UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
DE’OSSIE  DINGUS,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 3:07-cv-452
3:10-cv-435

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY, et al.,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S  POST  TRIAL  MEMORANDUM CONCERNING DAMAGES

In its April 5, 2016 Order, the Sixth Circuit, after presumably surveying the
circumstances  of  Mr.  Dingus’  employment  at  TDOS,  relied  primarily  on  Turic v. Holland
Hosp, Inc., 85 F.3d 1211 (6th Cir. 1996) in determining Mr. Dingus was entitled to an award
of compensatory damages over and above the $1 awarded after the November 17 – 18,
2014 trial.
As this Court knows, no requirement exists to introduce medical testimony to
support an emotional and/or compensatory damage injury. Id at 1215-16.
Additionally, however, the undersigned has been unable to locate any case (either
district or circuit court) that requires or even provides a guide to an individual Plaintiff to tie
a specific monetary amount to a specific award.1 The only thing to be examined is the

1

Moore v. KUKA Welding Sys. & Robot Corp., 171 F.3d 1073,1082-83 (6th Cir. 1999); Barna v. City of
th
Cleveland, 172 F.3d 47, at *5 (6 Cir. 1998) (unpublished); Meyers v. City of Cincinnati, 14 F.3rd 1115, 1119
th
(6 Cir. 1994); Eich v. Bd. of Regents for Cent. Missouri State Univ., 350 F.3d 752, 763-64 (8th Cir. 2003);
Frazier v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc., 200 F.3d 1190, 1193 (8th Cir.2000); Cunningham v. Black & Decker
(U.S.). No. 05-1297-T-AN, 2007 WL 8042502 at *5 (W.D. Tenn. Dec. 7, 2007); Hisel v. City of Clarksville, No.

1

Case 3:07-cv-00452 Document 221 Filed 05/13/16 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 2919

 circumstances of the employment situation and any testimony of Plaintiff or others
confirming that Title VII was violated.
The   circumstances   of   Plaintiff’s   experience   at   TDOS   can   only   be   described   as  
horrific and egregious, as this Court recognized in its June 19, 2015 Opinion, and was the
clear conclusion of the Sixth Circuit in its April 5, 2016 Order.2
The events recognized by the Court in its June 19, 2015 Memorandum Opinion
which   illustrated   the   TDOS’s   blatant   intentional   discrimination against Mr. Dingus on
account  of  his  religion  are  recounted  for  the  Court’s  convenience  below.    The  testimony  
and exhibits produced also relay the same or similar incidents. Quite frankly, the TDOS did
nothing to  refute  any  of  Plaintiff’s  evidence.    The  incidents are offered only to support the
fact that Plaintiff met the first prong of the Turic analysis by introducing the circumstances
of this particular case.
Plaintiff’s  repeated experiences at the sixteen week TLETA training wherein
the Plaintiff endured name calling, ridicule concerning his dietary needs,
ridicule concerning his prayer ritual, and unwarranted labeling of him as a
hater of Caucasians,  a  member  of  the  radical  “Nation  of  Islam”  group;
Plaintiff’s   disparate treatment by Captain Bridgeman and isolation in his
3:04-0924, 2007 WL 2822098, at *7 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 26, 2007); Love  v.  Shelby  Cnty.  Sheriff’s  Dep’t. No. 022478 M1, 2006 WL 1049336, at *7-*8 (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 20, 2006); Dye v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc.,
462 F.Supp.2d. 845, 849-50 (W.D. Tenn. 2006); Seay v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 340 F.Supp.2d 844, 848
(E.D. Tenn. 2004); Robinson v. Ergo Solutions, LLC, No. CV 12-147(JDB), 2014 WL 819954 (D.D.C. Mar. 4,
2014).
2
The undersigned is certain the Court remembers the detailed trial testimony of November 17-18, 2014, as
well as the two volumes of exhibits it was provided pursuant to the agreement of the undersigned and
opposing counsel concerning the admissibility of these documents, as none of the documents constituted a
surprise to any counsel of record, as they had been produced by both parties well before trial. The intent was
merely to expedite the trial testimony without having to go over each and every nuance of the exhibits
compiled, stipulated to, and introduced. Indeed, it is  the  undersigned’s  recollection  that  both  sides  had  exact  
copies  and  the  Court  was  also  provided  copies  of  those  same  exhibits.    Mr.  Dingus’  performance  evaluations  

2

Case 3:07-cv-00452 Document 221 Filed 05/13/16 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 2920

 assignment to the west side scales of Interstate 40 upon becoming a TDOS
CVE officer;
The flawed and result oriented 2006 psychological evaluation by Travis
McNeal, Ph. D, thrown out by Administrative Law Judge Marion Wall as
totally unreliable;
TDOS’s  reinstatement  of  Plaintiff  to  a  position  processing  drivers  licenses,  
rather than that of trooper as previously ordered by Judge Wall;
The totally unsupported view of Plaintiff during the training class taught by
Major Kevin Taylor;
The playing of the Karachi kids video by Major Taylor in a weapons of mass
destruction class, which was not part of the class design;
Major  Taylor’s  totally  unsupported  memorandum  and/or  affidavit  concerning  
Plaintiff, including labeling him a terrorist;
The internal affairs investigation conducted by TDOS Sergeant Ron
Cockarell  finding  no  witnesses  to  corroborate  Major  Taylor’s  testimony  being  
conducted regardless of the ordered psychological evaluation of Plaintiff;
The 2009 psychological evaluation of Plaintiff by Dr. Anchor based upon
flawed and inaccurate information and under custodial circumstances as
Plaintiff was transported via police cruiser to Nashville, Tennessee for
testing;
The memoranda/emails among Kerri Balthrop, Betty Blair, Johnny Savage,

during his tenure at TDOS were also stipulated to and introduced.

3

Case 3:07-cv-00452 Document 221 Filed 05/13/16 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 2921

 Deborah Martin, pre-judging Dr. Anchor’s   fitness for duty assessment of
Plaintiff in Exhibits 19, 20, and 25;
The draft minimum due process memorandum to Plaintiff from Col. Mike
Walker dated three days before the IA investigation was completed
recommending Plaintiff’s  termination  from the TDOS as seen in Exhibit 23;
The attachment referred by Exhibit 28 to  Plaintiff’s  2010  termination  papers  
referencing the Fort Hood shooting by another man  that  “happened”  to  be  
Muslim on November 5, 2009.
It is respectfully submitted that Mr. Dingus should not be punished for having a
strong  constitution  or  “being  able  to  take  it”.    If  that  was  the  law,  the  TDOS 3 and other
employer Defendants could get away with serious illegality because the employee, Mr.
Dingus in this case,  is  not  the  proverbial  “eggshell  Plaintiff”.    
Nevertheless, in order to meet the second prong of Turic, cogent testimony as well
as introduced exhibits demonstrate that Mr. Dingus did in fact present evidence of
damages consistent with established precedent of the Sixth Circuit.
Mr.  Dingus  testified  his  experience  in  the  academy  was  “a  little  trying”,  he  
“ran  into  problems”  by  being  called  a  “black  Muslim”,  being  associated  with  
the   “Nation   of   Islam”,   repeated problems and ridicule he incurred during
prayer time, and getting TDOS to accommodate basic dietary needs. Trial
Transcript p. 27;
Plaintiff testified his prayer was inhibited and became a problem for TDOS at
3

The sad irony of Plaintiff’s  treatment  by  Tennessee’s  self  proclaimed  chief  law  enforcement  arm  is  sickening.  
The TDOS is supposed to uphold and enforce the law evenhandedly, not turn it on its head for the nefarious

4

Case 3:07-cv-00452 Document 221 Filed 05/13/16 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 2922

 the academy. Trial Transcript p. 23;
Plaintiff’s  dietary  needs  were  ridiculed  by TDOS in front of the entire class.
Trial Transcript p. 24;
Again,   Plaintiff’s   prayer   time   was   inhibited   and   dietary   needs   rejected by
TDOS.  Plaintiff’s  Trial  Transcript  p.  26;
Plaintiff was made to feel uncomfortable at the academy concerning his
dietary needs. Trial Transcript p. 27;
Plaintiff’s   labeling   by TDOS as a hater of white people, America, and a
member of the Nation of Islam. Trial Transcript p. 28;
Plaintiff testified he was forced to explain his religion and to not allow his
religion to create a hostile environment for any other employee. Trial
Transcript pp. 29-30;
Plaintiff   felt   “isolated”   at   the   academy.      Plaintiff   testified   that   adverse  
comments concerning his prayers and dietary needs did not cease during his
employment as a CVE officer at the scales. Trial Transcript p. 32;
Plaintiff  did  not  feel  accepted  by  CVE  employees  and  worked  “by  himself”  for  
the majority of the time at the west side scales on Interstate 40. Trial
Transcripts p. 34;
Plaintiff was told by Captain Bridgeman he made other officers feel
uncomfortable. Trial Transcript p. 36;
Captain Bridgeman repeatedly called Plaintiff names associated with his

purposes of certain individuals employed by the agency.

5

Case 3:07-cv-00452 Document 221 Filed 05/13/16 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 2923

 religion. Trial Transcript p. 37;
Captain Bridgeman humiliated him by constantly asking him to engage in a
Christian prayer every morning even though he knew he was Muslim. Trial
Transcript pp. 39, 104;
Captain Bridgeman attempted to humiliate him in front of 75 other individuals
by asking him to pray over their meal knowing he would give a Muslim
prayer.    He  then  told  Plaintiff  he  “missed  an  opportunity”  to  show  he  liked  
white people. Trial Transcript pp. 40-41, 105-107;
Plaintiff felt isolated as the west side scales. He did not feel accepted or
included because of his religion. His supervisors repeatedly told him that his
failure to like white people (totally untrue) was inhibiting his acceptance. Trial
Transcript pp. 42-43, 127;
Plaintiff was terminated on May 22, 2006. Trial Transcript p. 49.
Plaintiff won the appeal for his termination in February 2009. Trial Transcript
p. 51.
Plaintiff was not reinstated until August of 2009. He was not reinstated to a
trooper  position  but  another  to  the  driver’s  license  bureau  in  Knoxville.  Trial  
Transcript p. 52.
Plaintiff was subjected to video entitled The Karachi Boys at a November 9
training class. Trial Transcript p. 60 Exh. 30.
Plaintiff was told by Major Taylor as a member of the training class that
Muslims raped women, and the hygiene of Muslim men was nasty. Trial

6

Case 3:07-cv-00452 Document 221 Filed 05/13/16 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 2924

 Transcript p. 66;
Plaintiff was called a Black Muslim by Major Taylor and told  “so  you  are  one  
of  those”  by  Major  Taylor.  Trial Transcript p. 66.
Plaintiff was accused of being a terrorist and having violent tendencies when
he was terminated in 2010. Trial Transcript p. 67.
Plaintiff was taken to a 2009 psychological evaluation in Nashville,
Tennessee under guard in the back of a TDOS cruiser. Trial Transcript pp.
68-70.
Plaintiff understood he would lose his job if he did not successfully pass the
2009 psychological. Trial Transcript p. 73.
Plaintiff was provided news article concerning the terrorist shootings at Ford
Hood, Texas by an army Major, who happened to be Muslim, in his
termination papers. Trial Transcript pp. 76-79;
Plaintiff was disheartened by a rejection of IA findings which did not support
Major Taylor’s  version  in  any  way.    He  testified  it  was  disheartening  and  not  
an easy thing to have an article attached to termination papers suggesting
for the good of the service he needed to be stopped before he did something
violent. Trial Transcript p. 81;
When Plaintiff was terminated, he lost salary, benefits, health, dental, eye
and life insurance. Trial Transcript p. 81.
Plaintiff also lost similar benefits from May 22 2006 – August 2009. Trial
Transcript p. 81-82;

7

Case 3:07-cv-00452 Document 221 Filed 05/13/16 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 2925

 Plaintiff could not pay his mortgage, child support, car payment, or
insurance. Trial Transcript p. 82;
Plaintiff was told he was being watched after being reinstated in 2009. Trial
Transcript p. 85;
Plaintiff felt   Major   Taylor’s   comments   disparage   his   religion   and   he was
offended. Trial Transcript p. 87;
Plaintiff believed Captain Bridgman constant requests asking him to pray
were to humiliate and embarrass him. Trial Transcript p. 136;
Tracy Trott, is the current Colonel of the highway patrol. Trial transcript p.
146;
Trott agreed that termination is a loss of salary. Trial Transcript p. 147;
Trott agreed termination means loss of benefits including insurance,
retirement. Trott agreed a termination can have a significant impact on an
individual’s life and his/her  family’s life. Trial Transcript p. 148;
Trott agreed that  any  state  agency  would  ask  about  Plaintiff’s  background  at  
the TDOS if he subsequently applied for a new post. Trial Transcript p. 141;
Exhibit 29 shows Plaintiff lost $14,824.00 in salary from March 1, 2010 –
June 30, 2010, lost $46,164.00 in salary from July 1, 2010 – July 1, 2011,
lost $49,344.00 from July 1, 2011 – July 1, 2012 and lost $40,042.50 from
July 1, 2012 – April 15, 2013 for a total loss of salary of $150,674.50.
Plaintiff lost longevity pay in the amount of $3,900.00. Plaintiff also was
charged $2,241.33 in health insurance from 2010 – April 2013. See Exhibit

8

Case 3:07-cv-00452 Document 221 Filed 05/13/16 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 2926

 29.
It is respectfully submitted, as the Sixth Circuit found, Plaintiff sustained his burden
to prove compensatory damages. Plaintiff has detailed the egregious nature of his
employment  with  the  TDOS  and  the  TDOS’s  campaign,  and  the  unlawful  liberties  it  took,  to  
rid itself of the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff has also pointed to the trial transcript, as well as the

exhibits submitted to fulfill the second part of the Turic analysis and point to evidence in the
record of damages.
Counsel has looked, but has been unable to find any quantifiable mathematical
formula that a Court either can or is required to utilize to prove compensatory damages.
As listed in footnote 1, the cases exclusively defer to the trier fact to determine the amount
of compensatory damages in its discretion.
Respectfully, although counsel has been unable to obtain any guidance concerning
a mathematical formula for an award of compensatory damages from the case law, it is
respectfully suggested that the amounts shown in Exhibit 29 which demonstrate the actual
amount Plaintiff lost in salary and health benefits is a good starting point, paradigm,
framework, or guide for this Court to use in beginning to fashion an award.
In addition, however, it is respectfully submitted that some additional amount is
needed to compensate for the indisputably horrific conduct of the TDOS in this case. That
amount, in addition to the monetary paradigm of lost salary and benefits is certainly within
the discretion of the Court.
Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to consider the lengths TDOS went to rid
itself of the Plaintiff, including but not limited to repeated name calling, ridiculing,
unreasonably

impeding

religious

rituals,

isolation,

humiliation,

harassment,

9

Case 3:07-cv-00452 Document 221 Filed 05/13/16 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 2927

 embarrassment, and simple lack of basic fairness, etc; and ponder: how does one get
justly compensated for being referred to as a terrorist? Such language/labeling goes
beyond name calling. TDOS essentially labeled Plaintiff a capital murderer, who would use
department authority to kill innocent life. Not only has TDOS offered zero evidence to even
suggest such a label, but being labeled a terrorist, especially in this day and age, is
something that is difficult, if not impossible to overcome4.
Fortunately, the Sixth Circuit recognized in King v. Zamiara, 788 F.3d 207 (6th Cir.
2015), that such damages may be in fact presumed. In Zamiara, the Plaintiff was
transferred to a higher level of security for a period of ten months as an alleged result of
participating in a class action lawsuit. Id. at 210. No actual injury was shown, but the Court
found Plaintiff indisputably sustained a violation of his First Amendment rights. Id. at 213.
Although the Court noted that an individual cannot recover for the deprivation of a right
alone, it is quite permissible in “difficult  to  establish”  cases,  that presumed damages may
roughly approximate the harm sustained to compensate. Id. In doing so, the Court
awarded the Plaintiff (a pro se inmate) $5.00/day for the ten months he spent in a higher
classification. Id. at 215-16. The Zamiara Court did note that trier fact in presumed
damages cases does need to focus on the impact sustained by the Plaintiff and not simply
provide an abstract value. Id. at 215.
In this case, nothing is abstract. Plaintiff was first terminated on May 22, 2006,
before successfully fighting TDOS and winning his position back from Administrative Law
Judge Marion Wall in February 2009. The department continued to fight, but finally

4

THP  Colonel  Trott  candidly  admitted  Plaintiff’s  tenure  at  TDOS  would  be  scrutinized  by  future  employers,  and  
accordingly,  Plaintiff’s  tarnished  record,  caused  solely  by  TDOS’s  discrimination,  will  follow  Plaintiff  in  any  

10

Case 3:07-cv-00452 Document 221 Filed 05/13/16 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 2928

 relented, reinstating Plaintiff not as a commissioned officer or trooper as he was judicially
entitled, but rather a worker in a driver’s license bureau in Knoxville, Tennessee.
Approximately three months later, TDOS had its Major Taylor incident (which no one
corroborated) which it parlayed into unlawfully terminating Plaintiff for the second time in
January of 2010. Plaintiff again fought through the civil service system and ultimately
retired on certain terms and conditions in April 2013.

The proof at trial was that Plaintiff

had not worked for the TDOS, something he desperately wanted to do, for over eight years
at the time of trial and approximately seven years at the time of his forced retirement.
During that seven to eight year time period, Plaintiff vigorously fought to dispute everything
TDOS was saying about him and his character, and he was ultimately vindicated by this
Court on June 19, 2015.
As a result, it is respectfully submitted that the Court, in its discretion, award an
amount pursuant to the economic paradigm of lost salary and benefits previously
referenced in Exhibit 29 which was submitted per agreement of the parties for the Courts
consideration, and in addition, add an additional amount to the figures in Exhibit 29, for the
indisputable damage TDOS directly caused the Plaintiff in every category of damage
recognized by Title VII. For each and all of the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully
submitted that the Court should fashion an award of compensatory damages consistent
with established Sixth Circuit precedent, the Order of the Sixth Circuit, and the evidence at
the November 17-18, 2014 trial in the maximum amount allowed by law.

future employment.

11

Case 3:07-cv-00452 Document 221 Filed 05/13/16 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 2929

 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 13th day of May, 2016.

/s/Arthur F. Knight, III
Arthur F. Knight, III, BPR # 016178
Taylor & Knight, GP
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 600
Knoxville, Tennessee 37929
Phone: 865-971-1701
Fax: 865-971-1705
ewagner@taylorknightlaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 13, 2016, a copy of the foregoing document was filed
electronically.    Notice  of  this  filing  will  be  sent  by  operation  of  the  Court’s  electronic  filing  
system to all parties indicated on the electronic filing receipt. All other parties will be
served  by  U.S.  Mail.    Parties  may  access  this  filing  through  the  Court’s  electronic  filing  
system.
s/Arthur F. Knight, III
ARTHUR F. KNIGHT, III

12

Case 3:07-cv-00452 Document 221 Filed 05/13/16 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 2930