UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
SAMANTHA JOLLEY, )
) CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff, ) File No.
)
v. )
) JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
LAKEVIEW BEHAVIORAL HEALTH )
SYSTEM, LLC, )
)
Defendant. )
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Samantha
1
Jolley bring this Complaint against Defendant Lakeview
Behavioral Health System, LLC (“Lakeview”) (“Defendant”), showing the Court
as follows:
Introduction
1. This is an egregious case of transgender discrimination against
Defendant Lakeview Behavioral Health System, LLC (“Lakeview”) in violation of
the non-discrimination provisions of Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. § 18116 (“ACA”). Ms. Jolley, a twenty year-old
transgender woman, further asserts state law tort claims in connection with the
1
Plaintiff changed her legal name to Samantha Jolley in November 2019, following her eighteenth birthday.
Case 1:21-cv-00561-WMR Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 1 of 18
2
treatment she received by Defendant following her admission on or about February
14, 2019. Specifically, upon admission at Lakeview for suicidal ideation, Ms.
Jolley experienced repeated mocking by Lakeview staff regarding her transgender
status, denial of medication for a diagnosed medical condition or access to a
physician who would administer effective medication, an invasive strip search
performed by male nurses, despite her protests of identifying as a woman, and
other forms of discriminatory treatment on the basis of her sex, specifically, her
status as a transgender individual.
Jurisdiction and Venue
2. Plaintiff’s ACA claim presents a federal question over which this
court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court also has
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
3. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the
unlawful actions and practices occurred in this District.
THE PARTIES
4. Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and resident of the state of
Georgia. She presently resides in Kennesaw, Georgia.
Case 1:21-cv-00561-WMR Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 2 of 18
3
5. Defendant Lakeview is a behavioral health group doing business at 1
Technology Pkwy S, Norcross, GA 30092. Defendant admitted Plaintiff to its
facility at this address during the time period relevant to the Complaint.
6. Defendant may be served with process by delivering a copy of the
summons and complaint on its registered agent, CT Corporation, 1201 Peachtree
Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA, 30361, USA.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
7. Defendant Lakeview receives federal funding in the operation of its
business.
8. Ms. Jolley is a twenty-year-old transgender woman. She has suffered
from Chronic Daily Headache (“CDH”) since the age of thirteen.
9. Ms. Jolley’s CDH is a chronic condition which causes her to suffer
near-constant painful migraines.
10. The persistence of Ms. Jolley’s CDH has led to bouts of depression
and suicidal ideation.
11. Plaintiff has also been diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
12. On or about February 13, 2019, Ms. Jolley disclosed to her
psychiatrist that she was experiencing acute suicidal ideation and needed urgent
help.
Case 1:21-cv-00561-WMR Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 3 of 18
4
13. She was taken to the Laurelwood Psychiatric admitting unit of
Northeast Georgia Medical Center, where a physician signed a Form 1013
requiring involuntary treatment for Ms. Jolley.
14. Defendant Lakeview was designated as Ms. Jolley’s emergency
receiving facility and, at 2:00am on or about Thursday, February 14, 2019, Ms.
Jolley was admitted at Lakeview.
15. At the time of her intake, while dressed in her hospital gown, Ms.
Jolley was escorted into a room by two male nurses who told her that they needed
to strip search her.
16. Ms. Jolley told them that she was a transgender female and that she
was very uncomfortable being naked in front of them. She asked to be searched by
females.
17. The attendants laughed and mockingly asked, “you have a penis,
right?” They made her strip completely.
18. Ms. Jolley had been receiving hormone treatment for two years at the
time of her admission to Defendant’s facility. She has breasts and sought to cover
her breasts with her arms while enduring this invasive search.
19. The attendants instructed her to drop her arms and visually inspected
her entire body without her clothes.
Case 1:21-cv-00561-WMR Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 4 of 18
5
20. They permitted her to put her clothes back on, but then performed a
pat-down search over her breasts, on her arms, down her sides, and on the outside
and inside of her legs, including on her inner thighs near her genitals.
21. Ms. Jolley, who had been molested as a child, was traumatized by the
entire search.
22. Ms. Jolley was then brought to a nurses’ station. She explained that
she was in severe pain from her CDH and begged for her prescribed medications.
23. The nurse denied her any medication and repeatedly told Ms. Jolley
that Lakeview could deny her access to a doctor for up to forty-eight (48) hours.
24. The two male nurses and the female nurse at the station joked and
alternatively referring to her as “Mr.” and “Mrs.”
25. She was brought to a room to sleep but was unable to because of her
pain and another patient snoring loudly in her room.
26. She returned to the nurses’ station and asked for an additional pillow
or earplug. The nurses denied her requests. Lakeview also denied Ms. Jolley her
daily estrogen medication.
27. The next morning, Ms. Jolley was in agonizing pain. She returned to
the nurses’ station and begged for pain medication. Again, she was told that they
had forty-eight hours before she was entitled to see a doctor or get any medication.
Case 1:21-cv-00561-WMR Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 5 of 18
6
28. Throughout the morning and day, staff members loudly joked about
Ms. Jolley’s gender identification.
29. In a conversation between the floor manager and two employees, one
of the male employees who had mocked Ms. Jolley earlier at the nurses’ station
called Ms. Jolley a “pill-seeking tranny” and a “guy who thinks he’s a girl.”
30. Shortly after breakfast, a female patient approached Ms. Jolley and
asked what gender she was. The patient explained that some of the patients had
heard staff talking about Ms. Jolley’s transgender identity and were curious about
Ms. Jolley’s gender.
31. Later that morning, one of Defendant’s staff members saw Ms. Jolley
crying and hyperventilating in her room. She brought Ms. Jolley to the nurses’
station and said, “we need to get this man something for pain.” They offered her
acetaminophen or Amitrex, but she explained that neither of those helps her CDH
migraines. They responded that there was nothing else they could do for her and
that they had forty-eight (48) hours before they were required to provide her a
doctor.
32. At lunch that day, Sami was with approximately nineteen (19) other
patients, including the more severe patients from the third floor of the facility.
Case 1:21-cv-00561-WMR Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 6 of 18
7
33. One of those patients, a man with gold teeth, came up to Ms. Jolley
and barked and acted as if he was going to bite her. She complained to a staff
member, who told her to “sit down and eat” and that he would take care of it. The
staff member continued to eat his own meal and did nothing to stop the other
patient’s harassment of Ms. Jolley.
34. That afternoon, Ms. Jolley met with a patient advocate and
complained about Defendant’s denial of pain medication and strip search practice
that fails to account for transgender individuals. The patient advocate dismissively
asked Ms. Jolley, “well, you’ve got a penis don’t you? That’s why you were strip
searched by male employees.”
35. Ms. Jolley said that the search was harmful to her and that she wanted
to talk to someone who could address the problem. The patient advocate told her
she could not. Ms. Jolley asked for a copy of her patient rights, but Defendant
denied her one.
36. Ms. Jolley’s father called Lakeview that day and spoke to a nurse
about Ms. Jolley’s treatment. When he raised the issue of Ms. Jolley’s strip search,
the nurse echoed the patient advocate’s dismissive attitude, asking, “you would
prefer to have someone with the opposite sexual organs do a search?”
Case 1:21-cv-00561-WMR Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 7 of 18
8
37. After dinner Ms. Jolley asked to see the patient advocate again about
her pain and exposure to patients who were harassing her.
38. She was told the patient advocate was no longer available. Ms. Jolley
did see the patient advocate walking through the unit and tried to speak with her,
but the patient advocate dismissed her complaints.
39. The following day, Ms. Jolley’s father spoke to Dr. Corey S.
Greenwald. Ms. Jolley’s father told Dr. Greenwald about the discriminatory
mistreatment Ms. Jolley had experienced, including Lakeview’s complete
disregard for Ms. Jolley’s transgender status and its refusal to provide her with
medical care for her migraines.
40. Dr. Greenwald said he was appalled by Lakeview’s treatment of Ms.
Jolley and he agreed with Ms. Jolley’s father that Ms. Jolley was not being served
by staying at the facility.
41. Again on Friday, Ms. Jolley heard employees at the nurses’ station
loudly mocking her. One employee said, “people like Sami are why I hate
trannies.” Another employee said Ms. Jolley is “just disgusting and delusional.”
42. Ms. Jolley was discharged the following morning, February 16, 2019,
at 10:00am.
Case 1:21-cv-00561-WMR Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 8 of 18
9
COUNT I
Sex Discrimination in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 18116
43. The ACA prohibits medical providers receiving federal funds from
“exclud[ing] from participation in[,] den[ying] the benefits of, or [subjecting] to
discrimination” any individual in “any health program or activity” on the basis of
their sex. 42 U.S.C.A. § 18116.
44. The enforcement provisions of Title IX of the Education Amendments
of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.) apply to Defendant’s violations of 42 U.S.C. §
18116 for sex discrimination. 42 U.S.C.A. § 18116(a).
45. Discrimination against an individual on the basis of transgender status
is a violation of Title IX. Adams by & through Kasper v. Sch. Bd. of St. Johns
Cty., 968 F.3d 1286, 1305 (11th Cir. 2020).
46. Defendant is a behavioral health facility that receives federal funding
in the form of federal grants for services provided to its patients. Defendant
therefore meets the requirement of being a “health program or activity, any part of
which is receiving Federal financial assistance.” 42 U.S.C. § 18116(a).
47. As a transgender individual, Ms. Jolley had a right under the ACA to
receive health care services free from discrimination based upon sex.
Case 1:21-cv-00561-WMR Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 9 of 18
10
48. Non-transgender individuals or individuals without a diagnosis of
gender dysphoria would not have been subjected to this discrimination or isolation
by Defendant. Plaintiff has been aggrieved by this violation of the ACA.
49. Lakeview violated the ACA by subjecting Ms. Jolley to a hostile
medical environment because she is transgender, including but not limited to the
following conduct: despite knowing that Ms. Jolley identifies as a woman,
Lakeview forced her into the traumatic experience of being strip-searched by
opposite-sex nurses; purposely used the wrong gender pronouns with her; denied
her estrogen medication; denied her effective pain medication for her migraines or
access to a doctor to treat her for a diagnosed medical condition, and allowed her
to remain in pain for more than twenty-four hours because of her transgender
status; permitted its staff to make sexually derogatory comments toward Ms.
Jolley; refused to provide her with an appropriate patient advocate based on her
transgender status; disclosed confidential health information about her to other
patients without Ms. Jolley’s consent; and ignored her complaints of being taunted
inappropriately by other patients based on her transgender status.
Case 1:21-cv-00561-WMR Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 10 of 18
11
COUNT II
Negligence
50. Defendant had a statutory duty to administer treatment in a manner
that did not discriminate against individuals on the basis of sex, including
transgender status, under the ACA.
51. Defendant also had a statutory duty not to share Plaintiff’s
confidential health information with third parties under the Health Information
Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”).
52. Nevertheless, Defendant breached these duties in multiple ways,
including but not limited to: failing to take into account Plaintiff’s transgender
status in administering treatment to Plaintiff; assigning Plaintiff to an opposite-sex
nurse to be strip-searched; denying Plaintiff effective medication or access to a
physician or facility that could administer the proper medicine; denying Plaintiff
access to an effective patient advocate because of her transgender status; sharing
Plaintiff’s confidential health information protected by the Health Information
Portability and Accountability Act with other patients; taunting Plaintiff based on
her transgender status, and permitting a hostile medical environment whereby
employees were permitted to taunt Plaintiff on account of her transgender status.
53. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful actions, Plaintiff suffered
emotional distress, physical pain, humiliation, and other indignities.
Case 1:21-cv-00561-WMR Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 11 of 18
12
COUNT III
Invasion of Privacy
54. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of the
Complaint as if fully stated herein.
55. The tort of Invasion of Privacy is actionable under Georgia law upon
proof that an individual unreasonably intruded into another person’s private
concerns in a manner that “would be offensive or objectionable to a reasonable
person.” Troncalli v. Jones, 237 Ga. App. 10, 14, 514 S.E.2d 478, 482 (1999).
56. Defendant’s policy is to assign same-sex nurses to patients for strip
searches. In Plaintiff’s case, however, Defendant assigned opposite-sex, male
nurses to strip-search her despite her request for a female nurse because she is
transgender and had breasts. As Defendant’s male employees proceeded to strip
search her despite her request for a same-sex female nurse, their actions involved
unwanted and inappropriate touching of Plaintiff’s breasts over her clothes, as well
as her inner thighs close to her genitals.
57. At all relevant times, these nurses were acting in the course and scope
of their employment with Defendant and performed the strip search at Defendant’s
direction.
58. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful actions, Plaintiff suffered
emotional distress, physical pain, humiliation, and other indignities.
Case 1:21-cv-00561-WMR Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 12 of 18
13
COUNT IV
Assault
59. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully
stated herein.
60. Defendant’s male nurses’ misconduct and actions against Plaintiff as
described above constitute assault. Such actions were at the direction of Defendant
and based on Defendant’s standard practices of strip-searches based on gender
assignment that fail to consider and appropriately accommodate transgender
individuals who possess sex organs from both sexes.
61. Defendant condoned, authorized, and directed the conduct of these
male nurses.
62. At all times, Defendant’s employees who performed the strip search
were acting in the course and scope of their employment.
63. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful actions, Plaintiff suffered
emotional distress, humiliation, and other indignities.
COUNT V
Battery
64. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of the
Complaint as if fully stated herein.
Case 1:21-cv-00561-WMR Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 13 of 18
14
65. Defendant’s male nurses’ conduct and actions alleged herein toward
Plaintiff amounted to the unwanted and offensive touching of Plaintiff by
Defendant’s employees, at Defendant’s direction, constituting a battery.
66. At all relevant times, Defendant’s male nurses were acting in the
course and scope of their employment with Defendant.
67. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful actions, Plaintiff suffered
emotional distress, humiliation, and other indignities.
COUNT VI
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
68. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of the
Complaint as if fully stated herein.
69. Defendant, a mental health facility that knew or should have known
the risks entailed therein, intentionally, maliciously, wantonly, and in gross and
reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s health and safety, engaged in extreme and
outrageous conduct when it, inter alia, subjected Plaintiff to embarrassment,
humiliation, degradation, and ridicule by allowing its employees to harass Plaintiff
on the basis of her transgender status, invade her privacy, commit assault and
battery, deny her medication or access to a physician or facility who could treat her
effectively, share her confidential health information, and taunt her for being
Case 1:21-cv-00561-WMR Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 14 of 18
15
transgender in the two to three days of her admission at this facility before she felt
forced to leave due to this mistreatment.
70. The invasion of privacy, harassment, assault, battery, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress to which Plaintiff was subjected culminated in her
departure from the facility because of the inability to tolerate the medical
environment.
71. At all relevant times, Defendant’s employees were acting in the
course and scope of their employment, making Defendant directly, as well as
vicariously liable for the actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat
superior.
72. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful actions, Plaintiff suffered
emotional distress, pain, humiliation, and other indignities.
73. Defendant’s conduct was objectively malicious, wanton, and wholly
incompatible with the standards of society.
74. Based on their actual and constructive knowledge of this conduct,
coupled with the failure to intercede on Plaintiff’s behalf, Defendant directed and
authorized its employees’ conduct, making it liable for intentional infliction of
emotional distress upon Plaintiff.
Case 1:21-cv-00561-WMR Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 15 of 18
16
COUNT VII
Punitive Damages under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1
75. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint by
reference as if fully stated herein.
76. Defendant’s unlawful conduct set forth herein was intentional, willful,
malicious, and conducted with the deliberate intent to harm Plaintiff, or was done
with reckless disregard for Plaintiff and her rights.
77. Accordingly, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for punitive damages.
COUNT VIII
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11
78. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint by
reference as if fully stated herein.
79. By its actions described above, Defendant engaged in intentional torts,
which by their very nature, evidence that species of bad faith which entitle Plaintiff
to an award of attorney’s fees and the cost of litigation.
80. By its stubborn litigiousness prior to this lawsuit, Defendant acted in
bad faith and put Plaintiff to unnecessary trouble and expense. Thus, under
O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11, Plaintiff is entitled to recover her attorneys’ fees and expenses
incurred in prosecuting this action.
Case 1:21-cv-00561-WMR Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 16 of 18
17
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand a TRIAL BY JURY and, as follows:
a. A declaratory judgment that Defendant engaged in unlawful discrimination
on the basis of sex in violation of the ACA;
b. An injunction prohibiting Defendant from engaging in unlawful
discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of the ACA;
c. Compensatory damages, in an amount to be determined by the enlightened
conscience of the jury, for Plaintiff’s emotional distress, pain, suffering,
inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and special
damages;
d. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the enlightened
conscience of the jury to be sufficient to punish Defendant for their conduct
toward Plaintiff and deter Defendant from similar conduct in the future;
e. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and
f. Other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted on February 5, 2021.
BUCKLEY BEAL, LLP
By: /s/ Anita K. Balasubramanian
Anita K. Balasubramanian
Georgia Bar No. 372029
abala@buckleybeal.com
Case 1:21-cv-00561-WMR Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 17 of 18
18
Andrew M. Beal
Georgia Bar No. 043842
abeal@buckleybeal.com
Milinda L. Brown
Georgia Bar No. 363307
mbrown@buckleybeal.com
600 Peachtree Street, NE
Suite 3900
Atlanta, GA 30308
Telephone: (404) 781-1100
Facsimile: (404) 781-1101
Counsel for Plaintiff
Case 1:21-cv-00561-WMR Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 18 of 18
