UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

AT CHATTANOOGA

RAUL GARIBAY, )
)
Plaintiff, ) Jury Demanded
)
v. ) No. _____________________
)
HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, )
)
Defendant. )

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff sues Defendant and shows unto the Court as follows:

I. JURISDICTION

1. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked by Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12117,

and 28 U.S.C. §1331, to secure protection and redress for the deprivation of rights granted by the

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) providing for injunctive and other relief against disability

discrimination in employment.

II. NATURE OF PROCEEDING

2. This is an employment case in which Plaintiff seeks back pay and benefits; injunctive

relief requiring Defendant to cease its discriminatory practices and to hire Plaintiff into the position

from which he was unlawfully denied; compensatory damages; punitive damages; prejudgment

interest and attorney fees; and for such additional damages as may be necessary to effectuate the

purposes of the ADA.

III. THE PARTIES

3. Plaintiff is a resident of Hamilton County, Tennessee.

Case 1:19-cv-00186-TRM-SKL Document 1 Filed 06/26/19 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1

 4. Defendant is a political subdivision of the State of Tennessee that employs

individuals to work at various locations in Hamilton County, Tennessee, including within the

Sheriff’s Department and the Hamilton County Jail.

5. Defendant’s operations are sufficient to classify it as an “employer” within the

meaning of 42 U.S.C. §12111(5), 42 U.S.C. §12111(7), and 42 U.S.C. §2000e(a), subjecting

Defendant to the provisions of the ADA.

IV. FACTUAL BASIS OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM

6. Plaintiff is a veteran of the United States military.

7. Plaintiff served in the Oregon National Guard from June 2007 until September 2014.

Plaintiff then moved to Tennessee and served in the Tennessee National Guard from September 2014

until June 2016, at which time he received an honorable discharge at the rank of E-5 Sergeant.

8. For a span of approximately one year in 2009 and 2010, Plaintiff served on active

deployment in Iraq, during which time he experienced several incidents of combat trauma.

9. Upon Plaintiff’s return from active deployment, the U.S. Department of Veterans

Affairs diagnosed Plaintiff with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”). This PTSD diagnosis is

documented in Plaintiff’s VA mental health records.

10. Over the next several years, Plaintiff gradually experienced less PTSD symptoms, and

he slowly weaned himself from most of his mental health medications.

11. When Plaintiff’s PTSD was more active, it substantially limited Plaintiff’s brain

function and his ability to sleep (nightmares and flashbacks).

12. Soon after Plaintiff moved to Tennessee, he was hired by the Tennessee Department

of Correction as a correctional officer at the Bledsoe County Correctional Complex, which is a Level

Case 1:19-cv-00186-TRM-SKL Document 1 Filed 06/26/19 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 2

3 state prison. Plaintiff worked as a correctional officer for TDOC for two months until he aggravated

an old back injury, which forced him to resign. Otherwise, he had no problems performing the job.

13. In February 2017, Plaintiff applied for a Corrections Officer position with the

Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office to work at the county jail. Initially, Defendant denied Plaintiff’s

application, but after contacting Sheriff Jim Hammonds and meeting with an interview panel chaired

by the Chief of Corrections, Plaintiff proceeded with the application process to the psychological

examination stage.

14. On April 20, 2018, Plaintiff was examined by Dr. Donald Brookshire, a psychologist

hired by Defendant to, among other things, administer pre-hire psychological examinations. In that

examination, Plaintiff completed the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (“MMPI”) test and

underwent a very brief oral interview with Dr. Brookshire.

15. During the examination, through a series of questions, Plaintiff disclosed that he had

in the past received treatment from the VA for PTSD. At the end of the examination, Dr. Brookshire

requested that Plaintiff sign a medical release for his VA mental health records, which Plaintiff did.

16. On April 27, 2018, Plaintiff was notified by the Human Resources Manager for the

Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office that he had been denied employment because he was found to be

psychologically unfit for the position.

17. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff’s wife had a conversation with Dr. Brookshire. In that

conversation, Dr. Brookshire admitted that he deemed Plaintiff to be psychologically unfit solely

based upon Plaintiff’s diagnosis and history of PTSD in the VA mental health records.

18. In explaining his decision to deny Plaintiff’s employment, Dr. Brookshire made the

following discriminatory comments in that conversation with Plaintiff’s wife:

 “People with this kind of history [PTSD] are not considered suitable for this kind of
work.”

Case 1:19-cv-00186-TRM-SKL Document 1 Filed 06/26/19 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 3

  “As soon as I got to the VA records, I realized he’s out of the box, he doesn’t even
qualify for the evaluation.”
 “If he had these issues 30 years ago and there was a record existing anywhere of it, he
still wouldn’t be qualified for this type of work. As long as there’s any history of that
kind of thing, even if there was adolescent history of that kind of thing, he wouldn’t
qualify for it.”
 “If you have a mental illness, you are denied pretty much.”

19. Dr. Brookshire made the determination that Plaintiff was not psychologically fit for

the Corrections Officer position based upon Plaintiff’s diagnosis and history of PTSD, and not

based on Plaintiff’s current ability to perform the position.

20. Defendant readily admits that it refused to hire Plaintiff for the position of

Corrections Officer based solely upon Dr. Brookshire’s opinion that Plaintiff was not

psychologically fit for the position.

21. After being denied employment as a Corrections Officer by the Hamilton County

Sheriff’s Department, Plaintiff was hired as a Corrections Officer by the Hamilton County Juvenile

Detention Center. Plaintiff worked without any problems as a Corrections Officer at the Juvenile

Detention Center from May 2018 until December 2018, when he resigned due to a better employment

opportunity.

V. CAUSE OF ACTION

22. Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability as that term is defined within the

ADA inasmuch as Plaintiff’s PTSD is an actual disability (now in remission); Plaintiff has a record

of a disability (PTSD); or in the alternative, Defendant regarded Plaintiff as having a disability

(PTSD). 42 U.S.C. §12102; 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(j)(3)(iii) (“post-traumatic stress disorder . . .

substantially limit[s] brain function” and should therefore be considered a disability under the ADA).

23. Without any need for an accommodation, Plaintiff was qualified to perform the

essential functions of the Corrections Officer position.

Case 1:19-cv-00186-TRM-SKL Document 1 Filed 06/26/19 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 4

 24. By excluding and failing to hire Plaintiff for a Corrections Officer position because of

his disability, Defendant unlawfully discriminated against Defendant in violation of the ADA.

VI. ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION

25. On or about May 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which was assigned Charge Number 494-2018-

01727. On May 9, 2019, the EEOC issued Plaintiff a Notice of Right to Sue. Plaintiff brings this

action within 90 days of the Notice of Right to Sue.

VII. DAMAGES

26. As a result of the wrongful actions of Defendant as described above, Plaintiff has

suffered both financially and emotionally. In particular, Plaintiff has lost and will continue to lose

wages and valuable employee benefits. In addition to the actual and financial loss Plaintiff has

sustained, he has suffered emotional grief resulting from Defendant’s unlawful actions.

VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays as follows:

a. That the Court issue and serve process on Defendant and require Defendant to answer

within the time prescribed by law;

b. That Plaintiff be awarded judgment for damages for lost wages and employee benefits

which he has lost from the date of Defendant’s discriminatory actions;

c. That the Court issue an injunction requiring Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff, or in the

alternative, to award front pay in lieu thereof;

d. That Plaintiff be awarded compensatory damages, including damages for emotional

pain, suffering, grief and other nonpecuniary losses, as are allowed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1981a;

Case 1:19-cv-00186-TRM-SKL Document 1 Filed 06/26/19 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 5

 e. That Plaintiff be awarded attorney fees, prejudgment interest, costs of this action,

litigation expenses, and such other relief as the Court deems proper pursuant to the fully effectuate

the terms of the ADA; and

f. Plaintiff demands a jury to try all claims and issues triable by a jury.

MIKEL & HAMILL PLLC

By: s/ Doug S. Hamill

Doug S. Hamill, BPR No. 022825
Attorney for Plaintiff
620 Lindsay Street, Suite 200
Chattanooga, TN 37403
Tel: (423) 541-5400
Fax: (423) 541-5401
dhamill@mhemploymentlaw.com

Case 1:19-cv-00186-TRM-SKL Document 1 Filed 06/26/19 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 6