Case 1:18-cv-00802-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/09/18 Page 1 of 19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
________________________________________________
TYRONE L. HANKERSON, JR.
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
vs.
) CIVIL ACTION NO.1:18-CV-802
HOWARD UNIVERSITY;
)
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
HOWARD UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEE
)
CHAIRMAN STACEY J. MOBLEY; HOWARD
)
UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEE VICE CHAIR
)
MARK A.L. MASON;
)
GRANT GRUNDY; and
)
DR. WAYNE A.I. FREDERICK,
)
Individually and As An Officer.
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________________________)
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW Plaintiff, TYRONE L. HANKERSON, JR., by and through undersigned
counsel, files this Complaint for relief against Defendants, Howard University; Howard
University Board of Trustee Chairman Stacey J. Mobley; Howard University Board of Trustee
Vice Chair Mark A.L. Mason, Grant Grundy, and Dr. Wayne A.I. Frederick and alleges as
follows:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Tyrone Hankerson (“Mr. Hankerson”), at all relevant times, has been and is an

individual residing in the District of Columbia.
2. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times Defendant

Howard University (hereinafter “Defendant Howard”) is a co-educational, private
institution organized under the laws of the District of Columbia, with a principal place of

 Case 1:18-cv-00802-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/09/18 Page 2 of 19

business at 2400 Sixth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20059. Defendant Howard can be
served through its Resident Agent as follows: John G. Gloster, Esq. 2400 Sixth Street,
N.W., Suite 321, Washington, D.C. 20059.
3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times Defendant

President Wayne A.I. Frederick (hereinafter “Frederick”) is an individual who resides in
the District of Columbia.
4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that all relevant times the following

individuals is a Member of the Board of Trustees of Defendant Howard (“Trustee Board”
or “Board of Trustees” hereinafter), Stacey J. Mobley, serving the capacity as Chairman,
residing in Washington, D.C.

Defendant Mobley can be served through Defendant

Howard’s Resident Agent as follows: John G. Gloster, Esq. 2400 Sixth Street, N.W., Suite
321, Washington, D.C. 20059.
5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that all relevant times the following
individual is a Member of the Board of Trustees of Defendant Howard, Mark A.L. Mason,
serving the capacity as Vice-Chairman, residing in New Jersey. Defendant Mason can be
served through Defendant Howard’s Resident Agent as follows: John G. Gloster, Esq. 2400
Sixth Street, N.W., Suite 321, Washington, D.C. 20059.
6. Defendant Grant Grundy (hereinafter “Mr. Grundy” or “Defendant Grundy”) is an

individual who resides in the District of Columbia and worked in Defendant Howard’s
Office of the Bursar for years.
VENUE AND JURISDICTION

7. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1332 (a)(1), insofar as
the matter in controversy exceeds the sum Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00)

2

 Case 1:18-cv-00802-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/09/18 Page 3 of 19

exclusive of interest and costs, and there is complete diversity between Plaintiff and
Defendants.
8. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the events giving rise
to the claims occurred herein.
FACTS

9. Mr. Tyrone L. Hankerson, Jr. (hereinafter “Mr. Hankerson”) commenced his studies at
Defendant Howard’s undergraduate program in the fall of 2011. A young student, raised
by a single mother with a history of academic excellence, sought to obtain an education at
one of the most prestigious historically black universities in America. To reduce the cost
of attendance for himself so as not to incur an insurmountable debt attending college, Mr.
Hankerson began working as a student worker within Defendant Howard’s financial aid
office (the “Financial Aid Office”).
10. From approximately 2011-2015, Mr. Hankerson worked as a student-employee within
Defendant Howard’s Financial Aid Office.
11. Concurrently, during the period of Mr. Hankerson’s time as a student-employee within
Defendant Howard’s Financial Aid Office, according to several news articles, concerns
arose regarding the mismanagement of Defendant Howard’s grant funds, the abrupt decline
in Defendant Howard’s credit rating, and decreasing student enrollment statistics during
the term of Sidney A. Ribeau (hereinafter “President Ribeau”) as president of Defendant
Howard.
12. Internal administrative turmoil ensued among the Board of Trustees between 2008 through
2013 over the mismanagement of the administration’s funds.

3

 Case 1:18-cv-00802-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/09/18 Page 4 of 19

13. Defendant Howard’s urgent need to turnaround the dispirited voices of the student body
and Defendant Howard’s declining national rankings/reputation led to President Ribeau’s
abrupt resignation in October 2013.
14. President Wayne A.I. Frederick (hereinafter “President Frederick”) was appointed as the
new President of the Defendant Howard in 2014.
15. Mr. Hankerson continued his role as a student-employee during the transition until 2015
when he graduated from the undergraduate program summa cum laude, and was selected
to be the student speaker at the May 2015 Defendant Howard’s Graduation
Commencement Address.
16. Mr. Hankerson applied and matriculated into Howard University’s School of Law in
August 2015.
17. On or about December 2016, President Frederick after an internal investigation contended
that Defendant Howard’s employees in the Financial Aid Office were misappropriating
university grant funds. According to President Frederick the investigation revealed that the
misappropriation of university grant funds by staff in the Financial Aid Office had gone on
for over 10 years, even before and after Mr. Hankerson’s employment at the school.
18. At this time, Mr. Hankerson had already stopped working as a student-employee at the
Financial Aid Office to concentrate on his legal studies at Howard University School of
Law.
19. Six months later, in May 2017, President Frederick received reports from an audit
investigation that from 2007 to 2016, for almost a decade, Defendant Howard’s grants were
given to some of Defendant Howard’s employees who also received tuition remission.

4

 Case 1:18-cv-00802-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/09/18 Page 5 of 19

20. President Frederick thereafter conducted an internal investigation to ascertain the recipients
of university grants. Four months later, in September 2017, six employees were fired for
gross misconduct and for receiving an exceeding amount of university grant funds while
receiving tuition remission.
21. Mr. Hankerson was not one of the six employees fired.
22. Mr. Hankerson was never accused of being one of the six.
23. Mr. Hankerson was never investigated or called in to any meetings related to the six
employees or the mismanagement of funds during his employment with the school.
24. Specifically, President Frederick’s investigation did not result in allegations against Mr.
Hankerson as one of the alleged employees who received inappropriate funds.
25. Neither Defendant Howard nor the Department of Education brought any charges against
Mr. Hankerson for any alleged misappropriation or embezzlement of university grant funds
as of this date of the filing.
26. Although the six employees were fired back in September 2017, it was conducted quietly
without public knowledge or the student body’s knowledge.
27. Meanwhile, Mr. Hankerson was attending law school and continued to excel in his studies.
28. His academic merits and promise as a blossoming young attorney lead him to receive grant
opportunities to study abroad and fund his legal education.
29. Coming from a humble background, Mr. Hankerson had the academic drive and
persistence to network and to begin building his image of success. Like many other
millennials of his generation, he used social media as his platform to build his brand
persona and desirous image of success.

5

 Case 1:18-cv-00802-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/09/18 Page 6 of 19

30. Back on campus, from September 2017 to March 2018, the dispirited voices of students
increased regarding the continuous issues of the lack of university grant funding for
students, the increasing tuition fees and strict policies for registration.
31. Such turmoil led to the cataclysmic event on March 25, 2018 that resulted in a student
protest and demand for President Frederick’s immediate resignation, among other student
demands.
32. Against this backdrop of the student protest, on or about March 27, 2018, Medium.com
(hereinafter “Medium”) released a national news story seen by millions.
33. An anonymous student-employee and hacker working in Defendant Howard’s Financial
Aid Office, who is now alleged to be Defendant Grant Grundy (“Mr. Grundy”), released
an article on Medium’s website about the problems at Howard.
34. The salacious blog was written by a student who allegedly used the name “Veritas1867”
(the founding year of Howard) and stated many allegations, including the most serious
one, that for a decade, Defendant Howard financial aid employees have been stealing over
One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) of funds designated for low-income students.
35. To create an image of the historic pattern of abuse of financial aid funds and to make the
story newsworthy, Mr. Grundy allegedly released Mr. Hankerson’s name and financial
information, knowingly implying that Mr. Hankerson was one of the six employees fired,
even though Mr. Grundy knew it was totally false.
36. The article as written by the blogger “Veritas1867” and including Defendant Grundy, under
an alias as “Chase”, a student at Howard, was released to millions and accused Mr.
Hankerson of stealing over Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000.00) in university
grant funds.

6

 Case 1:18-cv-00802-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/09/18 Page 7 of 19

37. Strategically, Defendant Grundy released an unexplained snapshot of Mr. Hankerson’s
financial aid grants, merit scholarships, loans and related financials without explaining that
Mr. Hankerson had been a student for seven (7) years and studied abroad in the summers.
38. Mr. Grundy, a Defendant Howard student-employee within the Financial Aid Office,
allegedly knew that the allegations set forth in his article against Mr. Hankerson were false
and would severely injure Mr. Hankerson’s reputation.
39. Immediately upon publication of the article, Mr. Hankerson endured public humiliation,
defamatory statements made against him on television, radio and the internet.
40. Mr. Hankerson also endured reputational and potential physical harm as students suddenly
targeted Mr. Hankerson as the person who was the cause of the lack of university funding
to assist students in financial need. (See Exhibit A).
41. As news reports continued to isolate Mr. Hankerson erroneously as the fall-person,
Defendant Howard failed to take corrective action to report the misrepresentation of facts
and clear Mr. Hankerson’s name.
42. On March 31, 2018, Mr. Hankerson’s Attorney James L. Walker, Jr., sent Defendant
Howard a demand letter for Defendant Howard to issue a letter of apology to Mr.
Hankerson, release a public statement exonerating Mr. Hankerson, and terminate the
employee who leaked the financial records.
43. To date, Defendant Howard has failed to respond substantively or apologize, and has
allowed Mr. Hankerson’s personal and professional reputation to be damaged as he is used
as the scapegoat for Defendant Howard’s wrongdoings.
44. As a result of the misinformation shared with media, millions of people nationwide have a
false narrative and impression of Mr. Hankerson.

7

 Case 1:18-cv-00802-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/09/18 Page 8 of 19

45. Mr. Hankerson lost a job where he would have been making nearly Two Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($200,00.00) annually. He was scheduled to commence full-time work
this summer, but the employment has been terminated for all intents and purposes.
46. To cope with the severe stress of these events, coupled with his job loss and concern over
his preparation for the bar exam and future, Mr. Hankerson has had to see a therapist to
calm his constant anxiety caused by Defendant Howard and Grundy’s negligent behavior.
47. As Mr. Hankerson’s personal and professional reputation has been harmed, he is now
seeking redress from the Court in a suit against the Defendant Howard.
CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

48. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through
47 as if such allegations were set forth herein in their entirety.
49. Under longstanding D.C. law, courts have held Defendants liable for intentional infliction
of emotional distress where it can be shown that the actions of the Defendants were a)
extreme and outrageous; b) were intentional or reckless; and c) caused the Plaintiff severe
emotional suffering.
50. Defendant Grundy’s actions, as an agent of Defendant Howard and Trustee Board, in
releasing and disclosing Mr. Hankerson’s financial aid records was beyond extreme and
outrageous.
51. Defendants Howard, Trustee Board and Defendant Grundy knew or should have known
that the disclosure of the records was in violation of longstanding duties of care to a student

8

 Case 1:18-cv-00802-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/09/18 Page 9 of 19

like Mr. Hankerson, in violation of privacy laws, and a violation of the University’s
promises, per the policies outlined in the Student Handbook.
52. Defendants Howard, Trustee Board and Defendant Grundy knew that with the student
protest and media attention regarding mismanagement and misappropriations of financial
aid that the disclosure would have a negative and misleading effect on Mr. Hankerson’s
reputation and emotional stability.
53. At the time of the disclosure of his financial records, Mr. Hankerson was preparing to
graduate from Defendant Howard’s School of Law. He was actively taking his final exams
which would reflect on his ability to pass or fail his final classes.
54. In addition, Defendants Howard, Trustee Board and Defendant Grundy knew or should
have known that the disclosure would cause Mr. Hankerson to be a target of cyberbullying,
violent physical threats and media criminalization and failed to show a normal duty of care
and protection for the records of a student.
55. Defendant Grundy, as an agent/employee of Defendant Howard’s Office of the Bursar,
intentionally and without regard for Mr. Hankerson, disclosed Mr. Hankerson’s financial
aid records to a public and online publishing platform, Medium. Upon information and
belief, Defendants Howard, Trustee Board, Grundy and Frederick, acted with malice
entitling Mr. Hankerson to exemplary and punitive damages.
56. Although Defendants Howard and the Trustee Board’s actual or constructive knowledge
that Mr. Hankerson’s student records had been released and was causing severe emotional
distress and pain worldwide for him, they refused to rectify the actions, despite numerous
emails, calls and messages from representatives of Mr. Hankerson pleading with the
University to stop the pain and stress of Mr. Hankerson.

9

 Case 1:18-cv-00802-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/09/18 Page 10 of 19

57. Due to Defendants Howard, the Trustee Board and Defendant Grundy disclosing the
financial aid records of Mr. Hankerson and doing nothing thereafter to mitigate the pain
and damage, he has suffered severe emotional distress including depression and anxiety.
58. As a proximate result of the above actions by Defendants Howard, Trustee Board,
Frederick and Grundy, Mr. Hankerson has suffered reputational harm, shame, mortification
and emotional distress and employment opportunities and lost millions in income.
COUNT II
NEGLIGENT INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

59. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through
58 as if such allegations were set forth herein in their entirety.
60. Under longstanding D.C. law, courts have held Defendants liable for the negligent
intentional infliction of emotional distress where it can be proven that defendant a) has a
duty and/or special relationship to plaintiff; b) defendant breached that duty of care; and c)
as a result of defendant’s action, the Plaintiff was caused serious emotional distress.
61. Pursuant to Section 400-011 of the Student Handbook (Exhibit B), Defendant Howard has
a special duty of care to “maintain a safe and healthy living, learning and working
environment for students, faculty and staff free of harassment, exploitation, or
intimidation.”
62. As an agent/employee of the University, Defendant Grundy is also held to this duty of care.
63. As Trustees of the University, the Trustee Board is expected to operate the school with a
certain duty of care as officers and agents of the University.

10

 Case 1:18-cv-00802-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/09/18 Page 11 of 19

64. Defendants Howard, Trustee Board and Frederick breached such duty through Grundy’s
negligent act of releasing Mr. Hankerson’s name to the public and falsely accusing him of
stealing over Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000.00) from the University.
65. Defendants also breached such duty through Defendant Howard’s inaction to take
immediate corrective action to exonerate Mr. Hankerson from the accusations alleged and
allowing for the cyberbullying and stalking that has ensued as a result of Defendant
Grundy’s accusations.
66. Specifically, Defendants Howard and the Trustee Board are just as liable as Mr. Grundy,
in that once they learned that Mr. Hankerson’s records had been released and was causing
severe emotional distress and pain for Mr. Hankerson, they refused to rectify the actions,
despite numerous emails, calls and messages from representatives of Mr. Hankerson
pleading with the University to stop his pain and stress.
67. Defendants’ actions and omission to act have caused Mr. Hankerson severe emotional
distress, to which he thereby seeks compensatory damages for emotional distress, and
pecuniary damages.
COUNT III
DEFAMATION (LIBEL PER SE) AGAINST DEFENDANT GRUNDY

68. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through
67 as if such allegations were set forth herein in their entirety.
69. Under longstanding D.C. law, courts have held Defendants liable for libel as a form of
Defamation where it can be shown a) the defendant made a false, written statement
concerning the plaintiff committing a serious crime; b) the defendant published the

11

 Case 1:18-cv-00802-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/09/18 Page 12 of 19

statement without privilege to a third party; and c) the defendant's fault in publishing the
statement amounted to at least negligence.
70. Defendant Grundy negligently and recklessly made false statements about Mr. Hankerson
by accusing him of a serious crime of stealing over Four Hundred Thousand Dollars
($400,000.00) and implying that Mr. Hankerson was one of the six employees fired from
Defendant Howard for stealing over One Million Dollars ($1,000.000.00).
71. Defendant Grundy published these libelous statements through the media platform
Medium.com for millions of viewers to read as Medium.com has millions of followers on
social media.
72. Defendant Grundy, as an agent of Defendants Howard and Trustee Board, knew very well
that Mr. Hankerson did not even attend Howard during the years of 2007 through 2010.
Mr. Hankerson began matriculation at Defendant Howard in the Fall of 2011 and graduated
summa cum laude without any discipline or financial investigation.
73. Noting the current student protest on the campus at Defendant Howard regarding financial
misappropriation, he published the libelous information with media outlets, knowing it
would enrage the students and community at large, with Mr. Hankerson as the villain and
wrongfully implicated criminal in the process.
74. As a result of Defendant Grundy’s libelous statements, Mr. Hankerson has lost his
employment and his professional reputation has been severely damaged because of the
publication of these false accusations.
75. Mr. Hankerson has also been cyber bullied (See Exhibit A), mocked in his law classes, and
a target of constant harassment via email, text and comments made everywhere he goes in
the Washington, D.C. area and elsewhere.

12

 Case 1:18-cv-00802-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/09/18 Page 13 of 19

76. As a result, Mr. Hankerson thereby seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
And, it is estimated Mr. Hankerson could stand to lose a minimum of over Ten Million
Dollars ($10,000,000.00) in a 45 year legal career, now forever tarnished by the acts of
Defendants.
COUNT IV
INVASION OF PRIVACY WITH THE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE FACTS

77. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through
76 as if such allegations were set forth herein in their entirety.
78. Case law is clear that an invasion of privacy can be made when a Plaintiff can show a)
publication; b) of private facts; c) in which the public has no legitimate concern; and d) the
publication of which would cause suffering, shame or humiliation to a person of ordinary
sensibilities.
79. In the Medium.com post, Defendant Grundy, as an agent of Defendants Howard, Trustee
Board, and Frederick, intentionally disclosed Mr. Hankerson’s private personal
information, including his name to the public and information that Mr. Hankerson was the
recipient of grants and Defendant Howard’s educational institution funding.
80. Mr. Hankerson’s student information was of no legitimate concern to the public, as he was
not one of the six employees investigated and terminated.
81. Defendant Grundy’s erroneous information and egregiously false accusations as a
“Scammer” and “Embezzler” have caused Mr. Hankerson severe public scrutiny from
millions worldwide. (See Exhibit A).

13

 Case 1:18-cv-00802-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/09/18 Page 14 of 19

82. Due to the release of Mr. Hankerson’s personal and financial aid information from
Defendant Howard, he has suffered humiliation, emotional distress and even the loss of his
employment.
83. As Defendant Grundy obtained Mr. Hankerson’s information while acting in the role of an
agent/employee of the University, Defendant Howard, Defendant Trustee Board and
Defendant Frederick are vicariously liable.
84. Mr. Hankerson has seen the runing of a legal career that could have earned him Ten Million
Dollars ($10,000,000.00) over the course of his career and seeks compensatory damages,
damages for the severe emotional distress, and pecuniary damages.

COUNT V

TORT OF FALSE LIGHT
85. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through

84 as if such allegations were set forth herein in their entirety.
86. Longstanding case law recognizes a legally actionable claim when a plaintiff is put in a
false light and harmed as a result. False light is where the following elements exist: a)
public disclosure; b) of a false statement, representation or imputation; c) about the
plaintiff; d) that a reasonable person would find highly offensive.
87. Mr. Grundy publicly released false statements that Mr. Hankerson stole over Four Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($400,000.00) in University funds and falsely accused Mr. Hankerson
of having access to administering these funds during his student employment in Defendant
Howard’s Financial Aid Office while in undergraduate studies from 2011 - 2015.

14

 Case 1:18-cv-00802-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/09/18 Page 15 of 19

88. Any reasonable person would find this information highly offensive, as it is accusing Mr.
Hankerson of not only a serious crime, but also the cause of hundreds of students being
denied funding to obtain their education.
89. As a result of these false statements, Mr. Hankerson has suffered emotional distress and is
hated by thousands of people nationwide, many of which attended Howard University and
had issues with financial aid or securing grants and scholarships.
90. As Defendant Grundy made these accusations from hacking into Mr. Hankerson’s
account, he was still employed with the University. Thus, Defendants Howard, Trustee
Board and Defendant Frederick are vicariously liable.
91. Mr. Hankerson has lost millions in potential earnings and thereby seeks compensatory
damages, damages for emotional distress, and pecuniary damages.

COUNT VI
BREACH OF CONTRACT

92. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through
91 as if such allegations were set forth herein in their entirety.
93. Pursuant to Section III(1)(c) of Howard University’s Student Handbook (the “Student
Handbook”), Defendant Howard grants the following promise that students shall have the
right to “privacy in accordance with the provisions established by the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (“FERPA”).
94. Pursuant to the Student Privacy Rights in the Student Handbook (See Exhibit B),
Defendant Howard further promises to protect student information under FERPA policies
and promises to ensure that this policy “is strictly adhered to by all University
administrators, staff and faculty members creating, possessing and/or maintaining any

15

 Case 1:18-cv-00802-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/09/18 Page 16 of 19

written records/documents pertaining to student and their behavior, academic performance
or any other matter during their matriculation at the University.”
95. Defendants Howard and Trustee Board further promise to sanction any individual who
violates this provision of the Student Handbook, including separation from the University.
(Exhibit B, pg. 119).
96. Pursuant to Defendant Howard’s Student Handbook, each trustee, student, faculty member
and administrative employee must be bound by this common duty in the pursuit of their
individual responsibility to the educational objectives of the University. (Exhibit B, pg.
120).
97. Per the policies outlined in the Student Handbook, Defendants Howard, Trustee Board,
Frederick and Grundy entered into an enforceable agreement with Mr. Hankerson.
98. Defendants Howard and Grundy promised to comply with the policy protections under
FERPA in the Student Handbook and refrain from disclosure of information without Mr.
Hankerson’s consent.
99. Defendants Howard University and the Board of Trustees and Frederick breached their
promise.
100. Defendants’ breach was a material breach that was a direct, proximate cause of Mr.
Hankerson’s harm that resulted in his name all over media and the subsequent loss of his
job.
101. As a result, Mr. Hankerson seeks compensatory damages, the immediate termination of
Mr. Grundy, and punitive damages.

16

 Case 1:18-cv-00802-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/09/18 Page 17 of 19

COUNT VII
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

102. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through
101 as if such allegations were set forth herein in their entirety.
103. Defendants’ refusal to protect Mr. Hankerson’s private information and exonerate him
from the crimes alleged against him in the media and on campus are violations of their
responsibilities under the Student Handbook.
104. Defendant’s refusal to comply will continue to cause Mr. Hankerson to sustain irreparable
harm.
105. Mr. Hankerson should be entitled to a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28. U.S.C. §2201
that 1) Mr. Hankerson did not steal University funds; 2) that Mr. Hankerson was not one
of the six employees investigated and terminated; and 3) enjoin the Defendants from any
further illegal release of Mr. Hankerson’s student files; and 4) require that Defendants
release a public apology clearing Mr. Hankerson from the alleged accusations and
defamation.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Due to the actions of Defendants, Plaintiff has been placed in an unfair and unfortunate
financial position and has a humiliation and life story that will never be the same with millions lost
in income. On account of this, Plaintiff prays for:
(a)

Compensatory, economic and exemplary damages;

(b)

Declaratory judgment;

(b)

Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs;

(c)

Pre and post judgment interests;

17

 Case 1:18-cv-00802-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/09/18 Page 18 of 19

(d)

Court fees; and

(e)

Such other legal or equitable relief as this Court deems just and proper under all the
circumstances contained herein.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

Respectfully submitted this 9th day of April 2018.
/s/Christopher M. Young___
Christopher M. Young
DC Bar No. 1003301
The Young Law Firm, PLLC
1200 G. Street, NW Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 870-1191
Fax: (202) 478-2119
Email: cyoung@theylf.com
Local Counsel for Plaintiff Mr. Hankerson

RENORDA E. PRYOR, pro hac vice application pending
Litigation Counsel for Mr. Hankerson
1821 Hillandale Road, Ste. 1B-220
Durham, North Carolina 27705
Tele: 919-355-5001
Fax: 919-355-4976
Email: rpryor@herringlawcenter.net
North Carolina Bar No. 36814

18

 Case 1:18-cv-00802-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/09/18 Page 19 of 19

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the foregoing COMPLAINT was served
upon counsel of record with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send
notification of such filing to the following:

John G. Gloster, Esq.
2400 Sixth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20059
Respectfully submitted this the 9th day of April 2018.

___/s/ Christopher M. Young____
Christopher M. Young
DC Bar No. 1003301
The Young Law Firm, PLLC
1200 G. Street, N.W. Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 870-1191
Fax: (202) 478-2119
Email: cyoung@theylf.com
Local Counsel for Plaintiff Mr. Hankerson
Renorda E. Pryor, pro hac vice application pending
Litigation Counsel for Mr. Hankerson
1821 Hillandale Road, Ste 1B-220
Durham, North Carolina 27705
Tele: (919) 355-5001
Fax: (919) 355-4976
Email: rpryor@herringlawcenter.net
North Carolina Bar No. 36814