objection, causing Edwards to become very

angry and claim that Dr. Garland had accused him of being a racist.

50. In retaliation, Edwards published a false, unfounded, and slanderous accusation that Dr.

Garland had not managed the graduate admissions process to be inclusive of African-American

males and other underserved populations.

51 By publicly and falsely accusing Dr. Garland of being insensitive to racial issues in

admissions, Edwards clearly intended to and did damage Dr. Garland's professional reputation.

52. In truth, Dr. Garland had been the main advocate for more support to these applicants whose

undergraduate grades may indicate barriers to graduate success. He had been the main advocate

for change in the admissions program to remove artificial barriers for potentially successful

African-American males and other underserved populations. Every African-American male9


applicant meeting minimum qualifications and all known applicants with disabilities were on the

list to be admitted.

53. Another heated discussion took place at a Master of Rehabilitation Counseling Faculty search

committee meeting on March 20, 2010, in which Edwards and Dr. Garland were participants.

54. During this meeting, Edwards and another African-American professor declared that only

African-American candidates were "suited to our type of institution." Edwards further clarified

that African-American faculty are best suited to teach African-American students.

55. Dr. Garland opposed this view and pointed out that white applicants may not be excluded

from the educational programs of the University because of their race. Edwards replied, "Dr.

Garland, does the best candidate always get the job?"

56. Edwards, acting as Chairperson of the faculty search committee, refused to consider white

candidates because of their race.

57. Dr. Garland requested that a record be made of this discussion because Edwards was not

following consistent and sound hiring practices. Dr. Garland reminded the committee that a

diverse applicant pool is critical to attracting quality candidates from which to make selections,

and expressed his opinion that making race or gender a primary criteria for selections was

inappropriate and likely ran afoul of employment laws and violated Constitutional rights.

58. Dr. Garland, Edwards, and Williams-York, served on another subsequent search committee

and Edwards (and Williams-York) insisted this time that the committee's primary goal must

be

the selection of candidate that was both female and black.

59. The University was not subject to any court order which requires or permits affirmative

action based on race or sex.

60. Dr. Garland again opposed this discriminatory selection process.10


61. Edwards became quite contentious about this opposition.. He stated, "We are taking a chance

on you," when responding to white committee members who asked about his reasoning for

making race and gender the primary focus of the committee.

62. By this statement, Edwards, acting as Chairperson of the Committee, made clear that all

non-Black faculty were suspect in his eyes, that it would not be acceptable to oppose his

discriminatory practices, and that he would retaliate against any University employee who

opposed these practices.

63. Edwards directly caused the selection of a black candidate, though this person was

objectively less qualified than some white competitors.

64. In April 2012, Edwards removed Dr. Chad Duncan, a white male, from chairing that faculty

search committee because Dr. Duncan and some members of that committee voiced similar

concerns about race discrimination.

65. As Dr. Garland continued to oppose these discriminatory practices, Edwards escalated his

bitter resentment for and his expressed racial animus towards Dr. Garland.

66. Edwards created an hostile work environment for Dr. Garland and others.

67. Administration officials were informed of this hostile work environment by Drs. Garland,

Chesbro and other faculty of the COHS and did nothing to ameliorate it,

68. On September 18, 2012, Dr. Chesbro complained to Herron- Williams about racist comments

that permeated the environment at the University.

69. There were multiple incidents of racism and intolerance, including comments made by

faculty members such as: "We should hire Black faculty only," "Out mission is to only serve the

Black community," "Black students are best taught by Black faculty," and "They [non-black

faculty] don't understand our students."11


70. As one example, the African-American Diversity Officer of the College of Education stated

during a public University campus forum that the University Institutional Review Board, of

which Dr. Chesbro was chairperson, had too many White faculty. She aggressively chastised Dr.

Chesbro after the meeting, stating "This is an HBCU after all," and "Why did we have to listen

to two white men speak today?"

71. Dr. Chesbro complained to Sharon Herron-Williams, Interim Associate Provost, that he had

never before experienced the level of hostility that Was present at the University during the

previous months, even though he was educated at an HBCU and had taught at HBCUs for more

than eleven years. He complained to Herron-Williams about the racist comments and explained

that this was not an isolated incident.

72. Dr. Chesbro requested that the University immediately address this hostility and rnaj . e clear

that it would it support intolerant behavior in any form.

73. The University took no effective action to address the hostile work environment in response

to this complaint in violation of the University's policy which prohibits all forms of

discrimination and harassment and any retaliation for reporting it.

74. Instead, the University and its administration intentionally targeted Drs. Chesbro and Garland

in an effort to destroy their careers.

75. On March 20, 2012, the University received an anonymous letter containing untrue and

bigoted statements aimed directly at Dr. Garland that were intended to negatively affect his

pending promotion and tenure application.

76. This letter claimed that Garland's sexual orientation and racial identity were "holding COHS

hostage."

77. Dr. Garland met with Carmen Douglas, Vice President for Human Resources, on April 3,12


2012, to discuss concerns related to the anonymous letter, the implications for his personal

safety, and his concerns about ongoing threats and racial discrimination from Edwards.

78. On April 23, 2012, Dr. Garland attempted to improve the racially hostile environment at the

University by circulating an e-mail to colleagues in the COHS acknowledging the hostility and

requesting feedback on ways to ameliorate it.

79. At the direction of Douglas, Edwards then filed an unfounded grievance about Drs. Garland

and Chesbro.

80. This grievance contained similar language to the anonymous letter sent in March 2012.

81. In July 2012, in Dr. Garland's 2011-2012 Annual Performance Review, Edwards also falsely

claimed that Dr. Garland was "unprofessional".

82. After Dr. Garland rebutted this claim, Edwards added additional false allegations to the

grievance.

83. The more Dr. Garland achieved, the more upset Edwards became, and his response was to

circulate intentionally false statements against Dr. Garland.

84. Contrary to written policy, the University did not notify Garland that a grievance had been

filed, not did it allow him the opportunity for rebuttal.

85. Instead, the University initiated an investigation of Dr. Garland based on this false and

unfounded grievance by employing a private investigator, whose mission was falsely described

by the University not to be investigation of Drs. Garland and Chesbro but as a "team-building"

effort to promote harmony in the COHS. However, the investigator let slip to some of Drs.

Garland and Chesbro's colleagues being interviewed that he was conducting "an investigation."

He preceded to interrogate these colleagues about Drs. Garland and Chesbro's same-sex

relationship.13


86. The University's investigator cleared Dr. Garland of any wrongdoing in July 2012, but the

University hid this decision from Dr. Garland for six months. Dr. Garland learned that the

investigation was completed after filing an Alabama Open Records request.

87. Although Edwards' grievance was without merit, the University's overt and insensitive

investigation damaged the reputations of Drs. Garland and Chesbro through the baseless, racist,

sex-stereotypical, and malicious inferences which arose as a result of the investigator's

interviews with their colleagues.

88. Dr. Garland learned through an Alabama Open Records request that of the six COHS faculty

eligible for tenure in 2012, Dr. Garland had the highest tenure review score and had received the

highest tenure review score in COHS history.

89. Dr. Garland exceeded the requirements and qualifications for tenure and was unanimously

recommended for tenure by the tenure committee.

90. The tenure recommendation was "not advanced" by the University because Dr. Garland

allegedly did not have enough time on the tenure track to be eligible.

91. On June 4, 2012, the University sent Dr. Garland a letter stating that he was not eligible for

tenure.

92. The University's explanation for its denial of tenure was pretextual and false. The University

was well informed of its falsity by Dr. Chapman, former Dean of the COHS. Dr. Garland had

been assured that the corrections were made following Chapman's requests.

93. On June 11, 2012, Dr. Garland responded by explaining that he actually was eligible and that

the University had used a longstanding and well-documented clerical error as the basis for

determining eligibility.

94. Two female professors in the COHS, one African-American and one white, neither being in a14


same-sex relationship or having opposed discriminatory practices, were similarly informed

during the same general time frame of their lack of tenure eligibility due to similar errors, but

those errors were corrected by the University and their eligibility problem went away.

95. The University refused to correct a clerical error on behalf of Dr. Garland.

96. In late June 2012, Dr. Garland filed an official grievance with Douglas and the University

alleging race and gender discrimination, a racially hostile work environment, and retaliation for

opposing employment discrimination.

97. On July 17, 2012, Dr. D. Gent Dotson, a white professor in the COHS, submitted a letter

outlining his own personal concerns regarding Edwards. No effective action was taken by ASU

in response to his complaint.

98. The University did not respond to Dr. Garland's official complaint in the manner required by

the HR Policy and Procedure Manual. The University did not investigate, did not interview any

witnesses, and did not request any documents, but it later responded that it did not find any

discrimination.

99. The University treated Edwards' grievance against Dr. Garland very differently than it

treated Dr. Garland's grievance against Edwards.

100. On July 25, 2012, the University revised Section 2.2.2 of its Policy and Procedure Manual

to single out same-sex couples but not opposite-sex married or unmarried couples - from

working together on campus.

101. The University, President Harris, and Douglas proposed and adopted this policy shortly

after finding no evidence to support Edwards' grievance against Dr. Garland.

102. The University's intent in proposing this policy was specifically to prohibit Drs. Garland

and Chesbro from working together in the same college and to force them to resign, even though15


there were opposite-sex couples and family members working together elsewhere on campus.

103. For example, Dr. Caterina Bristol served as Associate Dean in the College of Visual and

Performing Arts with her husband, Dr. Doug Bristol, who is a professor in the same college.

104. Through President Harris, the University informed Drs. Chesbro and Garland on August 7,

2012, that it planned to take action against them under the new anti-nepotism policy and that it

would retroactively apply the policy to them.

105. Drs. Chesbro and Garland were the only individuals targeted with the implementation and

retroactive application of this policy.

106. Based on well-documented complaints from faculty about Edwards' racist, unethical, and

unprofessional behavior, and because 3 of the 4 department faculty under Edward's supervision

did not believe he should continue as supervisor, and Edwards' "ongoing facilitation of an

hostile work environment in the unit," Dean Chesbro attempted to remove Edwards from his

supervisory positions in the Department.

107. Acting through President Harris, the University rejected Dr. Chesbro 's reçomnendation

without explanation and with no regard for Chesbro's position as dean.

108. On August 1, 2012, President Harris Wrote a memo to Douglas stating that he "reject's the

findings of the private investigator," findings that cleared Dr. Garland of wrong-doing, with a

recommendation of a lateral transfer to a comparable position. Instead, Harris concluded that Dr.

Garland's academic credentials were "questionable," and falsely stated that Dr. Garland

"jeopardizes" various University accreditations or would "imperil accreditation efforts that are

currently underway." These false conclusions were based on the intentionally false

representations of Dr. Necoal Driver.

109. Edwards, working with Dr. Driver to harm Dr. Garland, purposefully sabotaged16


accreditation materials by withholding Dr. Garland's credentials and making it appear to others

that Dr. Garland was unqualified. On August 1, 2012, by email to Dr. Williams-York, Dr.

Edwards requested holding off on sending the accrediting body evidence of Dr. Garland's CRC

credential. As MRC program coordinator and department chair, Dr. Edwards should have

notified CORE in April (five months prior) at the time he became aware that Dr. Garland had

obtained his CRC since it has been noted as an accreditation action item. Dr. Edwards

purposefully withheld Dr. Garland's CRC status from CORE, thereby prompting CORE to send

a letter stating that the Program was out of compliance. Dr. Edwards further indicates to

Williams-York that they should hold off on notifying CORE until they receive the deficiency

letter. The withholding of Garland's counseling certification from CORE, supported Dr.

Edwards and Dr. Driver's false and contrived claim that Garland was unqualified as referenced

in Presidents Harris' memo dated the same day. Further, Dr. Edwards submitted information

directly to CORE, bypassing the office of the College's dean and the office of the Provost.

110. Even though it was already determined to be unfounded by the University's investigator,

President Harris, Herron-Williams, and Douglas authorized further investigation into Edwards'

grievance against Dr. Garland in August 2012.

111. On August 13, 2012, Douglas sent Herron-Williams a memo maliciously repeating or

reinforcing already debunked allegations made by Edwards against Dr. Garland and found untrue

by the University's private contract investigator. Herron-Williams repeated the Edwards'

accusations to the Provost's office knowing that these accusations had been found to be false.

112. In the same e-mail, Douglas instructed Hen-on-Williams to "conduct a formal review of the

process used th the recommendation submitted on behalf of Dr. John Garland by the College of

Health Sciences" and initiate a review of Dr. Garland's qualifications.17


113. Also on August 13, Douglas e-mailed Evelyn Hodge, Dean of University College, and

asked Hodge to review Dr. Garland's academic qualifications for appointment to University

College (i.e., teaching Freshman orientation and/or developmental courses in reading, writing,

math, etc.).

114. On August 10, 2012, Drs. Chesbro and Garland recommended to the University that Dr.

Chesbro could return to being Associate Dean (the position he held prior to his promotion to

Dean in 2010), a position from which he would have no supervisor authority over Dr. Garland,

thereby eliminating any possible violation of the newly adopted policy. Drs. Garland and

Chesbro also offered two alternative recommendations.

115. Although the University could have exercised one of these viable options, President Harris

rejected all alternatives without explanation.

116. On August 20, 2012, just prior to Dr. Garland's first graduate class Of the fall semester at

5:30 p.m., he was stunned when Herron-Williams and Douglas informed him that they were

removing him from his recent promotion to a tenure-tracked Graduate Counseling teaching

position as Associate Professor of Rehabilitation Counseling and placing him in University

College teaching freshman orientation.

117. Douglas and Herron-Williams told Dr. Garland that the University would fire him if he did

not accept this transfer and claimed that the transfer was because of the University's new anti-

nepotism policy toward sane-sex relationships.

118. A January 7, 2013 email between President Harris and Douglas contradicts the University's

official position by stating that the transfer of Dr. Garland was because of his "organizational

relationship" with Edwards rather than the anti-nepotism policy previously given as the

University's reason for transfer. Although Edwards' complaints about Garland were found to be18


unsubstantiated and Garland's complaint about Edwards of discrimination, retaliation, and

hostile environment were not investigated, it was Garland not Edwards subjected to adverse

action by ASU. The motive for the transfer and other adverse actions taken against Garland

were discriminatory and retaliatory under either of Defendant's version of events.

119. Douglas and Herron-Williams told Dr. Garland that he was being "laterally" transferred, but

Dr. Garland had already accepted a contract with the University for the next year and the

contract period had already begun.

120. The University unilaterally changed Garland's faculty contract without his consent or

approval.

121. The involuntary transfer included a substantial reduction of salary of over $23,000 per year,

which was imposed despite the fact that the University told Garland prior to his transfer that his

pay would not be reduced.

122. The University had agreed to pay Dr. Garland $20,341 under the written summer contract

that it entered into on May 25, 2012.

123. That contract stated: "If faculty member is hired [to] work full time in summer, the summer

contract of three month duration is guaranteed at same rate as provided for the nine-month

period."

124. In the summer of 2013, the University paid Dr. Garland only $10,602 and refused to

provide a written contract to Garland for summer work.

125. Douglas subsequently and falsely explained to Dr. Garland that the University does not

provide written contracts for faculty teaching in the summer.

126. Dr. Garland's new position commanded less prestige and authority.

127. After they met with Dr. Garland, Douglas and Herron-Williams dispatched the campus19


police to deliver an official letter announcing his removal and transfer.

128. Edwards and Willim. s-York met on August 20, 2012, in secret to arrange or manage Dr.

Garland's removal.

129. Edwards and Williams-York caused the removal of all of Dr. Garland's contact information,

biography, and curriculum vitae from the University's website, rendering him virtually invisible

and virtually eliminated from the University.

130. This transfer was not "lateral," but rather removed Dr. Garland from his career track as a

tenured professor in his field of counseling and personnel service and reassigned him to a

position for which he is demonstrably over-qualified,

131. Douglas and Herron-Williams told Dr. Garland on August 20, 2012, that he would have 48

hours to pack his old office and move to a yet-to-be-determined location elsewhere on campus.

132. Douglas and Herron-Williams refused to explain why Dr. Garland was being physically

moved when faculty from other departments were often located in buildings other than where

they teach and Dr. Garland had almost four years of files and a full library to go through.

133. There was no objective reason to move Dr. Garland because his new office was no closer in

location to the orientation teaching classrooms or his new department.

134. Because of this unexpected transfer, Dr. Garland was forced to suspend several graduate

counseling level research studies already underway.

135. Dr. Garland's original employment contract with the University was illegally and physically

altered to remove such elements as his appointment to COHS and stipulation for how he would

be paid in the summer semesters.

136. Dr. Garland received a call at 7:29 p.m. on August 20 from Douglas instructing him that

campus movers would be at his office at 7:00 a.m. the next morning to move the contents out of20


his current office.

137. Douglas and Herron-Williams previously told Dr. Garland that he would have 48 hours to

pack and there was no conceivable way Dr. Garland could have his office packed by the next

morning.

138. Herron-Williams had a written reprimand hand-delivered to Dr. Garland the following

morning because he was not ready for the move, even though it had only been a few hours since

the University officially notified him of the transfer.

139. The next day, Dr. Garland completed packing his office within the original 48 hour

window.

140. Dr. Garland completed an inventory check-list for items like the desktop computer and

other office items and obtained signatures from the office manager, Ms. Toni Moten, and a

colleague, as they suspected that Edwards would attempt to accuse Dr. Garland of stealing this

equipment.

141. Almost immediately thereafter, Edwards and Williams-York filed intentionally false reports

that Dr. Garland had stolen his office computers in an attempt to engineer his termiation.

142. Edwards and Williams-York filed these false reports without even checking to see if the

computers were present in Dr. Garland's old office.

143. The University did not hold Edwards nor Williams-York accountable for these flagrantly

false and malicious accusations.

144. For several months after the transfer, the University did not provide proper infrastructure for

Dr. Garland's new office such as a working computer, mail service, phone extension., copying

capabilities, bookshelves, and file cabinets.

145. Dr. Garland's national leadership roles and responsibilities required that he have a phone21


with long distance capabilities, printing access, and the typical faculty infrastructure afforded to

Garland's similarly situated colleagues.

146. To date, Dr. Garland has not received any campus mail at the office where he was removed

to on August 21, 2012.

147. Dr. Garland missed phone calls and opportunities because the University operator would

incorrectly tell callers that he "no longer works here."

148. Dr. Garland's transfer negatively impacted his application for tenure and his ability to keep

tenure status in his field of expertise. Dr. Garland was granted tenure in August 2013, but as an

orientation teacher in University College and not in the Counseling field where his expertise

would put him in line for a full professorship in Counseling. Further, tenure in University

College is less stable due to administrative actions affecting personnel levels.

149. The transfer derailed and interrupted his career and jeopardized his counseling certification.

150. From September 2012 through January 2013, Drs. Garland and Chesbro reached out to

various University administrators and personnel in an attempt to resolve their situation internally

and remedy the discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment that targeted both men.

151. On October 14, 2012, Dr. G. Gent Dotson, a white professor in the COHS, expressed his

own concerns about ongoing retaliation from Edwards and Douglas.

152. Douglas told Dr. Garland on October 23, 2012, that the University was not currently

investigating him or Dr. Chesbro.

153. For all practical purposes, the University's inquisitorial investigation into Drs. Garland and

Chesbro did not stop with the transfer of Dr. Garland and has been repeatedly renewed in

retaliation for their opposition to discriminatory and retaliatory practices at the University.

154. In April 2014, Zillah Fluker, Acting Vice President for Human Resources, hired an outside22


private investigator to conduct a renewed investigation into Drs. Garland and Chesbro's personal

life. This investigation is ongoing and the investigator has questioned more than 25 colleagues

of Drs. Chesbro and Garland.

155. Drs. Garland and Chesbro filed a complaint on January 14, 2013, against Edwards for

knowingly making false, vicious, and malicious statements about them and violating University

policy 6. 1.1 governing misconduct.

156. The University never responded to this complaint.

157. On February 13, 2013, Dr. Garland filed an EEOC charge of discrimination against the

University.

158. In September 2012, Dr. Garland again submitted his request to the University for tenure.

159. Dr. Garland received a phone call from his new department chair in March 2013, requesting

that he withdraw his tenure application because there were faculty members on the tenure

committee who were seeking to block his application.

160. Dr. Garland replied that he exceeded all the tenure requirements and that he was not going

to Withdraw his tenure application from consideration.

161. On March 14, 2013, the Faculty Senate subcommittee, chaired by Dr. NecOal Driver,

reported that several faculty expressed concerns regarding offering Dr. Garland tenure.

162. The University also refused to offer Dr. Garland significant hours to teach during the

summer of 2014.

163. During this period, the University also subjected Dr. Chesbro to discriminatory or

retaliatory attacks and undermined his authority as Dean.

164. Dean Chesbro has been prohibited from evaluating his Subordinates, Edwards and

Williams-York, because they filed false, racially-motivated grievances against him in an attempt23


to advance and immunize themselves from repercussions stemming from their misconduct,

incompetence, and failure to perform their jobs. They have been supported in this by the

Defendants. Even implied physical threats against Dr. Chesbro by Edwards, and proven

falsehoods about Dr. Chesbro by Williams-York go unaddressed by the ASU administration.

165. The discriminatory and retaliatory treatment of Dr. Chesbro constituted further

discrimination and retaliation against Dr. Garland.

166. Although a grievance filed by Williams-York against Dr. Chesbro Was found to be

"unsubstantiated," the University nevertheless refused to dismiss it and continues to investigate.

167. As many as six EEOC charges are now pending against the University alleging race or

gender discrimination.

168. A number of University faculty members have provided evidence to the EEOC that the

University has engaged in a pattern of discrimination based on race and a pattern of retaliation

for opposition to race discrimination.

169. On February 11, 2014, by letter to President Boyd, Garland outlined what had happened to

him as alleged in the above paragraphs. Because she was new to ASU, he wanted her to know

what he was going through.

170. Defendants discriminated against Garland, and continue to do so, on the basis of his race,

color, and national origin (i.e. non-Black Native American), and retaliated against him, and

continue to do so, because he opposed race discrimination, and because he filed an EEOC

charge, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

IV. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

CLAIM ONE - RACE, COLOR AND NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION, ANDHOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT, BASED ON RACE AND COLOR, IN VIOLATION

OF TITLE VII (against ASU, President Boyd and Fluker in their official capacity only)24


171. Plaintiff adopts and realleges the above paragraphs as if fully set out herein.

172. The conduct of Defendants, and their agents, as set forth above, constitutes unlawful

discrimination against Plaintiff on the basis of race, color, and national origin, in violation of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and is part of Defendants'

pattern and practice of discrimination, and exclusion, on the basis of race, color, and national

origin. Plaintiff was denied a work environment free of discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e et seq as amended, 42 U.S.C. §1981(a), and was denied equal opportunity in the terms

and conditions of his employment.

173. Defendants' harassment of Plaintiff on the basis of race and color was of a severe or

pervasive nature such as to create an abusive and hostile work environment for Plaintiff that

altered the conditions of his employment.

174. Defendants' acts were with malice and reckless disregard for Plaintiff's federally protected

rights.

175. As a result of the said acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has been injured and damaged as

follows: He has suffered emotional trauma and humiliation; he has suffered mental pain and

anguish; he has incurred expenses in an attempt to enforce his legal rights; he has suffered loss of

income; he has been offended by Defendants' discriminatory actions; he was denied the benefit

of working in an environment in which people of all races and colors, are treated equally; he has

been demoted and his salary has been reduced, he has been denied pay raises and benefits, and

he has been transferred to a less prestigious position, his career interrupted, and he has been

otherwise discriminated against in the terms and conditions of his employment; he has been

denied the opportunity to advance in his career and he has suffered corresponding economic

25


damages; all in violation of his federally protected rights; and he has been otherwise injured and

damaged.

176. Plaintiff is entitled to reinstatement to his former position, or alternatively, placement in a

comparable position, removal of derogatory, defamatory, and inaccurate material from his

personnel file, back pay, front pay, lost benefits, interest on back pay, compensatory damages,

attorney fees, expert fees, expenses, costs, and freedom to work in a non-discriminatory, non-

retaliatory, and non-hostile environment.

CLAIM TWO - RETALIATION UNDER TITLE VII(against ASU, and Boyd and Fluker in their official capacity only)


178. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff, and do so as part of a pattern and practice of

retaliation, because he opposed Defendant's discriminatory practices, because he assisted in a

proceeding and/or investigation relating to Title VII, because he filed an EEOC charge, and for

other related reasons in violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. §2000e e"se










26


damages; he was forced to work in an environment hostile to men with a samesex partnership or

samesex marriage, one in which harassment based on race, color and gender was directed

toward him; all in violation of his federally protected rights; and he has been otherwise injured

and damaged.

180. Plaintiff is entitled to reinstatement to his former position, or alternatively, placement in a

comparable position, removal of derogatory, defamatory, and inaccurate material from his

personnel file, back pay, front pay, lost benefits, interest on back pay, compensatory damages,

attorney fees, expert fees, expenses, costs, and freedom to work in a non-discriminatory, non

retaliatory, and non-hostile environment.

CLAIM THREE - GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII(against ASU)

181. Plaintiff adopts and realleges the above paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

182. Defendant University is an employer and Garland is an employee within the meaning of

Title VII.

183. Defendants treated Plaintiff less favorably than his similarly situated counterparts because

of his same-sex relationship as opposed to those in opposite-sex relationships. Defendant

University views Plaintiff's sexual orientation as inconsistent with acceptable gender roles in

which a man has a female partner, rather than a male partner.

184. Plaintiffs gender, male, and the stereotypes associated with being male, were motivating

factors in Defendants' subjecting Plaintiff to discrimination and taking the adverse actions of

demoting, transferring and reducing his pay and otherwise discriminating against him in the

terms and conditions of his employment.


27




income; he has been offended by Defendants' discriminatory actions; he has been demoted and

his salary has been reduced, he has been denied pay raises and benefits, and he has been

transferred to a less prestigious position, his career interrupted, and he has been otherwise

discriminated against in the terms and conditions of his employment; he has been denied the

opportunity to advance in his career and he has suffered corresponding economic damages; he

was forced to work in an environment hostile to men with a same-Sex partnership or same-sex

marriage, one in which harassment based on race, color and gender was directed toward him; all

in violation of his federally protected rights; and he has been otherwise injured and damaged.

CLAIM FOUR- VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § § 1981,1981a, 1983 (Discrimination,Retaliation, and Hostile Work Environment on the Basis of Race)


187. Plaintiff is a member of a class protected by 42 U.S.C. §1981 and is qualified for

employment with the University.

188. The conduct of Defendants, its agents and employees, constitutes unlawful discrimination

and retaliation against Plaintiff on the basis of race, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 1983,

and constitutes part of Defendants' pattern and practice of retaliation and discrimination on the

basis of race.

189.. Defendants' harassment of Plaintiff on the basis of race and color was of a severe or

pervasive nature such as to create an abusive and hostile work environment for Plaintiff that

altered the conditions of his employment.

190. Defendants' acts were with malice and reckless disregard for Plaintiffs federally protected

28


rights.











damaged.

192. As a direct and proximate result of said acts, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer

loss of employment, loss of promotion opportunities, loss of income, loss of other employment

benefits, mental and emotional distress, humiliation, loss of self-esteem, depression expense,

embarrassment, and damage to his reputation.

CLAIM FIVE - EQUAL PROTECTION

193. Plaintiff adopts and realleges all of the above paragraphs as if set out in full.

194. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to remedy and redress the violation

of his Fourteenth Amendment tight to equal protection based upon the failure to confer upon him

the rights and work environment of similarly situated African-American or Black employees of

the University because of his race and of those in different-sex relationships because of his

gender, his same-sex relationship and his same sex marriage.29


195. Defendants have at all times acted under the color of statutes, ordinances, regulations,

and/or customs of the State of Alabama. Defendants have established and are maintaining a

policy and custom of depriving Plaintiff, a man of white skin color, and/or as a man cohabitating

with and married to a man., of his rights secured by the United States Constitution and federal

law. Defendants Harris, Douglas, Herron-Williams, Driver, Williams-York and Edwards have

been personally involved by engaging in specific acts and/or approving of wrongful conduct that

has deprived Plaintiff of his federal rights. Defendants' knowledge, or endorsement, promotion.,

ratification, or encouragement of, and acquiescence in, unlawful conduct, has deprived Plaintiff

of his constitutional and statutory rights. Defendants have devised a plan or scheme to deprive

Plaintiff of his constitutional and statutory rights and have retaliated against him for exercising

such rights.

196. The policies, practices, and customs of Defendants substantially burden the rights of men in

same-sex relationships, and/or same-sex marriages.

197. Garland has been subjected to an hostile environment because of race, color and sex, a

man in a relationship with and married to another man.

198. Defendants' actions have been motivated by invidious racial and anti-gay animosity that is

supported by no rational or legitimate governmental interest. The above mentioned acts of

Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious, oppressive, and justify the award of punitive

damages and all other damages outlined herein.

199. As a result of said acts, Plaintiff has been injured and damaged as follows: He has been

retaliated against and discriminated against on the basis of his gender; he has suffered emotional

trauma and humiliation; he has suffered mental pain and anguish; he has incurred expenses in an

attempt to enforce his legal rights; he has Suffered loss of income; he has been offended by30


Defendants' retaliatory and discriminatory actions; his salary has been reduced, his career

interrupted, and he has been denied pay raises and benefits and he has been transferred to a less

prestigious position, and has been otherwise discriminated against in the terms and conditions of

his employment; he has been denied the opportunity to advance in his career and he has suffered

corresponding economic damages; he was forced to work in an environment hostile to men with

a same-sex partnership and marriage, one in which harassment based on his failure to meet the

biased sexual Stereotypes held by Defendants was directed toward him; all in violation of his

federally protected rights; and he has been otherwise injured and damaged.

CLAIM SIX - VIOLATION OF FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS (Speechand Petition under 42 U.S.C. §1983)

200. Plaintiff adopts and realleges the above paragraphs as if set out in full.

201. Defendants Edwards, Williams-York, Douglas, Herron-Williams, Driver and Harris, acting

under color of State Law, have discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff, because he

exercised his right to free speech and to petition the government for redress under the First and

Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by basing their decisions to an impermissible

extent on Dr. Garland's exercise of his free speech and petition rights

202. Dr. Garland has raised serious matters of public concern, specifically the systemic screening

and selection of candidates for faculty and staff positions based primarily or entirely on

impermissible considerations, rather than relative qualifications for the positions to be filled. Dr.

Garland has spoken out against those practices on legal, moral, and practical grounds.

203. Defendants retaliated against Dr. Garland because of his exercise of his free speech and

petition rights.


31









denied the opportunity to advance in his career, and he has suffered corresponding economic


damaged.

CLAIM SEVEN - DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OFTITLE IX OF THE 1972 EDUCATION AMENDMENTS (against ASU)


206. Defendant University receives federal assistance and therefore must comply with Title IX

of the Education Amendments of 1972, at 2 0 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq ("Title IX"), which prohibits

gender discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance;

Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 100.7, which prohibits retaliation against

people who assert a right protected by Title IX; and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42

U.S.C. §2000e, et seq ("Title VH"), which prohibits gender discrimination in an employment

set Sing and retaliation for complaints about discrimination.

207. Plaintiff and his same-sex spouse, Dr. Chesbro, complained to the University and agents

and/or employees of the University about what they reasonably and in good faith believed to be

gender inequities in the treatment of faculty in samesex relationships at the University, as set

32


forth herein.

208. Following these complaints, the University subjected Plaintiff and his spouse to retaliation.

The retaliatory acts included, but were not limited to, subjecting Plaintiff and his spouse to less

favorable treatment than their similarly situated counterparts not in a same-sex relationships by

demoting and transferring him to a dead-end job and by reducing his salary and otherwise

discriminating and retaliating against him in the terms and conditions of employment.

209. Dr. Garland's complaints about gender inequities at the University and his same-sex

relationship and marriage, were a motivating factor in the decision to take adverse action against

him. Defendant's discriminatory and retaliatory conduct was a substantial factor causing

Plaintiff to suffer harm, including career interruption, emotional distress and economic loss.

CLAIM EIGHT—DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLEVI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 (against ASU)

210. Plaintiff adopts and realleges the above paragraphs as if set out in full herein

211. Defendant University receives federal assistances and therefore must comply with Title VI

of the Civil Rights act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.. ("Title VI"), Which prohibits race, color,

and national origin discrimination, and prohibits exclusion from participation and denial of

benefits, in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance; and which prohibits

retaliation against people who assert a right protected by Title VI.

212. Plaintiff and his same-sex spouse, Dr. Chesbro, complained to the University and agents

and/or employees of the University about what they reasonably and in good faith believed to be

race/color inequities in the treatment of faculty and students at the University, as set forth herein.

213. Following these complaints, the University subjected Plaintiff and his spouse to retaliation.

The retaliatory acts included, but Were not limited to, subjecting Plaintiff and his spouse to less33


favorable treatment than their similarly situated counterparts by demoting and transferring

Plaintiff to a dead-end job and by reducing his salary and otherwise discriminating and

retaliating against him and his spouse in the terms and conditions of employment.

214. Dr. Garland's complaints about racial inequities at the University were a motivating factor

in the decision to take adverse action against him. Defendant's discriminatory and retaliatory

conduct was a substantial factor causing Plaintiff to suffer harm, including career interruption,

emotional distress and economic loss.

CLAIM NINE - CLASS CONSPIRACY (42 U.S.C. § 1985)

215. Plaintiff adopts and realleges the above paragraphs as if set out in full herein.

216. Plaintiff was discriminated against on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender and/or

marital status as a result of .a conspiracy between the Defendants and others in violation of 42

U.S.C. § 1985. Each of the Defendants and others have conspired and agreed between

themselves for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, Plaintiff and others, of the

equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws, With the intent

to deny Plaintiff the equal protection of the laws or to injure Plaintiff, and have conspired and

agreed to inflict such discrimination, retaliation and harassment upon him. Each individual

Defendant has taken an act in furtherance of the conspiracy and Plaintiff and others have been

injured in their persons and property, and have been deprived of rights and privileges secured to

citizens of the United States.

211. Defendants reached an understanding, engaged in a sequence of events or course of

conduct, and otherwise agreed and conspired together to violate the rights of Plaintiff on the

bases of his race, color, national origin, gender, and/or marital status.

218. These Defendants did reach this understanding and agreement, and did engage in this course34


of conduct with the mutual purpose, objective, and knowledge that it would deprive Plaintiff of

his rights, privileges, and immunities as guaranteed by the laws of the United States, and by the

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

219. Acting in furtherance of this plan and conspiracy, the Defendants did commit overt acts,

including but not limited to the use of race, color, and gender discrimination; the creation of a

hostile work environment based on race, color and gender; the refusal to take action to stop the

discriminatory, retaliatory, and harassing conduct; the discriminatory alteration of the terms and

conditions of Plaintiff's employment; and to otherwise harass, discriminate and retaliate against

Plaintiff in the terms and conditions of his employment.










damages; he was forced to work in an environment hostile to men with a same-sex partnership or

same-sex marriage, one in which harassment based on race, color and gender was directed

toward him; all in violation of his federally protected rights; and he has been otherwise injured

and damaged.

CLAIM TEN -42 U.S.C. § 198635


22 1. Individual Defendants Harris, Douglas, Herron-Williams, Driver, Williams-York, and

Edwards had knowledge at all material times that the wrongs conspired to be done as alleged in

Claim Eight were about to be or were in the process of being committed during all relevant times

through the date of this complaint. Said Defendants had the power to prevent or aid in

preventing the commission of these wrongs; yet, they have neglected and refused to do so.

222. Defendant University could have by reasonable diligence prevented the wrongs alleged in

Claim Eight by reinstating Plaintiff to his former position and salary in the COHS, or by granting

Plaintiff some other effective remedy to redress the deprivation of his rights.

223. Plaintiff is entitled, by virtue of 42 U.S.C. §1986, to recover from the Defendants who have

neglected or refused to prevent the wrongful acts alleged all damages resulting from such

wrongful neglect or refusal.

CLAIM ELEVEN DEFAMATION

224. Plaintiff adopts and realleges the above paragraphs as if set out in full herein.

225. This is a claim arising under the laws of the State of Alabama claiming that Defendants

Edwards, Williams-York, Douglas, Driver, Herron-William and Harris, committed the torts of

slander and libel.

226. The defamatory statements damaged Plaintiffs professional reputation.

227. Said statements proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer humiliation, mental pain and

anguish, and loss of income.

228. The above mentioned statements of said Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious, and

oppressive and justify the award of punitive damages.

CLAIM TWELVE - INVASION OF PRIVACY

229. Plaintiff adopts and realleges the above paragraphs as if fully set out herein.36


230. This is a claim arising under the laws of the State of Alabama to redress violations by

Defendants of Plaintiff s right to privacy under Alabama law.

231. Plaintiff's private life was subjected to unreasonable intrusion and he was placed in a false

light through multiple investigations of Plaintiff and his spouse, on issues previously determined

to be unfounded, by making false accusations against him, by interrogating his colleagues about

his same-sex relationship and marriage and about his personal life, and by refusing to process his

complaints of discriminatory and retaliatory conduct, including a hostile work environment.

232. Said invasions of privacy were fomented, supported, organized and ratified by Defendants.

Defendants failed to take appropriate, effective steps to remedy the situation.

233. The above mentioned acts of Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive

and justify the award of punitive damages and all other damages outlined above.

234. The conduct of the Defendants, as set forth above, was an invasion of Plaintiffs privacy

and proximately caused him to suffer humiliation, mental pain and anguish, and economic loss

all to Plaintiffs damage.

CLAIM THIRTEEN - NEGLIGENT TRAINING AND SUPERVISION



committed the tort of negligent training and supervision.

237. The conduct of the Defendants University and Harris, as set forth above, was a breach of the

Defendants' duty to Plaintiff to exercise care in training and supervising employees Douglas,

Williams-York and Edwards, and others and a breach of Defendant Douglas' duty to exercise

care in training and supervising Williams-York and Edwards, and such breach proximately

caused Plaintiff to suffer humiliation, mental pain and anguish, and loss of income.37


238. The above mentioned acts of said Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious, and

oppressive and justify the award of punitive damages.

CLAIM FOURTEEN - NEGLIGENT RETENTION



University, Harris, and Douglas, committed the tort of negligent retention.

241. Said Defendants had a duty to investigate Plaintiffs charges of race, color, national origin,

gender discrimination and retaliation perpetrated against him and similar conduct aimed at his

spouse, and to discharge Defendants Williams-York, Edwards, Herron-Williams and Driver, and

Defendants University and Harris had a further duty to discharge Douglas, upon actual and/or

constructive notice of their incompetency.

242. The conduct of the Defendants, as set forth above, was a breach of Defendants' duty to

Plaintiff to exercise care in retaining employees, and such breach proximately caused him to

suffer humiliation, mental pain and anguish, and economic loss all to Plaintiffs damage.

243. The above mentioned acts of Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious, oppressive, and

justify the award of punitive damages.

CLAIM FIFTEEN - NEGLIGENCE

244. Plaintiff adopts and realleges the above paragraphs as if set out fully herein.


committed the tort of negligence.

246. Defendants, by their actions and omissions, breached the standard of care owed to Plaintiff

as an employee of Defendant. The conduct of Defendants, as set forth herein, was a breach of

Defendants' duty to Plaintiff to exercise due care.38


247. Defendant University's breach, through its agents, was the actual and proximate cause of

Plaintiffs injuries and justify an award of damages as outlined herein.

CLAIM SIXTEEN - WANTONNESS


249. The Defendants committed acts that constitute wantonness as more particularly described in

the factual section of this Complaint and including the retention of Douglas, Williams-York,

Herron-Williams, Driver and Edwards and the refusal to stop the harassment, retaliation and

discrimination against Plaintiff after numerous complaints.

250. As a proximate result, the Plaintiff suffered the damages as previously set forth.

CLAIM SEVENTEEN - BREACH OF CONTRACT AND FRAUDULENTINDUCEMENT TO ENTER CONTRACT (against the University)


252. Defendant's transfer of Plaintiff; the reduction of his pay, the reduction of his Summer pay,

the initial denial of tenure, the unilateral and retroactive alteration of his contract without his

knowledge or permission, and the failure to provide Plaintiff with an institutional remedy for the

violation of his rights constitutes a breach of Plaintiffs contract of employment.

253. As a result of the breach of Plaintiffs contract, Defendant has damaged Plaintiff, as alleged.

He has lost pay and his career has been interrupted.

254. In connection with the breach of Plaintiff's contract of employment, Defendant failed to act

in a commercially reasonable manlier and failed to perform its contractual obligations in good

faith.

255. Defendants committed fraud upon Plaintiff by inducing him to accept Defendant's decision

to transfer him by falsely representing that he would receive a lateral transfer with no reduction

39


m pay.

256. Plaintiffs transfer was not lateral because he was transferred to a position for which he was

vastly over-qualified, for which his advanced education and experience was unnecessary, and

which interrupted and derailed his career. Further, his compensation was greatly reduced.

257. Plaintiff reasonably relied to his detriment upon the promises and representations made to

him prior to his transfer.

258. Plaintiff is entitled to damages for his economic loss.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment against

Defendants separately and severally:

(a) Declaring that the acts and practices, policies, procedures, conditions, and customs of

Defendants complained of herein violate the rights of the Plaintiff, as secured by Title VII, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq, 42 U.S.C. §2000d, et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 198 1(a), and 42

U.S.C. § 1981, 1983, 1985 and 1986, the United States Constitution and state tort and contract

law;

(b) Granting Plaintiff a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendants, their agents, successors,

employees, attorneys, and those acting in concert with them, and at the their request, from

continuing to violate Title VII, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seg; Title VI, 42 U.S.C.

§2000d, 9-seq.: 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 1983, 1985, & 1986;

(c) Ordering Defendants to make the Plaintiff whole by reinstating him as tenured professor in

the Rehabilitation counseling Department, COHS, or comparable position, by awarding him

appropriate back pay and interest thereon, front pay, reimbursement for lost compensation and

expenses, and all other entitlements and emoluments in an amount to be shown at trial and other40


affirmative steps immediately to eliminate the effects of the discrimination and retaliatory

practices complained of herein;

(d) Granting Plaintiff reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses incurred herein pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1988 & 2000e-5(k);

(e) Granting Plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages;

(f) Ordering Defendants to adopt and strictly enforce written rules prohibiting discrimination,

retaliation, and making slanderous and intentionally false claims in the workplace; that said

written rules provide for the prompt and appropriate investigation of all related complaints and

grievances; including providing the target of any investigation with the charges made against

him /hr and the opportunity to present witnesses and respond to the charges, and that such rules

require that formal disciplinary action be taken against any employee or agent found to have

engaged in such conduct against any employee;

(g) Retaining jurisdiction over this action until the Defendants have fully complied with the

Orders of this Court and that the Court require the Defendants to file such reports as may be

necessary to supervise such compliance;

(h) Granting such other, further, and different relief to Plaintiff which it may deem proper.

/-*.M. WAYNE/SABEL, SABOAttorney for John L. Garland

Sabel & Sabel, P.C.Hillwood Office Center2800 Zelda Road, Suite 100-5Montgomery, AL 36106(334) 271-2770

41


Plaintiff demands trial by jury.

M. WAYNE ABEL, SABO

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I have hereby filed this Complaint with instructions that it, along with asummons, be served upon each and every Defendant named herein and I have provided certifiedmail receipts and materials for the Clerk of the Court to serve same upon Defendants at:

Alabama State UniversityC/o Kenneth Thomas, Esq.ASU General Counsel9.15 Jackson StreetMontgomery, AL 36104

Gwendolyn E. Boyddo Alabama State University915 Jackson StreetMontgomery, AL 36104

Sharron Herron-Williamsdo Alabama State University915 Jackson Street,Montgomery, Al 36104

Bernadette Williams-Yorkdo Alabama State University915 Jackson StreetMontgomery, AL 36104

William H. Harrisdo Alabama State University915 Jackson StreetMontgomery, AL 36104

Zillah Fluketdo Alabama State University915 Jackson StreetMontgomery, AL 36104

Necoal DriverdO Alabama State University915 Jackson StreetMontgomery, AL 36104

Dothel W. Edwardsdo Alabama State University915 Jackson StreetMontgomery, AL 36104

Carmen Douglas, Directordo city of Montgomery HR Dept..27 Madison AvenueMontgomery, AL 36104

by placing said copy in the Uthte&States mail, certified Mail, first class postage prepaid andproperly addressed on this the It day of Juneg 2014.

W,


14cv585 garland 1 compmedia.al.com/news_birmingham_impact/other/john garland lawsuit.pdf5....

Documents