RAUL GARIBAY, )
)
Plaintiff, ) Jury Demanded
)
v. ) No. _____________________
)
HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, )
)
Defendant. )
COMPLAINT
I. JURISDICTION
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.
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
individuals to work at various locations in Hamilton County, Tennessee, including within the
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
10. Over the next several years, Plaintiff gradually experienced less PTSD symptoms, and
11. When Plaintiff’s PTSD was more active, it substantially limited Plaintiff’s brain
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
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
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
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
“People with this kind of history [PTSD] are not considered suitable for this kind of
work.”
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
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
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
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
his disability, Defendant unlawfully discriminated against Defendant in violation of the ADA.
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
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.
a. That the Court issue and serve process on Defendant and require Defendant to answer
b. That Plaintiff be awarded judgment for damages for lost wages and employee benefits
c. That the Court issue an injunction requiring Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff, or in the
pain, suffering, grief and other nonpecuniary losses, as are allowed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1981a;
litigation expenses, and such other relief as the Court deems proper pursuant to the fully effectuate
f. Plaintiff demands a jury to try all claims and issues triable by a jury.