A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry
Not including every claim as this reply would be even longer than some I posted in the past few days. Most of the numbers are just a recap of the listed complaints earlier.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Freedom of Speech—First Amendment)
62. By reason of the aforementioned training, supervision, acts, policies, practices, customs and/or procedures created, adopted, and enforced under color of state law, Defendants deprived Plaintiff of her right to freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment as applied to the states and their political subdivisions under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983
64. Defendants’ actions injured Plaintiff B.B. in a way likely to chill a person of ordinary firmness, including Plaintiff B.B. and other students in the School District, from further participation in patriotic speech activity.
65. Plaintiff B.B.’s constitutionally protected speech motivated Defendants Santos and Cavazos’ adverse actions. Consequently, Defendants Santos and Cavazos acted with a retaliatory intent or motive.
72. Defendants compelled Plaintiff to profess beliefs contrary to her own by pledging her allegiance to another country than to that, the United States, which she is loyal.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Equal Protection—Fourteenth Amendment)
77. By reason of the aforementioned training, supervision, acts, policies, practices, customs, and/or procedures created, adopted, and enforced under color of state law, Defendants have deprived Plaintiff of the equal protection of the law guaranteed under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
78. By favoring and compelling speech that promotes and approves of allegiance to Mexico punishing Plaintiff’s less favored view toward American patriotism, Defendants have violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
79. Defendants’ policy, as described in this Complaint, was selectively enforced against Plaintiff B.B. on account of her viewpoint in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
81. By favoring speech that approves of and promotes allegiance to Mexico over Plaintiff’s Patriotic speech, Defendants Cavazos and Santos deprived Plaintiff B.B. of the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment.
PRAYER FOR RELIEFWHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks this court:
A) to declare that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s fundamental constitutional rights as set forth in this Complaint;
B) to declare that Defendants’ training, supervision, policies, practices, customs, and/or procedures that promote a school environment that favors and compels allegiance to Mexico and disfavors American patriotic viewpoints violates Plaintiff’s fundamental constitutional rights to freedom of speech and the equal protection of the law as set forth in this Complaint;
C) to declare that Defendants’ policy is unconstitutional as set forth in this Complaint;
D) to permanently enjoin Defendants’ policy as applied to expression as set forth in this Complaint;
E) to award Plaintiff B.B. nominal damages against all Defendants;
F) to award Plaintiff her reasonable attorney fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable law;
G) to grant such other and further relief as this court should find just and proper.