UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

1 1 1 GREGORY PATTON, CA No. 0; AZ No. 0 ROBERT A. MOSIER, CA No. 1, AZ No. 0 LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY PATTON One Thomas Building N. Central Avenue, Ste. 10 Phoenix, AZ 00 Telephone: (0) - Fax (0) - greg@gpattonlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Stacey Armato UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA STACEY ARMATO, an individual ) Case No. ) Plaintiff, ) ) COMPLAINT FOR ) DAMAGES (FEDERAL v. ) TORT CLAIM) ) JANE DOE 1, JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AND WILLIAM WISEMAN, employees of the ) Transportation Security Administration in their ) Individual capacities; JANET NAPOLITANO in ) her official capacity as Secretary of the ) Department of Homeland Security; THE ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ) Homeland security; JOHN S. PISTOLE, in his ) Official capacity as Administrator of the ) Transportation Security Administration, and ) THE UNITED STATES TRANSPORTATION ) SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; the UNITED ) STATES OF AMERICA; and DOES -; ) ) Defendants. ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Invasion of Privacy (False Light); False Imprisonment; USC ; Federal Tort Claims Act) 1. Plaintiff Stacy Armato, a young mother from Calabasas, California at the

1 1 1 time of the events described in this Complaint, was retaliated against by agents of the TSA for advising them prior of their own guidelines regarding alternate screening for breast milk.. On February 1,, Mrs. Armato was traveling from Phoenix to Los Angeles with breast milk for her month old son s dinner feeding. She requested an alternate screening process for the breast milk so it was not exposed to radiation. Plaintiff even had a printout of the TSA s own guidelines guidelines that had been in effect since July, 0. These TSA agents, however, remembering her from the week before, retaliated against her for requesting alternate screening of her breast milk. Plaintiff was forced to stand in a glass enclosure in front of all the other passengers for over 0 minutes, where she was frequently harassed and abused by TSA agents. Plaintiff was specifically singled out for no other reason that to humiliate.. The conduct of the TSA officials constituted tortuous false imprisonment, false light invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of USC. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit in order to vindicate those rights. PARTIES. Plaintiff Stacey Armato was and is a resident of Los Angeles County at all times alleged herein.. Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe, and John Doe were employees of the Transportation Security Administration ( TSA ) working as screeners at a security checkpoint at the Phoenix International Airport at the time of the events giving rise to this action. Each was responsible for detaining Plaintiff at the screening area and, upon

1 1 1 information and belief, they summoned the TSA Supervisor WILLIAM WISEMAN ( WISEMAN ), as well as the Phoenix Police Department, for further interrogation, detention, and harassment of Plaintiff. Jane Does 1 and, and John Doe, are sued here in their individual capacities and in their capacity as emplyoees and agents of the TSA.. WILLIAM WISEMAN was an employee of the TSA at the time of the events giving rise to this action. Upon information and belief, WISEMAN held a position that involved supervising airport screeners, including Defendants Jane Does 1 and and John Doe ( TSA agents ). WISEMAN interrogated Plaintiff in a hostile and aggressive manner, continued her detention, refused to follow TSA guidelines, and humiliated and harassed Plaintiff bereft of justification. WISEMAN is sued in his individual capacity.. Defendant Janet Napolitano is the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and is a party hereto in her official capacity.. Defendant United States Department of Homeland Security is an agency of the United States of America.. Defendant John S. Pistole is the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration and is a party hereto in his official capacity.. Defendant Transportation Security Administration is an agency of the United States of America.. Defendant United States of America is the appropriate defendant under the Federal Tort claims Act. 1. Defendants Janet Napolitano, Department of Homeland Security John S. Pistole, Transportation Security Administration and the United States of America are

1 1 1 referred to collective l herein as TSA. 1. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Doe Defendants 1- and Defendant WISEMAN were acting within the scope of their offices or employment with the TSA. 1. DOES 1-, and each of them were at all times mentioned herein, employees and supervisors of the TSA. Plaintiff is ignorant of the names of DOES 1- and for that reason, has sued said defendants as said fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave of the Court to amend this complaint to reflect said names when the same have been ascertained. NOTICE TO DOE DEFENDANTS. Plaintiff demands defendant United States Department of Homeland Security, defendant United States Transportation Security Administration and defendant United States of America immediately p0lace each and every TSA agent and supervisor, identified herein as DOE 1, DOE, DOE and DOES -, involved in Plaintiff s request for alternate screening of her breast milk on February 1, on notice of this lawsuit and that they may be named as a party to this lawsuit once their identity has been ascertained. Demand is also made through the Freedom of Information Act, that defendants United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Transportation Security Administration and the United States of America immediately identify the names and contact information of each and every TSA agent and supervisor involved in Plaintiff[ s request for alternate screening of her breast milk on February 1, and provide said information immediately to plaintiff. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1 1 1. This court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to U.S.C., 1(a)(), 1(b) and USC.. This complaint is for money damages based upon the herein listed torts committed by agents/employees of the TSA.. On December,, Administrative Tort Claims were submitted by Plaintiff to the Transportation Security Administration via a Tort Claim Package. While the `TSA has acknowledged receipt of Plaintiff s claim it has not accepted or denied said claim. Since the TSA has not responded within six months of submittal of the claim, it is deemed denied. Plaintiff has therefore exhausted all administrative remedies and can now file suite in District Court.. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to U.S.C. 11(b) and 11(e). FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS. Plaintiff Stacey Armato, a resident of Los Angeles County, frequently flies to and from Phoenix for business purposes.. On February 1,, Plaintiff Stacey Armato was scheduled to fly on Southwest Airlines from Phoenix International Airport to Los Angeles International Airport.. After Plaintiff arrived at the airport, she waited in the line to go through the TSA screening checkpoint. Immediately upon arrival at the TSA screening checkpoint, Plaintiff requested to Jane Doe 1, an agent/employee of the TSA, that the breast milk, which she pumped out for her month old at home, not be put through the radiation x-ray

1 1 1 machine. Plaintiff requested that Jane Doe 1, an agent/employee of the TSA, perform the TSA approved alternative screening for medical liquids.. Just the week prior to February 1,, Plaintiff has requested that the same TSA agents, including DOES 1- and Defendant WIZSEMAN perform the alternate screening process for her breast milk, which was considered a medical liquid by the TSA s own guidelines. These same TSA agents, a week prior to February 1,, harassed Plaintiff for requesting alternate screening until confirming their own regulations. After confining Plaintiff for approximately 0 minutes and harassing Plaintiff for not simply pumping and dumping her breast milk, the TSA finally permitted her to pass through security with the alternate screening process for her breast milk. On that occasion, Plaintiff barely made her flight. Plaintiff filed a complaint with the TSA regarding this incident.. Being aware that the agents/employees of the TSA at the Phoenix Airport were not fully educated on the TSA s own guidelines and regulation regarding breast milk and the alternate screening process, Plaintiff printed out a copy of said regulations from the TSA website and placed it in one of her bags for the trip on February 1,.. Upon information and belief, however, the TSA agents at this specific security checkpoint decided to make an example and humiliate Plaintiff for filing a complaint against them the week prior.. Plaintiff specifically requested to Jane Doe 1, a female agent/employee of the TSA, that her breast milk not be x-rayed and that it go through alternate screening. Instead of acquiescing to Plaintiff s request, Jane Doe 1 placed Plaintiff in a special

1 1 1 Inspection area while Jane Doe 1 looked into the TSA s guidelines regarding breast milk. This Special Inspection area is a small standing-room only all-glass enclosure immediately next to the x-ray machine and in full sight of all passengers passing through the security check point.. Jane Doe, another female agent/employee of the TSA, then requested that Plaintiff identify her belongings that already went through the x-ray machine. Plaintiff attempted to locate a printed copy of the TSA rules located in one of her bags, but Jane Doe and John Doe aggressively pulled Plaintiff s hand away from her own bags and would not let her retrieve a copy of the TSA s guidelines. Plaintiff attempted to explain the TSA s guidelines regarding the alternate screening process for breast milk to Jane Doe and John Doe, and that she as in danger of missing her flight.. Jane Doe and John Doe would not listen to Plaintiff. After denying Plaintiff access to her bag to show the agents the TSA s own guidelines, which already went through x-ray screening, Jane Doe and John Doe forced Plaintiff to return to the special Inspection area. When Plaintiff requested to speak with a manager, her requests were refused and Plaintiff was told be quiet, to do as she was told and that she was not to move.. Upon information and belief, John Doe and/or other agents/employees of the TSA then called a uniformed police officer for the city of Phoenix to investigate the problem. 0. Plaintiff explained to the police officer for the City of Phoenix that she did not want her breast milk scanned by the radiation in the x-ray machine. She explained

1 1 1 that under TSA guidelines, breast milk was classified as a medical liquid and does not need to pass through an x-ray machine. 1. The police officer for the City of Phoenix informed Plaintiff that the TSA agents were waiting for her because Plaintiff had made this request in the past. Said police officer informed Plaintiff that the TSA remembered her from last week, that they saw her coming, and that they would have her arrested if she did not do exactly what they wanted. The police officer advised Plaintiff that she should go along with the TSA horse and pony show or he would b e forced to arrest her per the TSA s request.. After the police officer let, Plaintiff was forced by the TSA agents to continue to remain in the Special Inspection area. The agents for the TSA left her in this glass cage while numerous passengers passed through the security check point. After over minutes of getting no answers, and in danger of missing her flight to get back to her -month old son, she asked Jane Doe the status of the situation. Plaintiff was told she had to continue to wait in the glass cage.. After approximately minutes standing in the glass Special Inspection area, Jane Doe performed an additional physical body inspection while WISEMAN, a male agent/employee of the TSA and apparent manager, watched. This was after Plaintiff had already gone through the x-ray screening; she was unaware why she would then require a physical body inspection.. Following this intrusive physical body inspection, WISEMAN, a manager, refused to allow the alternate screening of her breast milk. Plaintiff was offered two choices by Jane Doe and WISEMAN: put the breast milk through the x-ray machine, or

1 1 1 dump it in the trash.. Plaintiff continued to cite the TSA guidelines regarding medical liquids to WISEMAN, as well as attempted to appeal to WISEMAN s moral character as she had a -month old son at home that needed the breast milk for dinner feeding (assuming she could even make her flight).. Finally, WISEMAN reviewed TSA s own guidelines that were printed by the Plaintiff However, to Plaintiff s shock and awe, WISEMAN blatantly refused to follow said guidelines and again refused Plaintiff s request for an alternative screening process for her breast milk. When Plaintiff pointed out the rule that breast milk is entitled to alternate screening WISEMAN stated well they aren t today. Plaintiff s frustration and humiliation were getting the best of her at that point she could tell these TSA agents were willing to do anything and everything possible to teach her a lesson, even after reading their own rules.. WISEMAN lectured Plaintiff for several additional minutes before finally telling Plaintiff that she could leave the security area and sit on the floor and pour her breast milk into eight 1. oz containers, and that Plaintiff must repeat the entire security screening process over again. WISEMAN then took photographs of Plaintiff s breast milk and wrote down Plaintiff s name, address and phone number on a scrap piece of paper and placed it in his pocket. The TSA agents then required Plaintiff, along with her luggage that had already been screened, to go back through the screening process again, patting down Plaintiff again and again and searching her items.. Needless to say, Plaintiff missed her flight to get home in time for her -

1 1 1 month old son.. Through the Freedom of Information Act, Plaintiff obtained nearly all the footage of this incident on video. However, approximately 0 minutes of the video were strangely missing, including the portion of the tape where WISEMAN demanded Plaintiff s personal information on a piece of paper which he put in his pocket and kept, as well as the portion where WISEMAN photographed Plaintiff s breast milk. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: Federal Tort Claims Act False Imprisonment 0. Plaintiff s detention and imprisonment without probable cause or any other lawful grounds, as described in paragraphs 1-, constitute tort of false imprisonment under the laws of the State of Arizona. 1. Under the Federal Tort claims Act, Defendant United States of America is liable for these actions. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: Federal Tort Claims Act False Light. The harassment, retaliation and imprisonment by the TSA agents of Plaintiff as described in paragraphs 1-1, was done in reckless disregard of the rights of Plaintiff. The TSA agents conduct, harassment and imprisonment of Plaintiff was an invasion of Plaintiff s privacy and placed Plaintiff in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person in the same and similar circumstances.. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, Defendant United States of America is

liable for these actions. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF: Federal Tort Claims Act Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. The harassment, retaliation and imprisonment of Plaintiff by Defendants as described in paragraphs 1-, was extreme and outrageous and was done intentionally and in reckless disregard that Plaintiff would suffer severe emotional distress.. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, Defendant United States of America is liable for these actions. 1 1 1 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: Federal Torts Claims Act USC. Defendant TSA agents conduct, harassment and imprisonment of Plaintiff as described in paragraphs 1-, was in retaliation for Plaintiff s filing a complaint against them and was done intentionally and in total disregard of Plaintiff s constitutional right to seek redress for her grievances causing Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress.. Under Federal Tort Claims Act, Defendant United States of America is liable for these actions. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court enter a judgment including:

(a) (b) (c) (d) Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial; Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial as to all Defendants except the United States of America; Reasonable attorneys fees and costs of suit; Prejudgment interest; and (e) Such other relief as the Court deems appropriate and just. PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A JURTY TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE. 1 1 1 DATED: December 1, LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY PATTON By /s/ Gregory A. Patton Gregory A. Patton Robert A. Mosier One Thomas Center North Central Avenue Suite 10 Phoenix, Arizona 00 greg@gpattonlaw.com (0) -