IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION. Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. v.

Transcription

1 JANE DOE, Individual And As Next Friend Of LISA DOE, AND LISA DOE, Individual, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. ALVIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, DR. FRED BRENT, individually and in his representative capacity, KAREN WINDSOR, individually and in her representative capacity, CHIEF EUGENE LEWIS, JR., individually and in his representative capacity, CARRIE MARTIN, individually and in her representative capacity, AND UNKNOWN ALVIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT, Defendants. Jury Trial Demanded PLAINTIFFS, JANE DOE and LISA DOE S, ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COME Jane Doe and her daughter, Lisa Doe (fictitious names), hereinafter called Plaintiffs, complaining of and about Alvin Independent School District, Dr. Fred Brent, Karen Windsor, Chief Eugene Lewis, Carrie Martin, hereinafter called Defendants, and for cause of action shows unto the Court the following: PARTIES AND SERVICE

2 1. Plaintiffs Jane Doe and Lisa Doe are citizens of the United States and the State of Texas and reside in Brazoria County, Texas. Jane Doe resides within the boundaries of the Alvin Independent School District, with her daughter, Lisa Doe, a minor. 2. Defendant Alvin Independent School District ( AISD ) may be served with citation by serving the President of its Board of Trustees, Pete Vincent. 3. Defendant Dr. Fred Brent ( Brent ) is a citizen of the State of Texas. Brent may be personally served with process wherever he may be located. 4. Defendant Karen Windsor ( Windsor ) is a citizen of the State of Texas. Windsor may be personally served with process wherever she may be located. 5. Defendant Chief Eugene Lewis, Jr. ( Lewis ) is a citizen of the State of Texas. Lewis may be personally served with process wherever he may be located. 6. Defendant Carrie Martin ( Martin ) is a citizen of the State of Texas. Martin may be personally served with process wherever she may be located. 7. Defendant Unknown Alvin Independent School District Student s identity is unknown at this time but the Complaint will be amended when his identity is ascertained. JURISDICTION 8. The action arises under 42 U.S.C. 1983, 20 U.S.C (Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972). This Court has jurisdiction over the federal claims in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C and 28 U.S.C This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims discussed below under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a) because they arise out of the same case or controversy. NATURE OF ACTION 10. This is an action to vindicate the civil rights of Lisa Doe under 42 U.S.C. 1983, 20 U.S.C. Page 2 of 21

3 (Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972), against various defendants for their violations of her constitutional right to bodily integrity, their negligence, negligent hiring, negligent supervision, negligent training, negligent retention, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, battery, false imprisonment, sexual harassment, sexual assault, and sex discrimination of Lisa Doe. FACTS 11. AISD is a governmental body created by statute and organized under the laws of the state of Texas to provide public education to the children that reside within its boundaries. 12. The AISD police department is part of the AISD. 13. Lisa Doe attended Alvin Independent School District since Each year, Jane Doe expressed to AISD, through its special education representatives, including to the director of special education, her concern for Lisa Doe s safety. 15. Lisa Doe attended Alvin High School during part of the school year. 16. Lisa Doe is a special needs student whose education was subject to an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). She has an IQ in the 70s. 17. Located in Lisa Doe s school file was a psychological report which clearly indicated that Lisa Doe was conflict adverse, behaviorally passive, and most importantly, sexually naïve. 18. In a specific meeting at the end of the school year, Jane Doe expressed her desire to withdraw Lisa from school as she was concerned for her sexual safety at Alvin High School. AISD officials told Jane Doe was not allowed to do so by Texas law. AISD assured Page 3 of 21

4 Jane Doe that Lisa would be protected and kept safe as a student at Alvin High School. 19. Jane Doe repeatedly requested that the school provide additional monitoring for Lisa Doe to ensure her protection and safety because she was a potential target for sexual misconduct as indicated in her 2004 psychological report from Texas Children s Hospital. 20. AISD had a copy of this document in Lisa s file and had been reminded about it on this particular occasion. 21. AISD not only rejected Jane Doe s request that Lisa receive additional monitoring and safety protections, but made absolutely no effort to separate or protect Lisa Doe from potential sexual predators. 22. During the school year, at Alvin High School, on February 23, 2011, Lisa Doe was raped by an unknown 18 year old male student in an underground bathroom. 23. AISD did not ensure her safety by allowing an underground bathroom to be open to students in an area where there is no adult supervision. 24. Immediately after the rape occurred, Lisa Doe informed school authorities that the sexual harassment, assault, and rape had taken place. 25. Lisa reported the sexual harassment, assault, and rape so that AISD would protect her. 26. Lisa s counselor immediately called Jane Doe telling her that her daughter had been raped. 27. Jane Doe drove directly to Alvin High School and arrived within thirty minutes of that phone call. 28. The school counselor, who verbally supported Lisa and expressed desire to provide Page 4 of 21

5 counseling to help her through this horrific experience, was immediately removed and kept from Lisa and Jane. 29. AISD already had Lisa sequestered and upon Jane Doe s arrival she was required to wait another thirty minutes rather than immediately being allowed to comfort her daughter. 30. In the time following Lisa s report to AISD, Lisa Doe was subjected to multiple intimidating interrogations by AISD, which lasted four hours, during much of which, Jane Doe was not present. 31. When Jane Doe was finally allowed in to see her daughter, the school officials and Martin informed her that they did not find Lisa Doe s allegations credible and that they believed Lisa Doe had consented to intercourse. 32. During these interrogations, Lisa Doe unfalteringly described the sexual harassment, assault, and rape perpetrated upon her. 33. The four hour interrogation was traumatizing and horrific for both Lisa and Jane. Jane continued to explain throughout the interrogation that Lisa did not understand what was happening or could not understand of which what Martin was accusing her. 34. On numerous occasions, Martin attempted to get Lisa to recant her story. Lisa never did. 35. Martin said she was already talking with the Brazoria County District Attorney, would obtain a warrant, come to Lisa s home, handcuff her, and take her to jail. 36. Lisa Doe continued to tell Jane Doe and the AISD officials she had been raped. 37. Jane Doe repeatedly requested information about the process for a rape exam. 38. AISD failed to refer Lisa Doe to a medical professional for a Sexual Assault Forensic Exam Page 5 of 21

6 ( SAFE exam) after her report of rape. Indeed, Martin tried to talk Jane Doe out of taking her daughter to the hospital for further examination telling her that it was not important to do so immediately. 39. Jane Doe took Lisa that same day to the hospital for a rape examination. 40. Jane Doe withdrew Lisa Doe from school on February 24, Jane Doe sent a letter of concern to Lewis regarding the four hours of inappropriate interrogation from Martin. Lewis never responded. 42. Based upon information and belief, AISD never disciplined the unknown 18 year old student for sexually harassing, assaulting or raping Lisa Doe during the school year. 43. AISD, although mandatory reporters under Texas child abuse reporting laws, failed to report Lisa Doe s complaints to Child Protective Services or the Texas Department of Family Protective Services. 44. AISD, without informing or receiving the permission of Jane Doe, forced Lisa Doe to endure interrogations that she did not understand with her IQ level and could not know what was happening to her. 45. Despite its failure to conduct even the appearance of a reasonable investigation, the named school officials further humiliated Lisa Doe by attempting to suspend her from school for the offense of Lewd Behavior. 46. As part of the intentional and orchestrated cover-up, AISD conducted an ARD meeting to determine Lisa guilty of lewd behavior but did not include Jane Doe, who is a primary member of the ARD committee. Page 6 of 21

7 47. An ARD meeting never should have taken place since Lisa was withdrawn from school. 48. At a follow up hearing, Jane informed the hearing officer that Lisa had been withdrawn from school on February 24, The suspension and referral to authorities was the result of AISD s intent to retaliate against Lisa Doe for the acts of reporting sexual harassment and abuse which were potentially embarrassing to AISD. 50. Jane Doe sent registered letters to AISD Board of Trustees to seek their assistance. The Board Members provided no response. 51. AISD was deliberately indifferent to the harassment endured by Lisa Doe in that its response to the report that she was harassed, raped and sexually assaulted was clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances 52. Following the ARD, Alvin ISD scheduled a punishment hearing to determine further punishment for Lisa. 53. The forcible rape by the unknown student and the attempted discipline imposed on Lisa Doe when she reported the assault, all combined to interrupt and interfere with her access to education at AISD. 54. AISD is a public educational system that receives federal financial assistance from the government of the United States of America and is subject to the applicability of Title IX of the Education Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C.A AISD knew about and was deliberately indifferent to the outrageous conduct and actively participated not only in the cover-up of the sexual assault but went so far as to charge its own special education student, Lisa, with an offense. Page 7 of 21

8 56. AISD immediately accused Lisa Doe of lying about being raped without engaging in even minimal investigative steps such as reading Lisa Doe s school file or having her examined for evidence of rape by qualified medical personnel. 57. Rather than investigate, AISD engaged in an intentional and concerted campaign of intimidation and skepticism, designed to persuade Lisa Doe to recant her allegations. 58. After being warned that Lisa Doe was susceptible to sexual misconduct while at school, AISD failed to take any steps to ensure that Lisa Doe was separated from potential rapists or to provide additional protection to her. 59. As a direct and proximate result of AISD s deliberate indifference to reported acts of severe and objectively offensive discrimination which occurred under its control, Lisa Doe has suffered damages in the following ways, including but not limited to: a. Damages for her denial of access to an educational environment free from sexual harassment and abuse. b. Damages suffered in the form of past, present, and future physical, psychological and emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life. c. Past, present, and future medical expenses for physical, emotional, and mental health. 60. Lisa Doe engaged in a protected activity when she reported to school authorities that sexual assault and rape had been committed against her. 61. AISD is a governmental body created by statute to provide public education to the children that reside within its boundaries, and during all relevant time periods, acted under the color of state law. 62. AISD s actions and omissions impacted upon Lisa Doe s Fourteenth Amendment right under Page 8 of 21

9 the Due Process Clause to a liberty interest in her bodily integrity. 63. As a female special needs student, Lisa Doe was a member of a limited and precisely defined group. 64. AISD s conduct, by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation into Lisa Doe s complaints, failing to protect Lisa Doe from her rapist, and retaliating against her for reporting acts of sexual abuse, placed Lisa Doe at a significant risk of serious, immediate, and proximate harm. 65. The risk to Lisa Doe s personal safety was known to AISD because Jane Doe directly informed AISD school officials that sexual assaults could occur specifically in a meeting requested by Jane Doe with AISD on this particular subject and concern of Jane Doe s held three months prior to Lisa s entry at Alvin High School during which AISD assured Jane that Lisa would be protected. 66. AISD acted recklessly in conscious disregard of and with deliberate indifference to the risk to Lisa Doe s safety by failing to conduct an investigation into her allegations of rape and sexual assault, by suspending her from school, and by failing to provide her with any protection from her rapist. 67. AISD s conduct shocks the conscience. 68. AISD s actions were intentional, willful, wanton, and displayed a deliberate, reckless, and callous indifference to Lisa Doe s federally protected rights such that Lisa Doe is likely entitled to an award of punitive damages. 69. Lisa Doe s rights to a liberty interest in her bodily integrity, and to be free of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment were clearly established at all relevant times. 70. AISD was aware of Lisa Doe s liberty interest in her bodily integrity, and her right to be free from rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment and failed to take steps to protect these Page 9 of 21

10 rights. 71. AISD failed to adequately train its employees in the handling and proper investigation of allegations of sexual harassment and abuse. 72. AISD s failure to train its employees reflects a reckless disregard for or deliberates indifference to the rights of students such that the inadequate training or supervision represents AISD s policy. 73. AISD did not appropriately respond to specific complaints about Lisa s safety and by Lisa Doe when she reported the rape. 74. AISD was tacitly and deliberately indifferent to the sexually-charged and sexually hostile environment pervasive at Alvin High School. 75. Moreover, and outrageously, despite having been fired from her prior employment, AISD allowed Martin to harshly and brutally interrogate a special education student. Martin is still listed on the staff roster of Alvin ISD Police Department and is still employed by AISD. 76. By reason of AISD s willful and conscious employment of individuals such as Martin, Lisa has been injured physically and psychologically in her good name and reputation. 77. The sexually hostile environment to which AISD subjected Lisa and other students, led to sexual assaults against her and other morally reprehensible and offensive events, all which have deeply troubled and emotionally scarred Lisa and Jane. 78. The effects of the sexually hostile environment continue to manifest themselves in various ways, including adversely affecting her sleeping, eating and social habits. 79. Lisa has been degraded and mistreated as though she was the perpetrator of some bad act. She has been stripped of the confidence she once possessed. Page 10 of 21

11 SEX DISCRIMINATION AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT 80. AISD, by and through Defendant's agents, intentionally engaged in discriminatory practices involving Plaintiff because she is a female. 81. AISD, by and through Defendant's agents, sexually harassed Plaintiff, in violation of her rights. Defendant, Alvin Independent School District, knew or should have known of the harassment, yet failed to take prompt remedial action. DISCRIMINATION 82. AISD, by and through Defendant's agents, discriminated against Plaintiff in connection with the terms, conditions and privileges of her education or limited, segregated or classified Plaintiff in a manner that would deprive or tend to deprive her of any educational opportunity or adversely affect her status because of Plaintiff's gender in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and Title IX. 83. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, AISD, by and through Defendant's agents, discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of sex with malice or with reckless indifference to the stateprotected rights of Plaintiff. RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR AND RATIFICATION 84. Whenever in this complaint it is alleged that the Defendant, Alvin Independent School District, did any act or thing, it is meant that the Defendant's officers, agents, servants, employees or representatives did such act and/or that at that time such act was done, it was done with the full authorization or ratification of the Defendant or was done in the normal and routine course and scope of employment of Defendant's officers, agents, servants, employees, or representatives. Page 11 of 21

12 ASSAULT AND BATTERY BY UNKNOWN AISD STUDENT 85. Defendant Unknown AISD Student intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly made contact with Plaintiff's person or threatened Plaintiff with imminent bodily injury which caused injury to Plaintiff. Plaintiff suffered damages for which Plaintiff herein sues. FALSE IMPRISONMENT BY MARTIN 86. Defendant Martin willfully detained Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not consent to the detention and the detention was without legal authority or justification. Plaintiff suffered damages for which Plaintiff herein sues. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS BY DEFENDANTS 87. Defendants intentionally or recklessly caused Lisa Doe emotional distress by his outrageous conduct. Defendants conduct was extreme and outrageous and proximately caused Lisa severe emotional distress. Plaintiff suffered damages for which Plaintiff herein sues. Defendants knew or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of the conduct described herein. The sexual abuse, false imprisonment, harassment and discrimination described herein are extreme and outrageous, are beyond all possible bounds of decency and are utterly intolerable in a civilized community. The acts and omissions of the Defendants were the cause of Lisa Doe s distress. The emotional distress sustained by the Plaintiff was severe and of a nature that no reasonable person could be expected to endure. NEGLIGENCE BY AISD 88. AISD owed Doe a legal duty to protect her from harm while under its care, custody, and control. Defendant breached this duty which proximately caused injury to Plaintiff. Page 12 of 21

13 Plaintiff seeks all available damages for injuries caused by Defendant's negligence. AISD was negligent in failing to provide a safe environment free from sexual harassment, physical, verbal and emotional abuse and discrimination. AISD is liable for the negligent acts of all school personnel acting within the scope of their employment while engaged in the conduct alleged in this Complaint. NEGLIGENCE BY BRENT 89. Defendant Dr. Fred Brent owed Doe legal duty to protect her from harm while under his care, custody, and control. Defendant breached this duty which proximately caused injury to Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks all available damages for injuries caused by Defendant's negligence. NEGLIGENCE BY WINDSOR 90. Defendant Karen Windsor owed Doe legal duty to protect her from harm while under her care, custody, and control. Defendant breached this duty which proximately caused injury to Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks all available damages for injuries caused by Defendant's negligence. NEGLIGENCE BY LEWIS 91. Defendant Lewis owed Doe legal duty to protect her from harm while under his care, custody, and control. Defendant breached this duty which proximately caused injury to Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks all available damages for injuries caused by Defendant's negligence. NEGLIGENCE BY MARTIN 92. Defendant Martin owed Doe legal duty to protect her from harm while under her care, custody, and control. Defendant breached this duty which proximately caused injury to Page 13 of 21

14 Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks all available damages for injuries caused by Defendant's negligence. NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, TRAINING AND RETENTION BY AISD 93. AISD, through its employees, who were acting under color of law in their capacities as employees of the AISD, deprived Lisa Doe of her rights under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to equal protection under the law and of her liberty interest in bodily integrity. 94. Plaintiff alleges that the conduct of Defendant AISD constituted negligent hiring, supervision, training and retention. 95. AISD failed to adequately train its employees in the handling and proper investigation of allegations of sexual harassment and abuse. 96. AISD failed to train its police department properly. 97. AISD s failure to train its employees reflects a reckless disregard for or deliberate indifference to the rights of students such that the inadequate training or supervision represent s AISD s policy. 98. The investigation of allegations of rape and sexual assault is a recurring necessity in which there is an obvious potential for violations, and in which there is an obvious need for training to avoid violations of citizens and students constitutional rights. 99. The implementation of measures to protect school children from known acts of sexual assault is necessary to correct a potentially recurring activity in which there is an obvious potential for constitutional deprivations and an obvious need for training to avoid violations of citizens constitutional rights. Page 14 of 21

15 100. Defendants acts of expelling Lisa Doe when she reported that rapes and sexual assaults had been committed against her represents a pattern of unconstitutional conduct that was known to AISD AISD s failure to correct this pattern represents a deliberate indifference to Lisa Doe s rights AISD s policy of failing to adequately train and supervise its employees was the actual and proximate cause of constitutional deprivations, repeated sexual assaults, and forcible rapes committed against Lisa Doe Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Alvin Independent School District did not properly screen, evaluate, investigate, or take any reasonable steps to determine whether Martin, Brent, Lewis, or Windsor were unfit, incompetent, or a danger to third parties. Defendant Alvin Independent School District knew or should have known that Martin, Brent, Lewis, or Windsor were unfit and could foresee that Martin, Brent, Lewis, or Windsor would come in contact with Plaintiff, creating a risk of danger to Plaintiff. Defendant AISD's failure to exercise reasonable care in the hiring, supervision, training and retention Martin, Brent, Lewis, or Windsor was the proximate cause of damages to Plaintiff for which Plaintiff hereby sues As a direct and proximate result of AISD s policy of failing to train its employees, Lisa Doe suffered damages in the following ways, including but not limited to: a. Damages for her denial of access to an educational environment free from sexual harassment and abuse. b. Damages suffered in the form of past, present, and future physical, psychological and emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish and loss of enjoyment of life; Page 15 of 21

16 c. Past, present, and future medical expenses for physical, emotional, and mental health. NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, TRAINING AND RETENTION BY BRENT 105. Plaintiff alleges that the conduct of Defendant Brent constituted negligent hiring, supervision, training and retention. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Brent did not properly screen, evaluate, investigate, or take any reasonable steps to determine whether Martin was unfit, incompetent or a danger to third parties. Defendant Brent knew or should have known that Martin was unfit and could foresee that Martin would come in contact with Plaintiff, creating a risk of danger to Plaintiff. Defendant Brent's failure to exercise reasonable care in the hiring, supervision, training and retention of Martin was the proximate cause of damages to Plaintiff for which Plaintiff hereby sues. NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, TRAINING AND RETENTION BY WINDSOR 106. Plaintiff alleges that the conduct of Defendant Windsor constituted negligent hiring, supervision, training and retention. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Windsor did not properly screen, evaluate, investigate, or take any reasonable steps to determine whether Martin was unfit, incompetent or a danger to third parties. Defendant Windsor knew or should have known that Martin was unfit and could foresee that Martin would come in contact with Plaintiff, creating a risk of danger to Plaintiff. Defendant Windsor's failure to exercise reasonable care in the hiring, supervision, training and retention of Martin was the proximate cause of damages to Plaintiff for which Plaintiff hereby sues. Page 16 of 21

17 NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, TRAINING AND RETENTION BY LEWIS 107. Plaintiff alleges that the conduct of Defendant Lewis constituted negligent hiring, supervision, training and retention. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Lewis did not properly screen, evaluate, investigate, or take any reasonable steps to determine whether Martin was unfit, incompetent or a danger to third parties. Defendant Lewis knew or should have known that Martin was unfit and could foresee that Martin would come in contact with Plaintiff, creating a risk of danger to Plaintiff. Defendant Lewis failure to exercise reasonable care in the hiring, supervision, training and retention of Martin was the proximate cause of damages to Plaintiff for which Plaintiff hereby sues TITLE IX OF THE EDUCATIONAL AMENDMENTS OF 1972 (20 U.S.C (a)) 108. AISD receives federal funding Defendants knew or should have known of the sexual harassment against Plaintiff Defendants had authority to address the sexual harassment against Plaintiff Defendants were deliberately indifferent in responding to sexual harassment against Plaintiff Sexual harassment was so severe and pervasive and objectively offensive that it deprived Doe of access to the educational opportunities and benefits provided by the school Lisa Doe was subject to conduct of a sexual nature that unreasonably interfered with her education by creating an intimidating, hostile, humiliating and sexually offensive educational environment Doe was excluded from and discriminated against obtaining the advantages, privileges Page 17 of 21

18 and courses of study at AISD as a result of sexual harassment and a sexually hostile environment Defendants failed to establish and/or utilize effective policies and procedures and/or to implement monitoring and evaluation practices to insure that sexual harassment was eliminated Sexual harassment discrimination created an obstacle to access AISD school programs for Doe Defendants failed to prevent harassment and discrimination and failed to respond promptly to such discrimination and harassment when they had knowledge of its occurrence Defendants failed to provide and/or utilize adequate in-service training regarding the prevention of discrimination and harassment and the appropriate methods for responding to such discrimination and harassment in a school setting Doe was denied access to policies and procedures regarding protections against sexual harassment and sexual abuse. DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS (42 U.S.C. 1983) 120. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendants were acting under color of federal and state laws, statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations while depriving the Plaintiff of established legal rights, including but not limited to: a) the right to be free from sexual harassment and sexual abuse; and b) the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of gender. Page 18 of 21

19 ATTORNEY FEES 121. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C Plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendants for damages in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court, for actual damages in such sum as will adequately compensate her for actual damages sustained, together with reasonable attorneys fees and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, for costs incurred herein, for interest as allowed by law, and for such other and further legal and equitable relief as the Court deems proper. DAMAGES 122. Plaintiffs, Lisa Doe and Jane Doe, sustained the following damages as a result of the actions and/or omissions of Defendants described hereinabove: a. Actual damages; b. All reasonable and necessary attorney fees incurred by or on behalf of Plaintiffs; c. All reasonable and necessary costs incurred in pursuit of this suit; d. Emotional pain; e. Expert fees as the Court deems appropriate; f. Inconvenience; g. Prejudgment interest; h. Loss of enjoyment of life; i. Mental anguish in the past; j. Mental anguish in the future; Page 19 of 21

20 k. Reasonable medical care and expenses in the past. These expenses were incurred by Jane Doe and Lisa Doe and such charges are reasonable and were usual and customary charges for such services in Brazoria County, Texas; l. Reasonable and necessary medical care and expenses which will in all reasonable probability be incurred in the future; m. Humiliation; n. Loss of time; o. Physical discomfort; and p. Injury to reputation. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES 123. Plaintiffs would further show that the acts and omissions of Defendants complained of herein were committed with malice or reckless indifference to the protected rights of the Plaintiffs. In order to punish said Defendants for engaging in the violations of the Does civil rights and to deter such actions and/or omissions in the future, Plaintiffs also seeks recovery from Defendants for exemplary damages. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs, LISA DOE and JANE DOE, respectfully pray that the Defendants be cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon a final hearing of the cause, judgment be entered for the Plaintiffs against Defendants, jointly and severally, for damages in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of the Court; exemplary damages, as addressed to each Defendant, together with interest as allowed by law; costs of court; and such other and further relief to which the Plaintiffs may be entitled at law or in equity. Page 20 of 21

21 Respectfully submitted, Law Offices of Peggy S. Bittick By: /s/ Peggy S. Bittick Texas Bar No P.O. BOX 1017 Pearland, Texas Tel. (281) Fax. (281) Attorney-in-Charge for Plaintiffs JANE DOE and LISA DOE PLAINTIFFS HEREBY DEMAND TRIAL BY JURY Page 21 of 21