Top Banner
FLIEDINCLERK'S OFFICE U.S .D.C .Atlanta ~~. INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT SEP0 52008 JAMES7TEN,Cfe , k By : D epu~ NORTHERNDISTRICTOFGEORGIA ATLANTADIVISION Defendants . indetailbelow,DefendantsconspiredtosubjectRoetoanunlawfulpre- RICHARDROE, anindividual, Plaint i ff , V . CITYOFATLANTA, ATLANTAPOLICEDEPARTMENT, CADUCEUSOCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE,LLCand ALTONGREENS,MD CIVILACTIONFILE NO . 1 rvTria lDe mand e u COMPLAINT Plaintiff,RichardRoe("Plaintiff ' or"Roe"),byhisattorneys,filesthis ComplaintagainstDefendants,CityofAtlanta,CityofAtlantaPoliceDepartment, CaduceusOccupationalMedicine,LLCandAltonGreene,MD(collectivelythe "Defendants"),andstatesasfollows : NATU R E OFTHEACTION RichardRoebringsthisactiontoremedyimpropertestingandemployment discriminationbaseduponhishavingtestedpositivefortheHIVvirus .Asalleged Case 1:08-cv-02799-MHS Document 1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 1 of 28
28

Richard Roe v. City of Atlanta

Jul 24, 2015

Download

Documents

Matt Hennie

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.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Richard Roe v. City of Atlanta

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

Page 2: Richard Roe v. City of Atlanta

-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

Page 3: Richard Roe v. City of Atlanta

-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

Page 4: Richard Roe v. City of Atlanta

-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

Page 5: Richard Roe v. City of Atlanta

-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

Page 6: Richard Roe v. City of Atlanta

- 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

Page 7: Richard Roe v. City of Atlanta

-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

Page 8: Richard Roe v. City of Atlanta

-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

Page 9: Richard Roe v. City of Atlanta

-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

Page 10: Richard Roe v. City of Atlanta

-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

Page 11: Richard Roe v. City of Atlanta

-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

Page 12: Richard Roe v. City of Atlanta

- 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

Page 13: Richard Roe v. City of Atlanta

- 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

Page 14: Richard Roe v. City of Atlanta

-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

Page 15: Richard Roe v. City of Atlanta

-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

Page 16: Richard Roe v. City of Atlanta

-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

Page 17: Richard Roe v. City of Atlanta

-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

Page 18: Richard Roe v. City of Atlanta

- 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

Page 19: Richard Roe v. City of Atlanta

-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

Page 20: Richard Roe v. City of Atlanta

-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

Page 21: Richard Roe v. City of Atlanta

-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

Page 22: Richard Roe v. City of Atlanta

-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

Page 23: Richard Roe v. City of Atlanta

-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

Page 24: Richard Roe v. City of Atlanta

-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

Page 25: Richard Roe v. City of Atlanta

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

Page 26: Richard Roe v. City of Atlanta

-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

Page 27: Richard Roe v. City of Atlanta

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

Page 28: Richard Roe v. City of Atlanta

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