In the united states district court

Pdf File 1,067.84 KByte, 24 Pages

? ? Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 1 of 24

ANTHONY BROWN 1120 Alexander Avenue Catonsville, MD 21228

Plaintiff,

v.

BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT 601 East Fayette Street Baltimore, Maryland 21222

Serve on: Legal Affairs Baltimore Police Department c/o 242 W. 29th Street Baltimore, MD 21211

AND

BALTIMORE POLICE COMMISSIONER : FREDERICK H. BEALEFELD, III Baltimore Police Department c/o 242 W. 29th Street Baltimore, MD 21211

AND

FORMER MA YOR SHEILA DIXON

Serve on: City Solicitor City Hall, Room 101 100 North Holliday St. Baltimore, MD 21202

AND

CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE

IN THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT

OF THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

BALTIMORE DIVISION

Case No.:

_

ROB11 CV0 1 3 6

c: '-

"" !j-t l ""

)

--

". -

-. - C- ~:"J

~._. i} _i. ~hf

". .(')

-';i. ~<

e- n ,.< ?.. ,

-- :--

--, L) ;t)

?....., ":l

c...:;) ;.:::..

1--

---4-

.-

.--,_:I:s

., ~J

:"J r"-)

I

-~ --0 Z

~ .?.

~ "'_ ..?

,~.

-J -"1

(1'1 OJ W ,-.

><

? ? Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 2 of 24

Serve on: City Solicitor City Hall, Room 101 100 North Holliday St. Baltimore, MD 21202

AND

STATE OF MARYLAND

Serve on: Maryland Attorney General 200 St. Paul Place Baltimore, Maryland 21202

AND

LIEUTENANT JOHN WINDLE Baltimore Police Department c/o 242 W. 29th Street Baltimore, MD 21211

AND

SERGEANT ALLEN ADKINS.

Baltimore Police Department c/o 242 W. 29th Street

Baltimore, MD 21211

Defendants.

...0000000 ...

COMPLAINT AND ELECTION OF JURY TRIAL

Anthony Brown, by his attorneys, Craig R. Schulman, David 1. Weinstein and Schulman, Treem

& Gilden, P.A., hereby file this Complaint against the above-captioned Defendants, for that:

NATURE OF CONTROVERSY

1. This is a civil action against Defendants for injuries and damages which Plaintiff, (former)

Detective Anthony Brown, sustained as a result of Defendants' negligent, grossly negligent,

"

2

? ? Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 3 of 24

discriminatory, and/or retaliatory actions against him, in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. s2000e et seq. (hereinafter "Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. S1981, 42 U.S.C. S1983, 42 U.S.C. SI985(3), 42 U.S.C. S1986, the Annotated Code of Maryland, and Maryland common law.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. Jurisdiction is proper over this matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. s2000e-5(f)(3), 28 U.S.C. S1331, and 28 U.S.C. s1367(a). Venue is proper in this jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C S1391(b) and 42 U.S.C. s2000e-5(f)(3), in that all acts giving rise to these claims occurred in the District of Maryland. 3. All applicable administrative and procedural requirements have been satisfied. The Notice of Right-to-Sue was issued by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on October 18,2010, and this suit is brought within ninety (90) days of Plaintiffs receipt of the Notice of Right-toSue. The Notice of Right-to-Sue is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

PARTIES 4. Plaintiff, Anthony Brown, is and was at all times relevant herein, a citizen of the United States of America. Plaintiff is an African-American male, and was, at all times relevant herein, at least 18 years of age. For purposes of relief sought herein, Plaintiff is a person within the meaning of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. S1981. 5. Defendant, Baltimore City Police Department (hereinafter "the Department"), is an agency of the State of Maryland pursuant to the Baltimore City Code of Public Laws gI6-2(a), and whose police power is conferred by the Mayor and City Counsel of Baltimore, pursuant to the Baltimore City Charter, Article II, S27. The Department is or was the employer of Plaintiff and Defendants Bealefe1d, Windle, and Adkins, as set forth herein and within the meaning of Title VII. At all times relevant herein, the Department condoned, ratified, authorized and/or engaged in the discriminatory practices, policies, and

3

? ? Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 4 of 24

wrongful acts described in this Complaint through its agents/employees. For purposes of relief sought herein, Defendant Department is a person within the meaning of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. S1983. 6. Defendant, Commissioner Frederick H. Bealefeld III (hereinafter "Bealefeld"), is and was at all times relevant herein, the Commissioner of the Department. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Bealefeld condoned, ratified, authorized and/or engaged in the discriminatory practices, policies and wrongful acts described in this Complaint through its agents/employees. For purposes of relief sought herein, Defendant Bealefeld is a person within the meaning of Title VII and 42 U.S.c. S1983, and an employer as defined in 42 U.S.C. s2000e. 7. Defendant, Mayor Sheila Dixon (hereinafter "Dixon"), was at all times relevant herein, the Mayor of the City of Baltimore. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Dixon ratified, authorized and/or engaged in the discriminatory practices, policies and wrongful acts described in this Complaint through its agents/employees. For purposes of relief sought herein, Defendant Dixon is a person within the meaning of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. S1983, and an employer as defined in 42 U.S.C. s2000e. 8. Defendant, Mayor & City Council, (hereinafter "City"), is a municipal corporation governed by Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maryland. At all times relevant herein, Defendant City confers police powers upon the Department and supervises all Baltimore Police Department Officials, and as such, either engaged in or ratified the discriminatory customs, practices, policies, and wrongful acts described in this Complaint through the agents and employees of the Baltimore Police Department in existence at the time. For purposes of relief sought herein, Defendant City is a person within the meaning of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. S1983, and an employer as defined in 42 U.S.C. s2000e.

4

? Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 5 of 24

9. Defendant, State of Maryland (hereinafter "State"), is a governmental entity, and is an employer as defined in 42 U.S.C. s2000e. At all times relevant herein, Defendant State, through its agents and/or employees, condoned, ratified, authorized and/or engaged in the discriminatory practices and wrongful acts described in this Complaint. For purposes of relief sought herein, Defendant State is a person within the meaning of Title VII. 10. At all times relevant herein, the Defendant, Detective John Windle (hereinafter "Windle"), was a police officer employed by the Department and was acting as an agent, servant and/or employee of the Department and was further acting during, in furtherance of and within the scope of said agency, servitude, and/or employment. For purposes of relief sought herein, Defendant Windle is a person within the meaning of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. S1983, as defined in 42 U.S.C. s2000e. 11. At all times relevant herein, the Defendant, Sergeant Allen Adkins (hereinafter "Adkins"), was a police officer employed by the Department and was acting as an agent, servant and/or employee of the Department and was further acting during, in furtherance of and within the scope of said agency, servitude, and/or employment. For purposes of relief sought herein, Defendant Adkins is a person within the meaning of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. S1983, and an employer as defined in 42 U.S.C. s2000e.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 12. Plaintiff began his employment with the Department on or about May 6, 1992. Prior to that date, Plaintiff spent approximately nine (9) years as a member of the U.S. Army (1982-1991). Throughout his entire career as a police and/or military officer, it has been well-documented and widely known and/or presumed that Brown was diagnosed with Pseudofolliculitis Barbae (hereinafter referred to as "PFB"), a skin condition common to African-American men, and therefore was deemed and/or presumed to have a legitimate shaving profile at all times relevant throughout his professional career.

5

? ? Case 1:11-cv-00136-RDB Document 1 Filed 01/14/11 Page 6 of 24

PFB has been recognized by Maryland Courts as a disability because it is a condition significant enough to impair a major life activity. 13. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff had achieved the rank of Detective with the Baltimore City Police Department, and was working in that capacity with the Department at the time of the incident(s) relevant to this Complaint. The Rules and Regulations, which govern and/or contain all policies and procedures relevant to this Complaint, are known as the General Orders (hereinafter referred to as the "G.O."). 14. General Order C-12 defines Professional Appearance Standards for active police officers. The provisions of G.O. C-12, 15-19.1 generally prohibit any facial hair, but make an explicit exception in section 19 for, "a member who is suffering from a skin condition such as PFB and is unable to shave." If a member receives a waiver from the Professional Appearance Standards due to PFB, Section 19 allows him to "clip the beard as close as medically permitted (normally 'i4 inch in length)." Prior to the incident at issue in this Complaint, Plaintiff had never had any "grooming issues" with the Department, and had maintained the same type of facial hair appearance for most if not all of his time as a member of the BPD without any issue or complaint. 15. On or about January 13, 2009, Defendant Adkins informed Plaintiff that he needed to his shaving profile. On or about January 14, 2009, pursuant to Sgt. Adkins' request, Plaintiff visited his long time dermatologist, Larry H. Gaston, M.D., who provided him with an updated letter confirming that he had PFB, pursuant to Adkins' request. Said letter expressly stated that the condition (PFB) as one that, "can produce a severe skin infection, which can lead to extensive scarring of the beard region of the face as a consequence of shaving." Furthermore, Dr. Gaston recommended that Brown, "be exempted

6

Download Pdf File