In The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303-3309 KHALDOUN KHATTAB, )
)
Plaintiff, Forma Pauperis ) CIVIL ACTION FILE
V ) NO. 1:07-CV-196-RWS.
)
MOREHOUSE SCHOOL OF )
MEDICINE,Inc )
)
Defendant. ) Honorable Judge Richard W Story
Honorable Judge Linda T Walker. Plaintiff’s Response/Opposition to the Defendant Brief in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. 1
This lawsuit is Not only an action for Retaliation and Discrimination based on race, color ,national origin and religion under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e et seq and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 1983. This action is also brought pursuant to the laws of the State of Georgia for breach of contract/breach of by-laws, negligent hiring/retention of employees, tortious interference with employment, defamation, tortious interference with business/contractual relations, ratification of wrongful conduct, and punitive damages. This case includes 1- Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981 , §1983
(Section 1981,1983, violation of equal protection under Law ,42U.S.C. § 1983 ; intentional race discrimination in violation of § 1983 through 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ; conspiracy to deprive civil rights and CONSPIRACY in violation of section 1983, MANUFACTURE OF FALSE INCULPATORY EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983, CONCEALMENT OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983, SUPERVISORY LIABILTIY FOR VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 2- Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1985 §1986, CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 USC § 1985(2)(OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE), CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) (WITNESS TAMPERING, CONSPIRACY IN
VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), FAILURE TO INTERVENE IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1986
3 -Violation of Title VI (42 U.S.C. §2000d)
4- State law claims .Violations of Georgia constitutional, statutory, and common law, including: due process, Tort, slander/defamation/libel, breach of contract, tortious interference with business NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION, SUPERVISION, ,punitive damages pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1, based on “intentional, willful, wanton and malicious conduct” TRAINING & DISCIPLINE, NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, 5- COMMON LAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE & CONSPIRACY TO
OBSTRUCT JUSTICE. 6- FRAUD. (No status of limitation related to US taxpayers fraud)
7- Violation of Title IX of the Education Law(As discussed previously Morehouse violated Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 (Title IX), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq., by being deliberately indifferent to the harassing plaintiff and taking discriminatory actions ).
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE Plaintiff (Dr Khattab) is a Medical Doctor and an employee employed in a bona fide professional capacity. (Defendant Statement .See-docket 98). Plaintiff is a holder of requisite academic degree for the general practice of medicine and is exempted from overpayment under FLSA as he hold an appropriate degree required for the general practice of his profession.
(Defendant statement –See Docket 98 -Defendant Opposition to Docket 52(FLSA) Filed by Mr Vernon on April 16 ,2007 ). It is beyond doubt that when plaintiff filed this lawsuit ,he was a medical doctor MD ,Fellow of American College of Physicians ("ACP"), member of American Medical Association (AMA). Defendant, Morehouse School of Medicine, Inc. (“MSM”) is , and at all times
relevant to this action was, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Georgia, and resides in the Northern District of Georgia under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). MSM is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court , Defendant current registered agent is Dr John E. Maupin, Jr. Plaintiff started his employment at Morehouse as a result of the 2004 NRMP matching program ,Plaintiff was supposed to stay at Morehouse until Jun 30/2007 (See Both Dep- Page 23 /see Myra Rose sworn program director affidavit –projected program completion date 6/30/2007.) Defendant did NOT offer plaintiff any direct position , Indeed Dr Eric Fleanugh recommended in writing that Morehouse do NOT offer Dr Khattab a position outside the match ( see document Khattab 0233 ). Plaintiff passed the United States Medical licensing examination before being interviewed by defendant ,Further plaintiff passed the US Medical exam -Clinical skills assessment -before applying for a Job at Morehouse (See ECFME Certificate-See direct report defendant received before interviewing plaintiff, See Flenaugh ,Anderson Job interview evaluation) Plaintiff hold a valid indefinitely ECFMG certificate which includes valid indefinitely English requirement and -Medical-Clinical skills Assessment ,The said certificate is issued by a US Federal Commission in 2003 , defendant Residency Manager is aware of this fact (See Defendant answer to Plaintiffs 3rd Set Request of admissions –Request 12 ).
On Jun 24 Plaintiff requested that his Certificate be revalidated and to be considered Permanent Certificate , On August 17th ,2005 Myra E Rose confirmed recommending plaintiff request(See Notarized Document- Khattab 0249). All previous facts confirm that Plaintiff was eligible for his position as a resident physician and this is a Part of establishing a Prima face case of Discrimination.-See legal argument Section See Document Khattab 0212 a report sent Directly to Morehouse and the report was generated on 8/26/2004 –
Defendant admitted that plaintiff passed USMLE (United states medical licensing examination part 1&2)and the CSA-(clinical skills assessment) before applying for a job at Morehouse .
Defendant refused to give plaintiff a direct position. All Defendant direct positions were given to NON-Caucasian resident physicians. (See list of names , race- Morehouse response to Plaintiffs 1st interrogatories –Request 18 page 39). The choice to take resident directly outside the match was made by the PROGRAM Director -ROSE-(Booth Dep Page 33 line 1 ,2. ) Rose is Black African (Defendant Interrogatories). Plaintiff signed a contract with defendant as a result of the NRMP matching program which is a double blind matching program so the applicant and the program can NOT predict the result of the match .
(Mr Booth admitted in his deposition and affidavit that I was accepted into MSM through the NRMP National Residency Matching program
Booth affidavit 14 –See Eric flenaugh recommending NOT to give Dr Khattab an offer and his bad Job interview evaluation -Khattab 0233.See Flenaugh Deposition page 126 lines 18 -24 Page 127 lines 1 -10 Page 128 L 4-16-Page 131 L23-25-Page 132L1-22 ). In 2005 All Defendant residents physicians promoted to PGY-2 were NON Caucasians (See 2004/2005 list of incoming, outgoing ,promoted/discharged resident .The EEOC released a copy of mentioned list. ). Morehouse Medicine department periodically employ more resident physicians than what the ACGME approve/accredit defendant .
(ACGME- is the US Credential Council for Graduate Medical Education)
(See Booth Deposition Page 110 L 18-21). Defendant received Money from the US Federal Government based on having plaintiff as a resident physician (Booth deposition page 29 Lines 15-20-Defendant supplemental September Interrogatories ).
Mr Booth was responsible for the budget (Both Dep Page 31 line 13). Defendant claimed that all plaintiff salary was paid from US Federal Funding. (US taxpayers Money) -See supplemental response to plaintiffs August/September 2008 Interrogatories –Request 8. Defendant received Federal Funding ,Money from Medicare ,Medicaid ,the VA health system and Grady Health system as a result of having an internal Medicine residency program.(Booth Dep page 28 lines 10 -18 ), Mr Booth claimed the amount received from all sources was Five millions(Page 29 line 24-25). Plaintiffs legitimate Work- Satisfactory /Superior
Work evaluations and patient care. No patient in the state of Georgia complained against plaintiff .
(Rose Deposition 2nd part March , Page 120 L 1-3) During Plaintiff Employment He was performing in a legitimate way that satisfy any reasonable employer .Dr Khattab received Satisfactory or Superior work evaluations in most if not ALL his Working rotations per Defendant employees written statements .
See Document khattab 0371 the work evaluation and opinion of Dr Patrick A Griffith (An African American professor of Medicine )
(see Defendant letter to the ABIM, received in April 2006 -this letter contradict the contents of the documents attached to Dr Rose affidavit as an exhibits) (See Khattab 0357- Alleged letter to Howard University signed by Frontin MD)
See RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PER HONORABLE JUDGE WALKER AUGUST(08)ORDER -Requests 6 ,13,14 ,See work evaluation and letter of recommendation signed by Morehouse associate professor Dr Rao Mikkilineni -khattab 0851, 0370 .
See Dr Stewart L Derex Letter of recommendation of (Georgia license 59209), also the letter is cosigned by Dr Efemini Efe(African From United Kingdom –Georgia Medical license Number 056549
See Dr Oduwole letter of recommendation
See Dr Oduwole Deposition pages 22 ,23 ,24
See evaluation prepared by Akomolafe
See Dr Akomolafe Deposition page 14 L9-24.
See Also Akomolafe Deposition Exhibit One.
See October 2005 work evaluation prepared by Ivonya MD.
See also defendant RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PER HONORABLE JUDGE WALKER ORDER ISSUED ON AUGUST 14, 2008 Requests 6,13, 14
See the Dr Marvin Crawford working evaluation ( Khattab 0259,0260) (He is African &a Senior Pastor in a Baptist church Plaintiffs Former supervisors who worked with him inside Georgia Hospitals described him as : A Bright physician with outstanding bedside manners .
A Likeable Youngman who have excellent manner and Superior professional attitude & Behavior .A very professional physician with superior medical knowledge and clinical skills .a Hard working physician with a very satisfactory academic status .Dr Khattab has a commitment to excellent patient care ,Dr Khattab interest in the improvement of the health care of the
underserved is very proficient.
Dr khattab has a nice personality . Dr Khattab passion and commitment to improving the health care of the underserved is Proficient, Dr Khattab is a Sincere physician who is dictated to his performance , Dr Khattab is a very likable Youngman who is respected by his peers and the clinical staff for commitment to excellent patient care. Dr Khattab received (satisfactory-Superior)in all his subspecialty –Wards team rotations , bright physician with outstanding bedside manner ,Dr khattab interest and concern for the welfare of his patient is evident in his overall approach to the physical diagnosis and treatment, astute physician with an excellent knowledge base and excellent diagnostic skills .
It is a pleasure to write a Letter of recommendation for Dr Khattab .
Dr Khattab got the essential components of the history and examination with all of the patients he presented . Dr Khattab incorporated the feedback of the previous teaching points into patient care and made use of the literatures/ textbooks about some of the unique aspects of each patient . I found Dr Khattab very conscientious and eager to learn ,he demonstrated superior medical knowledge and patient care , Dr Khattab has a nice personality ,he
get alone with attending physicians ,colleagues and the nursing staff very well ,/Dr Khattab Academic performance has been very satisfactory ,Dr Khattab is a physician who shows very concerns and compassion about his patients .
Dr Khattab would return to work late EVENING to continue taking care of his patients ,
Dr Khattab has a solid fund of knowledge that he is able to apply to daily hospital situations.
Dr khattab has a Satisfactory overall clinical competence. Dr Khattab patient care is superior . Dr Khattab has a superior Leaderships Skills and Superior Medical Management and Diagnostic skills .Dr Khattab has a superior use of book ,computer and literatures to enhance patient care . Dr Khattab clinical interpretation is superior.
Dr Khattab Communication and Interpersonal Skills are superior .
Dr Khattab ability to present a medical case is very satisfactory.
Dr Khattab Honesty and Integrity is very satisfactory and superior.
Dr Khattab is a role model for colleagues.
Dr Khatab is very interested in improving the health care of the underserved community. Summary of Abuse - Egregious Discrimination/Hostile work environment . Defendant is aware that plaintiff complained about Discriminatory and abusive conduct that started on his first day at work , (See the deposition of Morehouse chief of staff at Grady Hospital , Reed Dep 1st part - indicating that he is aware about Dr Khattab incident on first day at work -Page 37 –L 16-25 See Also Page 38 L 1-12-). Are you aware that someone at Morehouse told me that I want Americans to go kill all Syrians like you, like they killed the Iraqi's/Answer Yes /Q the first day of my employment at Morehouse?Yes, I'm aware of the incident). On July 1st 2004 plaintiff started his employment inside Grady Memorial hospital under the privilege of Morehouse .Almost immediately (First day at work) He was assaulted and harassed by Dr Natalie Bousader Armstrong who stated (Good from all people on earth you bring me a Syrian guy. I want the Americans to go kill all Syrian like you like they killed the Iraqis). (See details in Attorney Akeel Certified Letter to Defendant Chief Operating officer/see plaintiff deposition transcript ). During plaintiffs first day at work his direct supervisors Rohr(Hispanic) and Bousader(Lebanese) asked him about his national origin and Religion
Together and individually Rohr and Bousader Natalie harassed and abused plaintiff during his July 2004 Grady rotation based on his national origin and religion. (Rohr refused to be deposed although plaintiff served her a notice of deposition ,Hono Judge Walker refused to issue subpoena to Rohr /see case docket). Bousader MD ,told plaintiff that he is a dirty slave like Morehouse black people and a Nigger , Rohr told him that his a Nigger and Nigger is a normal ward in the state of Georgia.
Defendant claimed that July incident affected Plaintiff deeply and was a trauma . (See document Khattab 1626 created by Myra Rose and Martha Elks –khattab 1626 Line 6 =This incident disturbed him deeply and it was clear that whatever happened was traumatic for him.).
Plaintiff complained to Morehouse about its employees Outrageous Harassing Conduct. (Reed Dep ,1st part page 38 - -See prove of complaining to Read about NIGGER issues . Page 38-L 1-12 .See also Reed advise to Discuss the comments with the Program director .Reed 1st part Dep Page 38 Line 18-19 -Page 39 L4-6). Defendant GME Director indicated under oath that plaintiff made an appropriate compliant to his director about Theresa Rohr .
(Booth Dep Page 120 L 5-24) Line 18 =It is my understanding that you made the complaint PROPERLY to your program director). Booth claimed that Rose regretted what Bousader Armstrong did to plaintiff in a letter sent in December 2004(Booth Dep page121 L1-17).Booth allegation is false as No released discovery document indicate that Rose regretted . Booth and his attorney Doyle provided document (Khattab 0203) as a regret letter and the judge can review said document and discover that No Regret ward is written in it (See Booth Dep P 122-L 18-23 ,P 123 L1-22). In July 2004 Rohr and Bousader asked plaintiff to (start practicing defensive medicine as you need to protect us from racist patients). See details in case Docket 143 Paragraph 24 ,25 ,26 ,27 ,28. In July 2004 Dr Rohr threatened to kill the plaintiff based on what he wrote in Mr John .I- Grady Hospital Records. In or around Middle July 04 Bousader humiliated plaintiff and stated that (DO NOT BUY THE SLAVE unless You Buy a stick with him because this slave is filthy and dirty)..Plaintiff complained again to Teresa Rohr Kirchgraber, and his employer. In 2004 Mr D. Mack authorized plaintiff to publish his suffering story inside Grady Hospital and Plaintiff attached a copy of Mr Mack Grady Admission as an Exhibit to Flenaugh 2nd part deposition . In 2004 Mr D Mack was
wrongfully discharged from Grady Hospital and later asked to come back to get treatment (See Mr Mack Grady admission Note) .Theresa Rohr and Bousader Natalie asked plaintiff to take care of Mr Mack although he is not one of Dr Khattab patients . Plaintiff requested an explanation for taking care of more scheduled patients and received this answer (because you know how to deal with those racist patients. In July 2004 Mr Mack asked plaintiff to help him (I,m Black , I,m American and this is my country . They are neglecting me ,please help me,) Plaintiff examined Mr Mack and stayed with him over the night ,and per Mr Mack request Plaintiff wrote the truth in his Hospital records ,for example Dr Khattab wrote ( Mr Mack was discharged without treatment , Morehouse called him to come back , he is threatening to file malpractice lawsuit ) .
(See Mr D.Mack Grady Notes filed previously in this court). When Rohr
discovered what plaintiff wrote in Mr Mack Grady Hospital records ,she again threatened to Kill Plaintiff . On numerous occasion during July 2004 Plaintiff requested to be removed from Dr Rohr and Bousader team . All Plaintiff requests were denied , further Dr Khattab was forced to work every Tuesday every week for almost 1 year under the supervision of Rohr and Bousader inside Grady Medical clinic III. On numerous occasions plaintiff requested a meeting with Rose (Medicine Director) and Dr Aguayo(Medicine chairman) to discuss Morehouse hostile working environment and threatening Dr Khattab ,No meeting was scheduled .(See Mr Akeel certified letter to Morehouse Chief operating officer for more details about other verbal insult -Case Docket 326-2 filed 8/4/2008-pages 12 13 14. // See also CAIR Council on American Islamic Relationship letter to Sara Doyle- Case Docket 326-2 filed 8/4/2008-pages 10/11/. In November 2004 Myra E Rose informed plaintiff that (Rohr/Bousader) Filed a report against him alleging that he can NOT communicate verbally . The alleged report took place after Plaintiff Filed a complaint against Rohr ,Bousader and informed numerous Morehouse employees about the harassment complaints . See document khattab 1625 created by Myra E Rose and she wrote in the last 2 lines concerned about reported lack of clinical focus that is reflected in spoken communication ) .
Rohr denied that she reported Khattab .Rohr refused to discuss plaintiffs working evaluation and claimed in writing that Dr Khattab DID NOT fail his First rotation (See Rohr notice to Myra Rose claiming that Dr khattab passed
his first rotation although marginal , See Rose November 2008 affidavit alleging that Dr khattab failed his first rotation . In November 2004 Plaintiff decided to copy notes from Grady Medical records and send them to Morehouse Medicine Director Myra Rose , The decision was made based on Rohr denial of Filing any report against Dr Khattab English language and ability to communicate in writing . Rose refused to inspect plaintiffs documents , and started to harass the plaintiff by informing him that he is a (MAD WHITE PERSON IN A BLACK INSTITUTION). Throughout discovery Morehouse denied that Plaintiff complained against any faculty member ,However during Dr Eric Flenaugh deposition he claimed that He listened to me complaining about being Mad white person in a black institution and he (wrongfully or amazingly) claimed that my concerns were investigated by Rose(See Flenaugh 2nd Deposition Page 78-L 2-12 Page76 line 2 Q Dr. Flenaugh, have you ever been informed that I raised the allegation that I was told during my residency at Morehouse that I'm a mad white person in a black institution? Answer I recall you saying something to that effect/ Did anyone at Morehouse investigate my allegation? YES. Q WHO - Answer Dr ROSE. Rohr evaluated plaintiffs 2004 work in June 20,2005 and the defendant GME Director claimed that her action is SLAW but not unfair(Booth Deposition Page 118 L1-9). Abuse During Muslims fasting month of Ramadan 2004. In October 2004 , defendant employees Chinedu Ivonye(Black Nigeria) ,Kodjo
Ayertey (Black/ Ghana) and W.G.Allester(Black /Trinidad Tobago) abused and harassed plaintiff during Muslims fasting month of Ramadan . As a Muslim plaintiff was engaged in the practice of fasting from sunrise to sunset and his supervisors including Ivonya increased his working Shift/Time/schedule and refused to give him few minutes rest at sunset so he might go to Grady Hospital cafeteria to eat at sunset. ( for more details See CAIR letter sent to Sara Doyle).(Ivonye refused to be deposed in this case-Race and color per Morehouse Demographic data document submitted to EEOC and 1st Interrogators answer) . In October 2004 plaintiffs working hours were increased , Plaintiff was ordered to stay at night to cover Morehouse physicians nightshifts without any Prior notice . On numerous occasions plaintiff was given orders NOT to go to Grady Hospital cafeteria to eat at sunset. At least on one occasion plaintiff in October 2004, plaintiff was forced to work “36 contentious hours inside Grady Memorial Hospital without a modification of his schedule so that he could eat one meal during his fasting in observance of Ramadan In or around the 3rd week of October 2004 plaintiff decided to complain about abusing him based on being a Muslim, However Plaintiff changed his complaining strategy ,this time plaintiff complaint was made public as he complained verbally during Morehouse /Grady Morning rounds , unfortunately Myra Rose publically accused the plaintiff that he was
exaggerating the number of hours he worked and his compliant about being abused as a Muslim is not truthful or Not accurate.
.(Numerous individuals witnessed this incident and plaintiffs complaints about being harassed during Muslims fasting month of Ramadan ,Therefore Plaintiff reserve the right to depose them during trial ). The Third Circuit has recognized two theories of religious discrimination: “disparate treatment” and “failure to accommodate.” Abramson v. William Patterson College, 260 F.3d 265, 281 (3d Cir. 2001). Defendant refused to accommodate plaintiff religion and denied a simple request for a few minutes break so Dr Khattab can eat at sunset.
In October 2004, While working in unbearable conditions in a hostile environment ,plaintiff discovered that an African American patients had a procedure without a consent and without anesthesia (See Ms D.S Grady Hospital Notes -documents-redacted format ). The suffering patient (D.S) complained to plaintiff, Therefore he addressed her issues and wrote a brief Note about her incident and suffering which was also reported by a Grady Nurse .(See redacted format of D.S Incident/unsigned Consent.). Allester G W and Chinedu Ivonye (Both Blacks ,NOT Americans)asked plaintiff to destroy Notes the he submitted to Grady Medical records about patient Ms D.S ,Plaintiff refused to Obey the illegal order . (See attached documents) .plaintiff complained to Reed and Rose about Ivonye / Allster actions and the later unprofessional wards during his conversation with Plaintiff ( you DO not know how to deal with black patients ,Black patients hate White doctors like you ). defendant took No Disciplinary actions against its racist and corrupted employees who abused plaintiff and affected the health status of Grady Hospital poor /uninsured patients.(See plaintiffs 4th&5th Request for admission about October team problems with an uninsured patient described as WHITE TRASH. ,unfortunately Honorable Judge Walker refused to compel discovery ). Defendant responded to plaintiffs complaint by ordering him to work again and again under Ivonya supervision ( See Prove of repeated working under Ivonya supervision , 3 separate occasions- rotations-mouth October 2004, March 2005 and Jun 2005. /See response to First interrogatories –Request 11 Page 20 and page 21- See Also supplemental answer to Plaintiffs 2nd Second Interrogatories –Request 13 Page 10 and 11 indicating that Dr Khatab worked under the supervision of Ivonya in May or Jun 2005). In 2007 the court refused to compel the deposition testimony of Ivonya. The court denial was without any explanation and despite the fact that defendant admitted that Ivonya participated in terminating plaintiffs employment ( See Defendant response to plaintiffs First interrogatories Request one page 2-page 3). A. Oyewo ILLEGAL/ Discriminatory Actions A. Oyewo provided information and documents which led to the termination of the plaintiffs employment at Morehouse,( defendant answer to Plaintiffs First Interrogatories Request One Page 2, Page 3 L 5-9. Oyewo is geriatrician (Akomolafe Dep p 7 L 11), a Faculty member at Morehouse Medicine department,a black physician originally from Nigeria , Plaintiff worked under Oyewo supervision in December 2004 ( first Response to Plaintiffs First Interrogatories Request 11 page 21). This case Docket proves that (1)-In 2007 Magistrate Judge Walker denied Plaintiffs Motion to compel the deposition testimony of Oyewo, and the denial was without providing any explanation. (2)Magistrate Judge Walker dis not grant sending a Subpoena to the CSBME-Georgia medical Board -about Dr Oyewo. Defendant grievance documents indicate that Plaintiff complained against Oyewo( For example see the Hand writing of MSM Medicine Manager Christie-document Khattab 0860-last ward Oyewo ). Flenaugh remembered during his deposition being paged by plaintiff about one of Oyewo patients and (Dr Khattab complaining that Oyewo was not available in Grady hospital) (Flenugh Dep 2 part p 57 ), Flenaugh claimed that the result of RAC discussion about Oyewo was supposed to be addressed by the medicine chairman (See Flenaugh deposition page 59 L 1-13). Plaintiff informed this Court about a few Dr Oyewo actions against him, Therefore No need to repeat sending what the court already received (See case docket Plaintiffs Motions to amend the initial complaint filed in March & April 2007). In December 2004 the plaintiff was forced to work alone without help for a very long period inside Grady Memorial Hospital while being under the supervision of E Oyewo .Oyewo refused to come to Grady Hospital even after Plaintiff politely asked him to come to the Grady hospital to take care of his critically ill patients.
Plaintiff has a list of patients (names and notes) who were neglected by Oyewo in December 2004, and the notes should be presented to the jury during trail or submitted via Subpoena to Georgia medical Board for investigation.(See one patient name and incidents addressed in Flenaugh Dep page 58L 16-25). .In 2005 Oyewo refused to discuss plaintiff’s working evaluation ,accused plaintiff that he does not deserve to be compared with Nigerian doctors ,and he will Not discuss any plaintiff issues unless Rose(Director) direct him to do so.
Morehouse Medicine chair/Director(Rose) admitted under Oath that she DID NOT make any arrangement for a meeting between Plaintiff and Oyewo or even Akomoalfe to discus plaintiffs evaluations(Rose Dep 2nd part march Page 25L23-25/Page 26 L 1-2 ) Sending a Subpoena to Grady Hospital Medical Records may prove that Oyewo did not come to hospital for a few days to take care of his patients in December 2004 and or also let plaintiff work of them . In December 2004 Plaintiff was forced to work up to 95 hours a week, and this could be proved by sending a Subpoena to Grady Medical Records as plaintiff recorded his working time , schedule, supervision status and continues working hours in the Notes provided to Grady Hop medical records
( See Khattab 0799- proving that plaintiff complained against Oyewo rotation (December 04)- 95 hours a week working time Khttab0858). In December 2004 plaintiff worked under the supervision of three Nigerian physicians Okafor, Ogunniyi and Oyewo, and in December 2004 Oyewo
stated ((99% of American are idiot stupids and bring someone like me to do the job for them.)plaintiff complained about this verbal immoral comments and defendant took NO ACTION. (See Booth Dep P160-When asked about investigating the previous statement Booth answered (I do NOT think it matter because it sounds Ludicrous , Further he stated (WE DO NOT CONTROL IT) Booth Dep page 160 Line 5 ,Line 20.
In December 2004 Oyewo refused to treat plaintiff equally like his Nigerian coworkers (peers-residents.). In January 2005 Plaintiff complained to His Director against Dr Oyewo , As usual Rose neglected plaintiffs complaint. Honorable Magistrate Judge Walker protected Morehouse from admitting or denying Plaintiffs allegations about Oyewo(For example denying answering Plaintiffs 4th and 5th requests for admissions-see Requests number 72-73-82-83-84-85-86-88-89-90-91) During discovery Morehouse failed to identify the number of patients plaintiff took care of them in December 2004 and attorney Mrs Doyle refused to inspect plaintiffs documents related to those patients number.(See RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES TO THE DEFENDANT PER HONORABLE JUDGE WALKER ORDER ISSUED ON AUGUST 14, 2008, Request 4 page 3-4). Discovery has ended and Oyewo failed to provide / or prove the existence of any document to support Morehouse allegations about Plaintiffs patients care and medical notes ,Further Oyewo failed to identify one wrongful medical management or diagnosis or prescription. (see answer to Plaintiffs Requests for admissions per Judge Walker August 2008 order –Request 5 page 4 defendant believe that its employees Abraham Oyewo ,Chinedo Ivonye MD are NOT required to provide any patient notes /Medicalrecords which support Morehouse allegations regarding Dr Khattab patient care Notes and medical documentation . Failure to investigate plaintiff’s complaints .Defendant sham investigations/Retaliation. Defendant engaged in various immoral and illegal acts such as refusing to investigate Discrimination complaints, conducting a sham investigation, destroying and fabricating evidence, maliciously accusing plaintiff of improper behavior and refusing to investigate plaintiffs complaint : -1-
Morehouse Chief operating officer (Pruitt) refused to investigate plaintiffs complaints ad provided as Non logice explanation for her actions.
(See Document khattab 0886-pruitt letter is dated July 2006 ) Pruitt 2006 letter indicate that plaintiff requested delaying investigation., but that does not make sense as Plaintiff filled EEOC charge in 2005 . this is a prove of shame investigation or fabricating false information which should be rejected by common sense. Morehouse failed to produce a copy of the complaint filed on July first(1st)2005 per said document(khattab 0886). -2-
Akomolafe claimed during her deposition that she was never under investigation because of plaintiff and never been investigated by Pruitt (Akomolafe Deposition page 18-)See also Attorney Akeel certified letter to Morehouse Chief operating officer(Pruitt) and the EEOC, the letter includes statements about Akomolafe conduct like this statement (They look at your face and remember they were slaves ). It is clear that Morehouse was and is also still refusing to investigate its employees even after Filing this lawsuit. 3
-Morehouse former Dean (smith) refused to meet plaintiff during his employment although she is responsible for Morehouse actions and its due process-Grievance policy(Khattab 0944-5.3). Smith alleged under oath that Elks(Vice Dean) did not inform her(smith) about The meeting between plaintiff former attorney and Elks. Smith allegations contradict Elks statements under oath ,Elks claimed that she informed Dean Smith about the meeting .(See Elks Deposition Page 67 L 20 12 22 23 –Page 68 L 1-12)(See Smith depo Page 16 L 13-16).This contradicting depositions statements should raise concerns about Morehouse employees credibility .
-4-
Morehouse Vice Dean/ GME chairman (ELKS) admitted meeting with plaintiffs former attorney inside her office at Morehouse during plaintiffs employment , However ELKS refused to address plaintiffs complinets and grivances (0899-0800) .Elks stated that Rohr and Heisler are her friends(Plaintiff complained to Elks about Rohr,Heisler)(Elks p 82L6-11 P 83 L 8-14, See Elks Draft, Medicine Department Grievance outcome-Khattab 0800 .)
(Conclusion: The reason for neglecting plaintiffs grievance is the fact that the grievances includes complaints about whom ELKS admitted are her friends .
(Martha Elks ) refused to send the Plaintiff any written response to his numerous Grievances although she has obligation to do so under Morehouse policy(See Grievance policy Khattab 0943-0944).Elks failed to respond to Plaintiffs discrimination complaints .Elks failed to take any disciplinary actions or investigations after Dr khattab attorney contacted her directly to address his client concerns. (Elks Dep Page 65 Line 18-23/page 66 L1-18, See Page 66- L 16 -18). Defendant claimed that ELKS is not responsible for handling Discrimination or Equal opportunity complaints. (Morehouse supplemental response to plaintiffs first Interrogatories Page 5 specifically line 13). Defendant is Liable for Elks actions and illegal efforts to protecting Elks. In an effort to avoid any official investigation Elks created a horrible accusations about plaintiff. For example Elks alleged that plaintiff has a paranoid delusion and therefore NO need to respond to his complaints directly (See document khattab 0433-see also Elks denial of creating allegations against plaintiff and plaintiff directing Elks during her deposition to review her own wards about paranoia (Elks Deposition page 58, Page59 L 1-8.-Exhibit two .). -5-
It is Amazing that some individuals Plaintiff complained against them investigated my part of this lawsuit and plaintiffs allegations per Morehouse discovery allegation Like Drs Rohr/Rose/Flenaugh. For example Rohr investigated form July 2004 through June 2005 (See Defendant response to plaintiffs first Interrogatories ,Request 14 page 25-26,See Page 25 Line 12(Theresa Rohr Kirchgraber July04 through Jun 05). Rohr evaluated plaintiffs 2004 work after terminating him and amazingly 6 month after the end of 2004 (See Document khattab 0279- On Jun 20/2005 Rohr evaluated Dr Khattab 2004 work ,However she made a choice to claim that all the following aspects were satisfactory in 2004 , Patient care , Clinical Judgment ,Medical knowledge, clinical skills ) .
Rohr refused to be deposed in this case after plaintiff served her with an official notice of deposition .On numerous occasions Judge Walker refused In 2007 to issue a Subpoena to Dr Rohr-See case docket ). 6
- Morehouse former Dean (Smith)Failed to respond to Plaintiffs numerous Discrimination complaints and multiple grievances.
Smith admitted under oath she never reviewed or viewed Morehouse discrimination policy (Smith Deposition Page 8 Line 19-22) further during her deposition she claimed that per her knowledge Morehouse residents do NOT have the right to file grievances to the Dean . (Smith dep Page 15 L 16-25-Page 16 L 1-8. Smith an employee of Morehouse since 1978 ,never cared about reviewing Morehouse Discrimination /grievance policy .Smith never reviewed Morehouse discrimination policy although (1)she was the dean (2) involved in previous Discrimination lawsuits (3)she was deposed in at least one Discrimination lawsuit against Morehouse ,for example Dr Aguayo lawsuit against Morehouse(1:06-cv-01095-JOF-SSC) . In Aguayo V Morehouse , Dr Aguayo claimed that Dr Smith removed him to appoint Rose as chairman Of the Medicine Department because Dr Aguayo is Non Black and appointed Non black in Morehouse and despite Morehouse former President Honorable Dr James Gavin Notice to Dr smith about Myra Rose actions and intentions .
(See Smith Deposition Page 4 L 21-25 Page 8 L 19-25/Aguayo V Morehouse /1:06-cv-01095-JOF-SSC, Honorable Judge J. Owen Forrester –Northern District of Georgia ). Dean Smith admitted talking with the plaintiff in 2005 and referring him to the GME office(Smith Deposition page 10-page 11 L 1-20) In Jun 24 Mr Bill Booth informed Morehouse Dean Marjorie Smith that she is officially involved in the matter of Khaldoun Khattab ,(Document Khattab 1383),the next page of the document 1384 ,indicate that there is side issues KNOWN by the members of this e-mail ) example….allegations of discrimination Khatab 1384).,
Dr Smith kept refusing to meet Plaintiff before and after Mr Booth contacted her about plaintiff .
(see Booth affidavit –sworn November 14 ,2008 ,P 31 he stated that he summarized my events in Exhibit C attached to his Affidavit –)
Mr Booth and Dr Smith are responsible for all the information contained in khattab 1383-1384. During her deposition Dr Smith stated under Oath that (The Dean is NOT responsible for enforcing discrimination policy (Smith Dep Page 13 L 6,7. Dean Smith confirmed under oath that she does NOT think Morehouse residents have the right to issue grievances’ with the Dean ( See Smith deposition Page 15 L 16-25-Page 16 L 1-8.
Dean Smith neglected and violated her duties obligation under Morehouse policy(discrimination, Grievance and Mistreatment policy-See Khattab 080-099/0100-the Dean and senior vice president should ensure compliance with
this policy) .
Smith received copies of numerous complaints Plaintiff sent them to Morehouse president Dr Satcher and the former BOT Chirman Dr Sullivan ,However smith decided Not torespond to any plaintiffs e-mail.
. (See for example Khattab 0548 Urgent Appeal re Khaldoun Khattab .At least on one occasion defendant Former president Dr Satcher sent plaintiff a
response /e-mail ,unfortunately Smith neglected all e-mails communications including those created by Dr Satcher and Elks.(See khattab 0548-see case docket 41 page 3 of 40 copy of Dr Satcher e-mail to plaintiff with CC to Marjorie smith ). -7-
Defendant claimed that Dr Eric Flenuagh investigated part of this lawsuit and plaintiffs allegations form September 2004 through July 2005 (See Defendant response to plaintiffs first Interrogatories, Request 14 page 24/25./26 Page 26 Lines 12,13), However during his deposition Dr Fleanugh could Not remember that he investigated any issues in 2004 and claimed that the RAC
investigated plaintiffs issues(Flenaugh 2nd Dep page 68 Lines 8-25/(Page 70 L 1-9) -(See also next section about RAC /Rose/Flenaugh /conspiracy and Morehouse false allegation about RAC investigation)(See also Page 61 L7-10).
Defandnnat Failed to identify what Flenugh investigated in 2004 ,Further it failed to provide any evidence if investigation, therefore it is clear that defendant was creating false allegations of investigation . In 2005 Defendant should have investigated Flenaugh who Sent selective e-mails to Morehouse employees advising them to DECEIVE plaintiff . (See Khattab 0529 e-mail from Flenaugh to Rose, Heisler Yolanda Line 3-4 this selective emailing is an effort TO DECEIVE . (Flenaugh Deceiving efforts represent his ethics, manners , and could be a prove of conspiracy.). -8-
Martha Elks ,Morehouse Associate Dean and GME chairman is involved in Retaliation and neglecting plaintiffs complaints delivered to her during her meetings with the plaintiff ,via e-mails later , and in written communication in Jun 2005 and also via plaintiff former Attorney Mr El-khalil. Elks admitted the fact that My former attorney met her inside her office (Elks DepPage 65 Line 18-23/page 66 L1-18, See Page 66- L 16 -17-18 I spoke of it when your counsel was with you in my office. ) Defendant GME Director Booth stated under oath that she advise plaintiff to see Dr Elks to discuss significant concerns but he is not aware that my attorney met Dr Elks(Booth Dep Page 105 (L 16-21) Dr Elks also admitted that if a resident has a problem within his department he should report to her (Elks Dep P 14-23). Elks claimed that Plaintiff did not contact her until April 2005(ELKS Dep p 80 L 23/P 81-L1).
Attorney Mr Vernon Strickland refused to let Elks answer this question under oath, Elks Dep Page 63 line 21/ Q/ Dr. Elks, do you think that you can convince a jury that I brought an attorney to deal with Morehouse and you refused to address the grievance because I did not address the issue directly in writing with you?
MR. STRICKLAND: Objection. This is argumentative, and it calls for conjecture and speculation. It's clearly beyond her knowledge.
See also Elks Deposition page 65
Q Why do you think, up to the best of your knowledge, I asked an attorney to contact Morehouse School of Medicine on my behalf? ELKS admitted that the next level for addressing Plaintiffs Morehouse Grievance was her (See ELKS Dep Page 14 Line 19 the next level of bringing it in writing to a higher level -- that would be to me.).On one occasion Dr Elks admitted that plaintiff spoke with her about his grievance(khattab 0799-0800) (Elks Dep Page 15 Line 3 You spoke with me about that). Elks refused to address plaintiffs grievance in any written document (via Mail or e-mail ) ,However she was trying to create a an answer ,amazingly the answer was claiming that The grievance is complete and appropriate (without even some reassurance about comments done by a faculty member )and the reason is probably because that faculty (Rohr ) is ELKS friend .
(see for example Elks draft -document Khattab 0912
This is in response to your questions regarding your status at MSM .
(See Elks Deposition page 82 L6-10,Rohr is her friend
(See Grievance document-khattab 0800-last paragraph about a faculty member- Khattab0378 paragraph 6)
Defendant admitted that Elks sent an e-mail To plaintiff and Morehouse Dean (Smith) dated Jun 14,2005 confirming receiving a written Notice (complaint)
as chair of GMRC about Not giving Dr Khattab EQUAL appropriate chance to stay at Morehouse(See Khattab 0510). -9-
Defendant Chief operating officer (Pruitt) refused to seriously investigate either Rohr or Elks actions like neglecting grievance response (Khattab0378 paragraph- 6) .During discovery Morehouse neglected the fact that Plaintiff filed a complaint against Rohr because she called him a Nigger. Defendant Falsely claimed in its Motion for summary judgment that plaintiff did not complain against a faculty member although it has a copy of plaintiffs Grievance 0378 and despite Reed and Booth deposition confirming complaints about Rohr. ( Reed 1st Deposition Page 69 L11-13 ).
Reed claimed under Oath that based on his knowledge No one at Morehouse investigated Rohr(See Reed deposition page 69 L 3-6). 10-
In spring /summer 2005 The defendant legal councilor (Sara Doyle)failed to respond to plaintiff complaints or even his former attorney inquires although Ms Pruitt (Defendant chief Operating officer) was updating Ms Doyle about plaintiffs complaints including those complaints to Dr ELKS.(See for example Document Khattab 0902/0577/0905). -11-
Defendant failed to identify the faculty member mentioned in Morehouse official grievance document (See Supplemental response to plaintiffs 2nd Interrogatories Request 18 Page 12 .)See defendant Grievance outcome Khattab 0378-Khattab 0379 paragraph 6 The grievance concerning alleged comments made to Dr. Khattab by a faculty member was also reviewed).
Elks & Rose failed under oath to identify the faculty member mentioned in Morehouse official grievance documents .(Elks Dep P 5, P6,P8 L13-21)(Rose Dep P 5-L4-25-P5 L1-3).
- 12-
In May and Jun 2005 Plaintiff requested a meetings with Morehouse Medicine director (Rose)& Chairman(Rose became Chair after terminating Dr Aguayo) . Myra Rose retaliated against plaintiff and refused to meet him although Morehouse due process and Grievance process policy clearly indicate that a meeting should happen within 5 business days (See Morehouse due process and grievance process policy-Khattab 0709 –section 1.2,2.1,2.2) . -13-
Rose refused to meet Dr Khattab despite the fact that his former attorney contacted her office directly and talked with her. (See Rose Deposition admitting that I requested a meeting in May and Jun 2005 and she did NOT respond-Rose Dep 2nd part March Page 47L3-11-See attorney invoice -See Plaintiffs request for a meeting –requests delivered via US mail and e-mail ). Rose failed to identify the faculty member in the grievance document which she approved (Rose Dep P 5-L4-25-P5 L1-3). -14-
Defendant claimed that Rose had No obligation to meet plaintiff in Jun 2005 (See Supplemental response to plaintiffs Interrogatories ,Request 21 Page 5 Line 10-11-Filed March, 7,2008)
Defendant violated its own policy as Rose had obligation to meet plaintiff under Morehouse grievance and due process policy .Rose used to be the Chair and Director of Medicine (khattab 0709-step one & Step 2).
Rose signed plaintiff termination documents and refused to ensure compliance with Morehouse policy .Morehouse accepted Rose violation Therefore Morehouse is liable for Rose actions. 15
-In Summer 2005 defendant was involved in shameful method of conducting
its grievance investigation result ,and falsifying documents . defendant employees made a choice to send a certified mail to someone named (Suzan) and claim that the certified mail was sent to Dr Khaldoun Khattab (Plaintiff).(See Khattab 0810 /0813 Certified Mail Receipt dated 7-18-2005 addressed to SUSZAN Khattab (NOT Khaldoun Khattab). The certified mail was returned to Morehouse (khattab0813).(See documents Filed in case docket 41 pages 24-25 of 40). Plaintiff believes that Morehouse purposefully failed to provide proper
notice regarding his Grievance , in an attempt to avoid any investegation and related hearing requested by Dr. khattab, or they erroneously sent the notice of their final decision to an incorrect address /or another person and then created the forged “Notice of unclaimed Mail ” to supplement their files after realizing that they have to send a letter to plaintiff .
Mrs Sara Doyle stated in her EEOC position Statement that plaintiff refused to receive defendant certified Mail . Ms Doyle allegation is false as No one asked
plaintiff to receive Morehouse Mail addressed to another person called (SUZAN.Khattalle-See 0322 -US Mail Receipt) Work Time /load –Patient Numbers (Negligent/Abuse). Plaintiff complained during his employment about his long working hours, defendant refusal to activate Dr Khattab time cards, and assigning him more patients than his co-workers, As a response Morehouse Medicine leaders neglected plaintiff complaint and Horribly failed to identify the person who is responsible for addressing plaintiff complaint. Defendant claimed under oath that(Number of patients plaintiff took care of them and Hours NOT available.)/ (See Defendant response to plaintiffs 1st Interrogatories page 24 Lines 1-5).(See RESPONSE
TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PER HONORABLE JUDGE WALKER AUGUST 2008 order-Request(7)Pages4/5
Admitting that (3 three originally Nigerians faculty member failed to identify Plaintiffs new patients number in the evaluation provided in the residency File-See also Khattab 0270). Fleanugh(Residency Associate Director) claimed during his deposition that he is NOT responsible for plaintiffs working time/working load/time cards , he admitted that (time machine) is located next to his office, but he does not know who is responsible for ensuring that it was working Further t (No Morehouse employee is responsible for knowing the hours
(fleanugh Dep 2nd part Page 59L 8-15- Page 60L1-6 -Page 59(L18-19). Any Reasonable Jury will never accept Flenaugh and Defendant allegation that No Morehouse employees is responsible for knowing plaintiff working hours even after Dr Khattab complained about working up to 95 hours a week. RAC Conspiracy /Negligence. Defendant claimed that plaintiff was terminated by its RAC in May 2005(See EEOC Position statement page one, RAC is Residency advisory committee.) Defendant and a limited number of its employees were engaged in a concerted effort to terminate Dr. khattab employment through unsubstantiated allegations and illegal RAC Conspiracy. The individuals involved in RAC conspiracy are Morehouse Dean Smith , GME Director(Booth), GME Chairman (ELKS) ,Medicine Director (Rose) and Drs Reed and Flenaugh. In March 2005 Morehouse and its employees started to raise allegations that the Medicine department RAC had taken actions against the plaintiff on behalf of Morehouse , However until today defendant refused to identify /certify under oath who are those RAC members . (Attorney Ms Sara Doyle submitted a list of RAC members via e-mail in 2008 and refused to let any defendant agent (employee) certify it under oath. Issues related to RAC were discussed in Plaintiff response to defendant statements ,7,8,9,10,11,17,18,19, therefore there is No need to repeat it). “Defendant and Rose are responsible for violating Morehouse’s own policy by refusing to appoint a resident in the RAC per Morehouse’s written policy.”
(See Plaintiffs response to Morehouse alleged statement of fact number 8-See Khattab 0042). Defendant is liable for its unknown RAC members illegal actions including but limited to ignoring Discrimination complaints , manitaing a hostile working environment , neglecting patient care &Abuse compliments and Finally encouraging Morehouse employees to keep abusing plaintiff .(See attached documents about complaints to RAC). During discovery defendant insisted that plaintiff knew all the RAC members as he met them in March 2005 , However it failed to identify
RAC members and refused to release its March ,May or Jun 2005 RAC meeting minutes . Defendant current Chief of Morehouse staff at Grady Hospital( Reed) testified under Oath and claimed that a record is kept on every RAC meeting ,and if plaintiff want a list (roster) of who attended meetings then Christie (Residency Manager)has it ( See Reed Deposition 1st part page 26 L 6-
25- Page 27 L 1-7.-Page 27 L 11-16. Page 29 L 15-16 ) (See document khattab 0298-See documents and facts mentioned in plaintiffs response to defendant alleged genuine fact statement 19). See Akomolafe deposition pages 10-11-She claimed that she is a member of the RAC and she can NOT recall meeting Plaintiff Akomolafe Depo Page 11 L 1-4, Page 10 L 4 ). Rose admitted under oath that she appoint RAC members (Rose March Dep page 82.L 2-13), Therefore Rose is responsible for RAC actions , and identifying RAC members Amazingly she failed to identify them during her deposition( Rose Dep Page 81 ). Defendant and Rose are responsible for violating Morehouse own policy by refusing to appoint a resident in the RAC per Morehouse written policy. Rose claimed that she did NOT attend the RAC meetings with plaintiff (Rose Dep 2nd part Page 80 L8-12) and Rose could Not remember who are those RAC ,or who are the RAC who met plaintiff(Rose Dep Page 81 L2-17). In 2005 numerous Morehouse faculty members ignored plaintiffs numerous requests to know whether or Not they are members of the RAC and who are Those RAC members whom according to Rose they met with Dr Khattab. See Documents Khattab 0673/0674/0678-0780-0900-0898-. 0298-0637-1085-1086- On April 6,2005 Plaintiff requested that Morehouse GME Director Booth send him the names of RAC member(Khttab 1085). , Booth ignored Dr Khattab. (See inquires about alleged RAC member Khattab-0670-0634 dated April 6,2005 . On April 6,2005 plaintiff informed his MANAGER Christie
(I DO NOT even Know the list of RAC members, names?)khattab 1086.
Christie ignored Plaintiffs e-mails and requests. In 2005 All the following defendant employees failed to identify the RAC members (1)GME chairman -ELKS,(2) GME Director Booth
,(3)Medicine Director(Rose) (4) Residency Manager (Christie) 5-Morehouse Chief operating officer(Pruitt) ,and finally (6) Flenaugh(Associate Residency director) In an effort to identify alleged RAC members Plaintiff kept sending e-mails in 2005 to confirm that HE DID NOT met or know RAC members ,Never knew know who are all those RAC members
(See Khattab 1105 (e-mail to Dr Igho-Pemu)she informed Rose and I do not know the appropriate response.
/Khattab 1102 From Pricillaia Igho-Pemu to Rose (Is there a process in place for dealing with such enquires) Myra Rose forwarded the matter to Marlin Pruitt(FYI) .Khattab 1103 .See also Notice to Igho-Pemu and Oderinde about an alleged RAC. Christie (Defendant Residency Manager) identified RAC members . ( Christie Page 10 L21-23 Page 11 L 1-5 ) . she also provided a document about the alleged RAC members . Christie document was FALSE .The evidence about falsifying the said RAC document came during Akomolafe deposition , Akomolafe claimed under Oath that she is a member of defendant 2004/2005 RAC ( Akomolafe Dep page 10 L 2-9). Akomolafe name is not included either in the list provided by attorney Sara Doyle or the list provided by the residency manager Christie during her deposition (See Christie dep Page 10 L21-23 Page 11 L 1-5 ). All Plaintiffs concerns regarding Patient care , safety issues ,unlawful practice ,and Dr Khattab work evaluation had never been discussed with a real RAC members , See Khattab 1086(Letter to unknown RAC members to be forwarded by Yolanda Christie-). According to Morehouse Due process policy the plaintiff has the right to physically meet the RAC members and appeal their decisions to GME/Dean as the RAC decision is NOT final (Khattab 0045-0055). In 2005 Defendant Manager Christi informed plaintiff in writing that RAC decision is Final and that his advisor Dr James Reed will advocate the plaintiff during RAC meeting (see Document khttab 300 ). The defendant retaliated against plaintiff by letting someone who wants to Fire Dr Khttab (James Reed) represent him during RAC meetings (khattab 300) Further defendant retaliated by denying plaintiffs right to appeal to Morehouse Dean Smith , Indeed defendant actions should be considered Non legitimate simply by using common sense as defendant should have identified its RAC members under Oath. In Spring 2005 Dr Khttab Filed numerous compliments via e-mail (See documents Khattab 0637-0638-1050-1086 ) , Defendant and its employees Reed and Rose ignored all plaintiffs complaints/e-mails. Rose & Reed retaliated against plaintiff because he Filed numerous complaints via e-mails about neglecting ACGME/Morehouse policy regarding resident evaluations (See Khattab 0325),Further Dr Reed retaliated against plaintiff because Dr Khattab started contacting lawyers in March 2005 and officially assigned an attorney in April 2005 to deal with Morehouse,(See Attorney Elkhalil Invoice1199). Rose took negative actions against plaintiffs in Spring 2005 and claimed that an RAC decided those actions based on Rose opinion about plaintiffs patient care although she never worked with plaintiff inside any Georgia Hospital . Rose alleaged documents about Jan, Feb and March 2005 RAC actions are simply a personal opinion and conclusory allegations which should never be accepted as a genuine fact ( Conclusory allegations based on subjective beliefs are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. See Leigh v. Warner Bros., Inc., 212 F.3d 1210, 1217 (11th Cir. 2000); Ramsey v. Leath, 706 F.2d 1166, 1170 (11th Cir. 1983). Rose is a person who can easily provide false allegation ,for example See Document (khattab 0751 ). Rose informed the CSBME on behalf of Morehouse that ((the EEOC decided that plaintiff complaint is unwarranted )) See document Khattab 0751 We found that the EEOC determined that Dr Khattab charge was unwarranted .). (CSBME is Georgia medical Board) See Khattab 0750- 0752- Rose described plaintiffs behavior as (erratic) and she indicated that he is manipulating her faculty members and want to make complaints so he can extend his visa/immigration status inside the USA . Rose personal opinion about Dr Khattab behavior contradict her faculty members opinion (See Legitimate Work Section and attached documents about Professionalism and behavior -See positive opinion documents 0851, 0370,0270,0272,0273 ,0271..etc). Rose claimed that plaintiff is manipulating her faculty members as she is not ready to accept her own faculty members positive opinion about plaintiff When Morehouse decided to terminate Dr Khattab employment ,its employees did Not review Plaintiff documents including the positive/ superior work
evaluations which were available to Morehouse . Reed who advocated/represented the plaintiff in alleged RAC meeting admitted under oath that he did not review specific doctors evaluation and recommendation ( Reed 1st part deposition-March/08 Page 42 L 20-25-Page43 L1-21) Defendant made a conspiracy and illegal decision when it let (James Reed) advocated plaintiff in alleged RAC meetings despite the fact that ( 1) Reed Does not know with whom plaintiff worked during his employment (Reed 1st Deposition Page39 L20-25,Page 40L 10-24-Page41 Page 47 L 15-21) , (2) he does not know if plaintiffs supervisors discussed Dr Khattab evaluation (Reed Dep 1st part Page 44 L11-21), (3) Reed want to Fire the Department chairman because as the chair appoints WHITE people , (4) Plaintiff never authorized Reed to represent him ,5-4-Reed wants to fire plaintiff and voted against him (See Section about Former Morehouse president deposition testimony regarding Reed) , (reed Dep 1st part P13L1-24 ) Reed should have never be allowed to represent someone he wants to Fire him.
Reed Denied during his deposition what Mr Booth claimed in an email sent to Morehouse Dean and attached to Booth affidavit as Exhibit C-Khattab 1388 paragraph 9 L42-44(Dr Khattab was informed by Dr James Reed in his
capacity as Vice chair on Jun 8,2005 ….that you will not be allowed to continue in the residency program(See Reed August 2008 Deposition), Reed denied that he hand delivered plaintiff a copy of his termination (Reed Dep 1st part Page 70 L 7- 8). Reed, Rose-contradicting statements (under oath.). Reed stated that Rose is the person who informed Dr Khattab about the termination and usually individuals are notified by Certified Mail (Reed 1st deposition page 56 L23-25 Page 57 L 1-7 ,Page 57 L11-25-Page 59 L 3-5)
Reed clearly indicated during his deposition that Rose was the chair of the RAC meeting which terminated Dr Khattab employment (Reed Dep 1st part Page 14 L 16-25) Reed previous statements under oath contradict what Rose claimed .Rose claimed under Oath during her deposition that she BELIEVE and she know that she Was NOT in Morehouse when the termination meeting occurred (See Rose Deposition page 116 L 1 - 9). Flenaugh False allegations /Bad faith affidavit about RAC Voting Defendant claimed in its statement of genuine Facts (statement 24)that RAC voted not to renew Dr Khattab agreement ,Flenaugh provided an affidavit to support this false allegation (Flenaugh Aff P16) It is Amazing that Felnaugh himself indicated during his deposition that the decision was without voting, and the RAC does not have sort of voting . Therefore it is obvious that Fleanugh deposition contradict his own affidavit.
(See Flenaugh Dep Page 51 line 2, We classically don't have sort of votings.
See also Flenaugh admitting that RAC made a decision without a Voting
Flenaugh Dep Page51& 52,Page 51 line 25 Question (And who made the decision without a Voting) Answer Page 52 line 2 ( answer : The residency advisory committee).
(This evidence clarify the credibility of Flenuagh who informed Rose and Yolanda in writing that he is DECEIVING Plaintiff-See Flenuagh May 28 e-mail to Rose –Flenaugh wrote this is an effort to DECEIVE ). On Jun 19 ,2005 Flenuagh asked MSM members to clarify calling security to arrest plaintiff ,Reporting plaintiff to Howard University , Howard should investigate it candidate , you know what he and they are Adult ,(Khattab 0573),
(Fleanugh was plaining to call Grady Hospital and Morehouse security to arrest plaintiff so Dr Khattab can NOT meet Morehouse president Satcher ,can NOT keep going to Grady Hospital human resources to complain against Flenaugh and his corrupted friends . On Tuesday Jun 21,2005 Flenuagh contradicted his Jun 19(Khattab 0573) statements about plaintiff status ,he amazingly asked the residency manager about plaintiff STATUS =(what Is his status , terminated, administrative leave ,what ?is he(plaintiff )going to receive credit for the year ,No credit ..etc ,)It is amazing that the acting program director does Not know plaintiff status although he claimed in his November 2007 affidavit that he attended RAC meetings and received numeric complaints from plaintiff with copies sent to Morehouse president and Dean. In Jun 2007 Flenaugh attended Plaintiffs Immigration bond hearing (Defendant and Flenaugh admitted this fact , See 3rd set requests for admissions,See Fle 1st Deposition). Plaintiff did not attended his own bond hearing ,Fleanugh requested deporting plaintiff and informed the immigration court that plaintiff was walking inside the hospital wearing physicians doctors after being terminated(See Amendment about Civil Rights Deprivation- conspiracy, see docket 183 ). Reed Conspiracy / single Vote to terminate plaintiff on behalf of Morehouse / Violating RAC QUORUM Policy The court have the power to believe Attorney Mr Vernon allegation that the RAC voted to terminate plaintiff ,However Based on Discovery James Reed might be the only person who voted to terminate plaintiffs employment and this is the explanation
Rose claimed that she did Not attend the meeting (Rose March Dep
page 116 )Rose is NOT allowed to vote in the RAC meeting per Morehouse policy, (The program director may NOT participate in this vote., Document Khattab 0054 Line29/30-Section E) .Rose claimed under oath that she did Not attend the meeting .
2-Christie claimed under oath that she is a NON Voting member,
3-Dr David Anderson and Akomolafe claimed under oath that they did not attend the RAC meeting which terminated plaintiff . 4-Flenugh claimed under oath that the RAC decision was made without Voting and the RAC do NOT have sort of voting (Flenaugh 2nd Dep P51,P52) 5-Morehouse violated its own policy about RAC QUORUM - quorum voting(see Khattab 0043 Lines 12-13 Morehouse policy). 6-Defendant illegally assigned Reed to represent plaintiff in RAC meeting , Reed admitted under Oath representing plaintiff(Reed Dep 1st part page Page 12L 19-24) ., Reed and Defendant refused to answer questions under Oath about Reed unfair /illegal representation of Dr Khattab (Reed Dep 1st part p13 L19-24 Line 19 . Reed is involved in Morehouse Grievance Negligence/ conspiracy, as he
Appointed Flenaugh to be the chair of plaintiffs Grievance committee(Booth Dep Page 115L21-22). Reed knows that Felanugh want to terminate plaintiff so he appointed him as a committee chair . (Reed) violated Morehouse policy in his capacity as Acting chair when he refused to meet plaintiff within 5 business days of filing a grievance and due process appeal /Acting director (See Morehouse Grievance policy ,see Reed 2nd Deposition transcript ,See other previous section details about Grievance Negligence ) . Reed and Booth denied their responsibility about bringing a signed evaluation For May 2005 work evaluation ,( Michael B Hisler Signature)(Booth Dep P 114L19-25P115 L19).
Booth claimed that Flenuauh represented Heisler in his capacity as Chief of ICU .(Booth Dep P 116-L 11-17).Both allegation is false as Defendant claimed that the chief of the ICU in 2004/2005 ,2005/2006 is Dr Marlin Forman Not Flenaugh (See Residency hand book .see also compliments via e-mail to Booth and Reed indicating that Heilser evaluation does Not exist and his signature also does not exist ) .
In Jun 26/ 2005 Reed let Flenaugh held a falsified RAC meeting (only 2 members attended the alleged meeting - )Reed did not address this mater although he (Reed)received a notice from the HEM Chairman (ELKS) on June 24/2005 indicating his responsibilities as a the Acting chair of the department ,Again Reed neglected plaintiffs request to know who are Those RaAC members.(See Khattab 0510,0487).(See also document about complinning via e-mail To David Satcher Morehouse president (on Jun 21,23 )with CC to Reed who neglected addressing all those complaints ) .Is is clear that Reed and Flenaugh violated Morehouse RAC QUORUM Policy and refused to identify the RAC members ,Further ELKE is aware about their action (See Khattab 0478 e-mail from flebugh to Elks with a question about whether Morehouse has to send khatab or the Dean a copy of alleged RAC meeting chaired by Flenugh). Rose and Reed has a history of discrimination and involvement in conspiracy to terminate Non black physicians (See Aguayo v Morehouse Amendment Initial complaint Paragraphs 166/ and 205 to 215(Reed Rose meeting MSM president during plaintiffs khattab employment and complaining about appointing white people and changing MSM face .)
.
Defendant Failed to appoint RAC members appropriately per its own policy (See response to defendant Genuine fact statement (8) . Plaintiff has established that defendant denied his equal due process and grievance process per Morehouse policy . issues related to breach of contract and bylaw per Georgia state law should be address by this honorable court ..Procedural due process requires the opportunity to be heard -- this requires notice and an opportunity to be heard(Not represented by James W Reed). See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985) Denial of substantive due process is illegal (Montford v. Moreno, 2005 WL 1369563, *7 (11th Cir. June 9, 2005) Nigger/Nigro Controversy
Offensive racial slur –Vs- Normal ward- . 1-see section summary of abuse (informing plaintiff that he is a Nigger, Nigro , Niger is a Normal ward in Georgia and plaintiff complaint to his employer-Morehouse,). 2-Morehouse opinion about wards like Nigros, Niggers might be totally different or even contradict the Legal system and Georgia community opinion(understanding) . For example Elks (Vice Dean -GME Chairman)claimed that Morehouse employees officially use them (In the context of formal presentations Elks Dep P61 L 18/Page 62L 1-2 ,Elks claimed said wards are not usually considered derogatory, could be playful..etc ), However a Few Morehouse employees denied Elks statement under Oath. 3- Elks personnel belief contradict the belief of Mr Booth (GME Director) See Elks clarification and her personal belief about the wards Niger and Nigero (Elks Deposition page 61/P62 L1-2 ). Mr Booth -AA -refused using wards like Niger or Nigros inside Morehouse or even in Georgia.(See
Booth Deposition) .Morehouse president and Dean refused to clarify to plaintiff their opinion in 2005(See Initial court complaint). 4-This Honorable Court should inform plaintiff whether or Not ,said wards(Nigger ,Nigro) are unprofessional or Normal in Georgia and Further weather plaintiff should have accepted them during his employment or his complaint about using them to insult him is unworthy . This court has to clarify its opinion about said wards and the following 11th circuit decision . (( Offensive racial slur “nigger,” which, if true, constitutes direct evidence of discriminatory intent. See, e.g., Merrit v. Dillard Paper Co., 120 F.3d 1181, 1189-90 . (11th Cir. 1997) .(collecting Eleventh Circuit cases in which racial slurs were held to constitute direct evidence of discriminatory intent ); Green v. Dillards, Inc.,483 F.3d 533, 540 (8th Cir. 2007) (stating, in § 1981 commercial establishment context, that “calling customers ‘niggers’ is direct evidence of discrimination”);Brooks v. Collis Foods, Inc., 365 F. Supp. 2d 1342, 1359 (N.D. Ga. 2005).
Notice plaintiff has numerous written evidence of discriminatory conduct other than said Nigger Nigro wards , however the court should address this section. July 1st 2005 Incident On July 1st 2005 flenaugh MD contacted plaintiff directly while Dr Khattab was in Pre-Operation status inside Kenneston Hospital in Kennesaw, Georgia
,Dr Flenaugh did not care about Dr Khattab critical health status and the fact that Dr Khattab had a very serious injuries which could led to the Death of Dr Khattab and he was in pre-operation status for a surgery which left Dr Khattab with a Permanente Implement in his leg . Flenaugh MD called plaintiff to simply inform him that Morehouse Fired Him and he has no place at Morehouse per Flenugh alleged Grievance committee, Flenaugh actions were inhuman, insensitive and represent his ethical and personal manner , Furthermore Plaintiff discovered later that Flenugh claimed that Dr Khattab asked him to send the Grievance document via e-mail
,However any reasonable jury will probably refuse Flenugh allegation as in 2005 No Surgery room or critical care unit in Georgia was providing an internet service for patients who have a critical health status .
(See document Khattab 0951 -Flenugh e-mail dated July 1st2005 , sent to Elks, Rose, Reed ,Hsisler ..etc confirming that he contacted Dr Khattab while being treated for a medical condition and alleging that Plaintiff asked him to send a copy of his grievance via E-mail)
(See Flenugh Deposition Page 73 ,Page 74 ,) Legal Argument and Facts Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981,1983 Claims.
Standard Summary Judgment approach
(See plaintiffs Memorandum of Law ).
A party who establishes that no genuine issues of material fact exist to be tried is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In deciding whether genuine issues of material fact exist to be tried, the court must review the evidence, and all factual inferences drawn from the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Welch v. Celotex Corp., 951 F.2d 1235, 1237 (11th Cir. 1992). The court may NOT weigh conflicting evidence NOR make credibility determinations. Hairston v. GainesvilleSun Publ’g Co., 9 F.3d 913, 919 (11th Cir. 1993). At the summary judgment stage the court’s function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter, but rather to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249.
In doing so, the court must construe the facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Curley v. Klem, 298 F.3d 271, 277 (3d Cir. 2002). A factual dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-movant and it is material if, under the substantive law, it would affect the outcome of the suit. See id. at 248. The moving party must show that if the evidentiary material of record were reduced to admissible evidence in court, it
would be insufficient to permit the non-moving party to carry its burden of proof. See Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 318 (1986). The material fact or facts become genuine when a reasonable trier of fact could render a verdict for the non-moving party. Healey v. New York Life Ins. Co., 860 F.2d 1209, 1219 n.3 (3d Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1098 S.Ct. 2449 (1989). 42 U.S.C. § 1981 This Honorable Court is bound by accepted standards with respect to Discrimination cases within the United States. There are three ways in which a plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination: “by presenting direct evidence of discriminatory intent; by meeting the test set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973); or by demonstrating through statistics a pattern of discrimination.” Early v. Champion Int’l Corp., 907 F.2d 1077, 1081 (11th Cir. 1990). There are two methods of proving a case of discrimination under Title VII: the method set forth in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) (mixed-motive) and the method established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973)(pretext). § 1981 claims are not subject to the statute of limitations for Title VII claims.
Discrimination based on citizenship(origion) can be Section 1981 violation, Anderson v. Conboy, 156 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 1998)(in that case a union fired business representative because he was not a citizen.) Claims brought under Section 1981 and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act are analyzed under the same framework, these statutes have the same requirements of proof. See Standard v. A.B.E.L. Servs., Inc.,
161 F.3d 1318, 1330 (11th Cir. 1998). A plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment under Title VII with direct or statistical evidence, or he may use circumstantial evidence to satisfy the four-part test outlined in McDonnell DouglasCorp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). See also Earley v. Champion Intern. Corp., 907F.2d 1077, 1081 (11th Cir. 1990). The Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that an employee could win a discrimination suit without proving intent or introducing direct evidence of discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 120 S. Ct. 2097 (2000). In Reeves, the Supreme Court held that an employer is not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law when the employee’s evidence consists exclusively of a prima facie case of discrimination combined with sufficient evidence for the trier of fact to disbelieve the defendant’s legitimate , non-discriminatory explanation for the challenged adverse employment action . The Supreme Court pointed out that an employee’s initial or prima facie case along with evidence that the employer’s explanation was false can be but will not always be adequate to sustain a jury’s finding of liability Plaintiff may proceed under the mixed-motive method of establishing intentional discrimination. Under this method, a plaintiff must present sufficient evidence, direct or circumstantial, that, despite the existence of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the adverse employment action, an illegal factor (i.e., race, religion ) was a motivating factor in the decision. Hill,
354 F.3d at 284-86. Plaintiff need not show race was the sole motivating factor but only that it was a motivating factor. Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (2003). The racial bias must come from a relevant decision maker. Plaintiffs’ Title VII/42 U.S.C. § 1981 Discrimination claim is valid Plaintiffs’ claims are NOT barred by the status of limitation .Plaintiff Filed this lawsuit within the appropriate time frame ( 180 days after termination based on Discrimination and retaliation) , therefore the EEOC accepted plaintiff case and started its investigation . In hostile work environment cases, a charge of discrimination will be timely-filed if “at least one act contributing to [the] hostile environment takes place within the statutory time period.” Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536
U.S. 101, 105 (2002), Therefore the EEOC made an appropriate decision when it accepted plaintiff complaint about Morehouse Hostile working environment. The plaintiff was subjected to harassment , abuse and discrimination throughout his employment and this includes numerous discriminatory actions which occurred in March ,April, May ,Jun and July 2005 ,therefore the deadline for the Filing Title VII EEOC charge was January 2006 (180 days in Georgia) . The Federal EEOC office confirmed that plaintiff started his EEOC compliant in September and Atlanta EEOC office indicated the Sep or Oct are included within the 180 days regardless of date of terminating Plaintiffs employment (May, Jun or July)The Court has no obligation to believe the plaintiff, however the Court can subpoena the EEOC. In Sep and October 2005 Plaintiff sent numerous e-mails to EEOC and Morehouse president (Dr Satcher)and BOT- chairman(Dr Louis Sullivan),this happened before plaintiff was granted an Intake-Interview inside Atlanta EEOC Office.(See Document khattab 0671 sent to Drs Sullivan ,Satcher and EEOC employee Ms Mary Scott) . 42 U.S.C. § 1981,1983 status of limitation is (4) years.
(See THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT order in BRUCE BAKER,V BIRMINGHAM BOARD OF EDUCATION, June 25, 2008).
This honorable court should address violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 as
Honorable judge Walker accepted that plaintiff Filed this lawsuit pursuant to Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (See Judge Walker July 07 order /docket 168 /page 3 Line 3-6 ). Prima Facie Case of Discrimination A plaintiff’s prima facie case raises a presumption of illegal discrimination. Texas Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254 (1981); Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1024 (11th Cir. 2000) . The 11th circuit established an analysis for Prima Facie Case of Discrimination Per the Supreme court decision in McDonnell Douglas case . (See Memorandum of law ).To establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) [he] belongs to a racial minority or protected class ; (2) [he] was subjected to adverse job action; (3) [his] employer treated similarly situated employees outside [his] classification more favorable; and (4) [he] was qualified to do the job.” Knight v. Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc., 330 F.3d 1313, 1316 (11th Cir. 2003)(citations omitted); Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555, 1562 (1997). Dr Khattab can proceed under McDonnell Douglas analysis in this case of racial termination of employment and refusal to promote plaintiff , However
Dr Khattab reserve the right to proceed also under the mixed-motive method of establishing discrimination . In this case plaintiff can easily prove the four elements required to establish a prima facie case of color, religion, race, and national origin discrimination: (1) That he is within a protected class for the relevant law
(Plaintiff is a Muslim ,Caucasians White, and was born in Syria Arab Republic, and it is beyond doubt that Caucasians Muslims born in Syria or any Arab country are protected by US constitution.(See St. Francis Collegev V Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604 (1987) Muslim Arabs are covered by Anti-Discrimination law).
(2) that he was qualified for his job or performing the duties of his job at level meeting the legitimate expectations of his employer See Discovery documents –Plaintiff provided numerous Superior and satisfactory working evaluations signed by different defendant employees See Legitimate work section, Plaintiff respond to defendant statement of genuine facts –statement 18-B ).
(3)That he suffered As a result of adverse employment Action Plaintiff was fired, terminated and Prohibited from being promoted - It is beyond dispute that a termination constitutes an adverse action. Pegram, 361 F.3d at 283 (citing Mota v. Univ. of Tex. Houston Health Sci. Ctr., 261 F.3d 512, 519 (5th Cir. 2001)).
(4) That a person outside the protected class was thereafter (A)selected for the job in question( Defendant selected African black ) Or (B)promoted in the job in question(All those promoted were Non-Caucasians ). The prove of the fourth element and also favorably treating Black and Nigerian employees is very simple A-All the plaintiff coworkers ( residents physicians) who were promoted are NON Caucasians Non White ,(See Sara Doyle supplemental response to the EEOC which includes description of those people race and dates for hire and promotion –See also those people race and origin in Morehouse first answer to plaintiffs first Interrogatories . B- Defendant employed an African person to replace plaintiff and take his Position(Ms M Taylor ). Morehouse promoted Ms M.T to PGY-2 without even employing her as PGY-1 at Morehouse in 2005 , Further in a horrible discriminatory action Morehouse interviewed Ms Taylor for the job during plaintiff employment .(See Rose Deposition about Ms Taylor race,color, Rose Dep 2nd part Page 75 ,color-See Mr Booth deposition explanation for interviewing Taylor for the job during plaintiff employment as this is the director privilege ) . C –Based on the Documents produced by the EEOC Morehouse promoted its African employee Ms Clayton to be a PGY-2 although her first year was ranked marginal and she had a significant patient care problems ,while Morehouse refused to promote plaintiff even if he can finish his first year as Marginal.
(See Dr Clayton documents which were produced by the EEOC
See Rose Deposition Page 59 Line 10-14.(Rose statement under Oath (Line 10 The answer is: Ms. Clayton was given a marginal her first year and was allowed to go on to the second year. She -- I believe she completed that second year and was given credit for that. ) D-During the last 10 years the only Medicine Resident terminated by Morehouse during his first year PGY-1 was the plaintiff( Dr Khattab). E- Non of plaintiffs Black or Nigerian co-workers (peers) were harassed, or denied sick off days in 2004 or 2005 . Most Plaintiffs Black and Nigerian coworkers scored less than him in their 2004 US Medical exams ,However based on their color and origin defendant claimed that they have superior medical knowledge although their US percentile was very law (For example 1%,4%,8%,11%,14%). G Defendant Did NOT treat the plaintiff equally like its Former African employee Mitzi Clayton .MD who was promoted to PGY-2 although her first year was ranked as marginal and she was on probation also per EEOC documents .Dr Clayton 2003 & 2004 In-Training exam results were not good and less than the plaintiff 2004 scores . Rose admitted promoting Dr Clayton to PGY-2 (discussed previously). defendant indicated in its documents that plaintiff will NOT be promoted to PGY-2 even if he is going to pass an alleged probation successfully (See Alleged March 2005 RAC meeting result). H -Defendant employed an African person MS M.T to replace plaintiff . I In 2005 /2006 All those resident promoted to PGY-2 were Non Caucasians.(See names ,races, titles as provided by the EEOC). Clarification to court
1-For more details about Legitimate work please See Case statement Section Plaintiff legitimate Work- Satisfactory /Superior working evaluations.) 2-During the EEOC and ABIM (American Board Of Internal Medicine)investigation process , One of the individuals who abused the plaintiff in 2004/2005 (Myra E Rose) was indirectly forced to admit facts about Dr Khattab performance , She claimed in a letter faxed to
the ABIM (that Dr Khattab Successfully completed 9 month of rotations, was on administrative leave for 9 weeks and took vacation for 3 weeks during his employment .Rose said document contradict the documents attached to her November 14,2008 Affidavit. Defendant Burden Shifts If Plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to Defendants to put forth a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the Defendant’s actions. Conner v. Ft. Gordon Bus Co., 761 F.2d 1495, 1499 (11th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff already explained his Legitimate work and satisfactory/Superior work evaluation , therefore all defendant allegations for terminating Dr Khattab employment has been proven as false and Non Logic .For example See Defendant allegations in it MSJ Brief Page 4 L10-14 and compare it with this genuine facts 1- Numerous defendant employees( physicians ) indicated that Plaintiff used to have superior or satisfactory(1) patient care, (2)Medical Management ,(3)Practice based learning, (4)professionalism and (5)clinical skills .
In September 2008 Attorney Ms Sara Doyle admitted this fact.(See all documents and depositions mentioned in plaintiff Legitimate work section). 2-Plaintiff can communicate adequately verbally in English per Judge Walker statement in an open court ,Further Ms Sara Doyle admitted that plaintiff communicate adequately in English. Judge Walker and Holland and knight law firm refused to provide an interpreter (translator) during plaintiffs deposition as they claimed plaintiff can communicate adequately in English. 3-Plaintiff Medical knowledge is above the average knowledge of all US resident physicians and further far beyond Morehouse resident physicians who had very law US percentile ,like For example 1%-4%,10%-11%-14% (Plaintiff 2004 US Medical Knowledge percentile was 71% ).(See documents Plaintiff 1-Redacted format per judge walker instructions) . 4-Contrary to Morehouse allegations in its Brief , plaintiff had established and can easily prove that his PGY-1 performance was similar or better than his coworkers .
Plaintiff work was better that his coworkers and supervisors who were involved in the death and suffering of Grady Hospital uninsured Patients and those who did not come to Grady health system facilities to take care of their uninsured suffering patients who were described as Homeless Niger’s and White trash . 5- No patient in the state of Georgia complained against plaintiff .
-(Rose Deposition 2nd part March , Page 120 L 1-3) The law assumes “that there is only one truth about a given set of circumstances ,However Morehouse and its employees provided confusing and contradicting circumstances ,dates and statements under oath ,Therefore what they provided is a Pretext for discrimination and dispute for trial. An Honorable court may not weigh conflicting evidence nor make credibility determinations. Hairston v. Gainesville Sun Publ’g Co., 9 F.3d 913, 919 (11th Cir. 1993 Discrepancies/Contradicting Discovery & Deposition statements are pretext for Discrimination. This Honorable Court should note that defendant provided confusing dates ,information ,and documents related to terminating Plaintiff employment .For example the EEOC position statement (page 1 )indicate that the RAC terminated plaintiff in May 2005 ,However Morehouse Summary judgment Brief Indicate the termination happened in Jun 05(NOT May 2005) . Defendant Preliminary report Filed in this case contradict both the EEOC position statement and the brief attached to Defendnat MSJ.
j.MSM Preliminary report clearly indicate that plaintiff was terminated or Not renewed at the (END of HIS Probation period ),NOT terminated during probation per Defendant MSJ. (See attached alleged probation document -probation end July 2005(Not May or Jun 05). There is a lot of discrepancies between what Morehouse submitted to EEOC and This honorable court . Another confusing/misleading example is wrongfully identification plaintiffs race and religion (See plaintiffs response to Morehouse alleged genuine facts statement 5) .Defendant informed the EEOC that plaintiff race is OTHER and it did NOT know his religion Morehouse admitted this during discovery and
claimed under that this is the truth, Amazingly on November 14,2008 defendant claimed it Knew plaintiff was Muslim Caucasian before hiring him). The previous mentioned facts is an example of discrepancy which should be considered as a material fact for Trial as a pretext for discrimination Per US Courts decisions. ( See Hernandez v. Hughes Missile Systems Co., 362F.3d 564 (2004) , the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an issue of material fact was created when an employer offered differing justifications and explanation . (The court compared one item in the EEOC Position statement and Pre-Trial
Discovery ) The court held that a jury could reasonably conclude that the employer’s new explanation, never presented to the EEOC, was a pretext for discrimination. Consequently, the employer’s motion for summary judgment was denied.. As Discussed previously Reed and Rose Deposition are full of contradicting information.
Elks (Vice Dean) Deposition statements under oath contradict Smith (Dean) statement under oath. .(See Failure to investigate paragraph 4.
Dr David Anderson and Akomolafe contradicted Morehouse allegation claimed (example denial of attending RAC termination. meeting/Non renewal meeting /denied voting /accepted reinstating plaintiff at Morehouse ..etc) -See RAC conspiracy Section. For more detailed about falsifying termination reasons ( a pretext for Discrimination )See Section RAC conspiracy and Reed conspiracy which is full of clear evidence. Evidence of Discrimination.
A plaintiff’s prima facie case raises a presumption of illegal discrimination. Texas Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254 (1981); Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1024 (11th Cir. 2000) To prove discrimination then plaintiffs needs to prove the pretext . Such pretext may be demonstrated either through additional evidence showing “the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence,” Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256, or by relying only on the evidence that comprised the prima facie case. St. Mary’s HonorCenter v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 511 (1993) Plaintiff khattab already demonstrated that Morehouse reasons for terminating his employment is merely a pretext for discrimination. In this case defendant provided False reasons for terminating Dr Khattab employment . plaintiff provided Satisfactory /superior work evaluations, signed by African and Non African physicians ,who are still alive and working in or around Atlanta ,Georgia ,USA, Therefore this case must be forwards to a Jury trial . Genuine facts
In 2004/2005 Plaintiff used to be the only Caucasian Male (white)categorical resident physician working at Morehouse Medicine department . In 2004/2005 Plaintiff used to be the Only Caucasian Muslim resident physician employed by the defendant . Plaintiff Race, origin and color is different than all Morehouse 2004/2005 resident physicians (plaintiffs co-workers-peers) . See Attorney Mrs Sara Doyle supplemental response to the EEOC Requests which includes resident
Physicians names , titles dates of starting work ,Race , origin ,and compare it with MSM statement facts and First Interrogatories . Defendant admitted /accepted all the documents plaintiff mentioned them in This Brief section legitimate satisfactory work , Therefore all the documents constitute a Genuine Facts. In the last 10 years The Only resident physician terminated during his first year employment at Morehouse is Plaintiff .
During the last 10 Years Defendant never terminated any resident during his forts year of residency (Morehouse Vice Dean-GME chair, Elks Deposition
Page 62 Line 10-11-12 -I do not know in my ten years here of individuals that were terminated -- that were dismissed during their first year.), See Interrogatories defendant failed to identify any resident physician terminated as a PGY-1during the last 5 years ).
Dr Khattab was the only resident physician whom defendant terminated his employment during his first year of employment in a very long period(5-10 years). All Defendant resident physicians taken outside NRMP Match were Non Caucasians and The choice to take resident directly outside the match was made by the PROGRAM Director -ROSE- (Booth Dep Page 33 line 1 ,2 )Rose is black African. Discussion and Clear Evidence
1 During plaintiff employment (In 2005 )Defendant refused to compare the following issues between him and his co-works who have different color ,race ,origin and religion Working conditions and responsibilities , work time/ period ,work volume /load, ,medical knowledge and Patient care outcome. The defendant Is still refusing to do what plaintiff just stated ,Further
Morehouse provided an explanation to this Honorable decision (See RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES PER HONORABLE JUDGE WALKER AUGUST order . -Request 6- page 5) .(See Rose Deposition 2nd part page119 Line 16-19) See Fleanugh Deposition page 76 L 11 -13 ( Dr. Flenaugh, did you compare my patient outcome with my peers who have different color, race and religion before terminating me? Answer No. We don't commonly do that 2
The Defendant response to plaintiffs harassment, Discrimination and Abuse complaints was 1-Ignoring receiving the complaints (See brief explanting hiding complaints against faculty members like Rose, Rohr)
2-Failure to investigate (See Shame investigation section) 3-When I get a response , the response is a prove of Discrimination like this statement(NO matter what is any 3rd or 4th party opinion about the situation.) Dr Flenaugh admitted that he responded to Dr Khattab discrimination complaint by informing him that :No matter what any third or fourth party opinion is about the situation or understanding about the situation ).
(See Eleanough Deposition page 100/101 ) Page 101-Line 8 ,Did you tell the plaintiff in response to his discrimination complaint that no matter what any third or fourth-party opinion about the situation or understanding of the situation? Answer Yes Flenaugh is a critical Key decision maker therefore Morehouse liability is clear. Flenaugh is the person who lead defendant Grievance committee .He is the associate residency Director and the person who lead and chaired the alleged
RAC meeting in Jun .He is a Key Decision maker
(To constitute direct evidence, however, the statement must have
been made by a decision-maker and be related to the decision-making process with respect to the employee’s termination. Standard, 161 F.3d at 1330; Evans v. McClainof Ga., Inc., 131 F.3d 957, 962 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Burrell v. Board of Tr. ofGa. Military Coll., 125 F.3d 1390, 1394 n.7 (11th Cir. 1997) In 2005 Plaintiff requested that Morehouse A-Investigate all the indicants discussed in this brief (section summary of abuse ,Oyewo Action –Work time ) . B-Stop abusing Dr Khattab verbally and physically by forcing him to work up to 95 hours a week and under the supervision of the individuals he complained against them , the defendant response was.
C -Give plaintiff a day off every week.
Inspect plaintiffs Grady Medical records documents as they are Legal documents which should protect plaintiff (See e-mails to Rose, Reed, Booth ,Yolanda ,Akomolafe,..etc) . D- that Any faculty member who has an allegation about Dr Khattab patient care , Should be ordered to discussed with plaintiff . (See e-mails to Rose, Yolanda)
E- compare his working hours , working time and patient care outcome with his peers who have different color race. The reaction to plaintiffs previous requests was
1-DENIAL Of Dr Khattab and his attorney requests.
2- Morehouse DO NOT compare the works of Blacks with Caucasians or Muslims with Non Muslims , a person can work under special conditions.
3-Neglecting plaintiffs former attorney El-khalil numerous contacts.
(See Khattab 1199- .See RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES PER HONORABLE JUDGE WALKER ORDER ISSUED ON AUGUST 14, 2008
Request 6 page 5-See Morehouse Explanation for its refusal to compare the following issues between the plaintiff and his former peers /coworkers who
used to have different color ,race ,religion and origin ).
A-The Number of patients whom plaintiff used to take care of
them in 2004/2005
B-Volume of work ,
C- Working period/ time .
D-Patient care outcome as determined by analyzing patients health status , signs and symptoms before and after treatment. 3
Defendant Failure to investigate plaintiff’s Abuse and Discrimination complaints is an evidence of Discrimination.(See this Brief Section refusal to investigate).
Defendant refusal to ensure compliance of its own policy about due process and Grievance is a prove of discrimination as defendant (a Historically black institution) never took same actions against any black or Nigerian resident physicians.(See documents mentioned in RAC /Reed Conspiracy – False RAC Voting ). 4
Plaintiff was the only resident in the US(Coast to coast) who was Not allowed to evaluate his/her supervisors , Myra E Rose and Yolanda Christie prohibited him from evaluation his supervisors and MOREHOUSE FAILED TO
PROVIDE ONE SINGLE Evaluation Plaintiff DID it for ant peer, coworker or supervisor although Morehouse keep the evaluations in its records.
(See Rose Deposition Page 87 Line 25-Page 88 Line 1 which confirm that the records are kept Rose statement = The evaluations submitted by attending , submitted by residents, are kept in the office.). 5
Defendant and its employees are involved in Discriminatory actions against plaintiff as they forced him to work when he was sick although they gave Non Caucasian employee(S) their legal authorized sick leave (off days).
(See May, Jun Abuse Section-workers compensation section). Defendant discriminated against plaintiff by neglecting his complaints although Morehouse addresses Black doctors complaints . (See Anderson Memo to all Morehouse residents-,See details of Dr Anderson ,flenaugh ,Heisler actions in separate the section about May worker comp incident . See Flenaugh response to workers compensation advise and Grady Hospital recommendation (Documents Khattab 0587-IF Adjustment need be made to his schedule We can handle them later) .
See H Stringer e-mail informing Plaintiff that he will meet him to address personal medical status after the workers com incident ,See Stringer letter to Dr Flenaugh ,See Stringer decision to let another physician continue taking care of the mater (Fransua)- Document khattab 1069. /See documents -Khattab 1069/1070/1071(in 1071 it was clear that Drs Reed ,Flenaugh and Heisler received copies of Plaintiffs incident Report and request for Employee evaluation and respond). See Also Khattab 1072 e-mails to Drs Ugochi,Mabo,Reed,Flenaugh
See Also Khattab 1065(Dated May 26,2005) request to know if Morehouse has Disability insurance for Occupational work acquired disease. See Also Khattab 1061 direct letter to Heisler, Flenaugh and the chief resident.
See plaintiffs May 2005 letters to Drs Reed and Rose about ,See May 28,2005 e-mails to Reed,rose, See Document Khattab 1050, ( see prove that Dr Rose received a copy of Dr Blumberg e-mail(Blumberg offered help although he was outside USA and he is employed By EMORY Not Morehouse).
6 Defendant neglected plaintiffs request to give him working sceduale /period equal to other co-workeres and to activate plaintiff work time cared(See Elenugh deposition ,No one is responsible for knowing plaintiffs working time). Defendant failed to identify the number of patients Plaintiff took care of them in September, October ,December 2004, January May, Jun 2005 (See Morehouse respond to plaintiffs 1st Interrogatories page 24 Lines 1-5 -Number of patients plaintiff took care of them and Hours NOT available.) Morehouse attorney Mrs Sara Doyle refused to inspect the lists
Which plaintiff have them . Ms Doyle refused to calculate Plaintiffs patients number as indicated in the lists . Doyle refused to Forward a copy of said lists to the FBI in case she or Morehouse believe the lists are false (fake) . Plaintiff reserve the right to submit the Lists to a Jury, so the Jury can calculate the number of patients Dr Khattab took care of them . Defendant accepted that its Medicine Director Rose summarize the plaintiffs evaluations in a discriminatory False method ,as plaintiff was the only Caucasian Muslim resident in 2004.(See documents khattab 0302-0301-0298and compare it with the documents in plaintiffs section Legitimate work ). Defendant evaluated plaintiff medical knowledge and described him as someone who does NOT know the essential of Medicine although He scored more than most his Nigerian and black coworker and although a lot of Morehouse employees indicated in writing that plaintiff had a far above normal medical knowledge (See US 2004 Internal Medicine training
score and Morehouse resident percentile) See RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES PER HONORABLE JUDGE WALKER ORDER ISSUED ON AUGUST 14, 2008 Requests 24 and 25 pages 27,28,29. Defendant is involved in an educational/ Academic discrimination As it refused to discuss what it reported secretly about plaintiff to the ABIM /ACGME (American Board of Internal Medicine and further neglected the ABIM Suggesting that plaintiff contact his program direct directly (See the attached document about Morehouse 2004 In service Exam-an Exam taken by all US resident physicians – My percentile in the US was 71% among all my US peers- See ABIM suggestion to contact the program director directly ).
7 Defendant Does not believe in diversity although it receives Federal Funding. In 2008 Morehouse does not have Caucasian faculty members in its Medicine department(Booth Deposition page 158 line 21.
When asked about the number of white Faculty members in Morehouse Medicine department Mr Booth stated under oath that (In 2008,I DO NOT think we have any currently ).
See Defendant September Interrogatories answer Request 8 Pages7-10 –Morehouse indicated that it used to have Caucasians in 2004/2005 ,why they left Morehouse and were replaced by Non Caucasians. 8
Defendant denied plaintiffs rights under Workers compensation/ERISA and COBRA as plaintiff was not a US citizen., However Morehouse was forced to grant COBRA in an effort to avoid being sued in Jun/July 2005.(See next section). Abusing the plaintiff in May and Jun 2005 /Denial of COBRA-ERISA Benefits / and Workers compensation benefits In May 2005 Plaintiff had an incident which required Filing a Workers compensation claim (khattab 0317-0316).Rather than assisting plaintiff defendant abused Dr Khattab ,and subjected his to a hostile discriminatory conduct such as :
1-Refusing to sign or complete the supervisor and employer investigation report , However Defendant employees were directed by Grady Hospital to
sign the initial incident report (See Grady Incident report signed by Flenaugh/Heisler, See attached investigation documents Not signed ).
(See Khattab 1126 –an e-mail to fleanugh requesting that he investigate the official Morehouse compliance report complaints 0507=MMa-10001./05 and 06.
See also direct question to Fleanugh (DID you sign Dr Khattab investigation workers Comp investigation report ).
2 Ordering Plaintiff to work against Grady Hospital Medical instructions/ advise ,and against private workers compensation physicians advise. See Anderson deposition Page 11 L20-25/Page 12 L 7-25-Page 13L1-19 (See Khattab 0359 .Fleanugh received a copy of a letter addressed to him about Plaintiff health status,the letter was dated May 25 2005 at 11 AM From Dr Gene Stringer (Grady Health System) and addressed to Dr Flenaugh ) .
(See the exact wards in the document Dr khtaab off a few days ,Dr Khattab is presently Unable to perform his duties because of diarrhea and leg weakness)
See also Documents Khattab 1212 /1213/0389 Concentra workers compensation document Return to work On Jun 1st 2005, restricting plaintiffs work time.
Both admitted he was aware about the May 05-incident and that Plaintiff started taking HIV prophylaxis medication in May 05.(Boot Dep page 124 lines 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10).
Mr Booth refused to answer a few questions during his deposition and Attorney Doyle provided objections about specific question For example concerns about neglecting an official medical excuse/release and asking Dr Khattab to work against physician advise in May 2005(Booth deposition Page 125 ,Page 126 Line 6 -16 …line 22
Mr Booth stated under oath (I WON,T I Wont,s be able to answer that –Booth Deposition Page 125 line 22) 3-Refusing to obey Plaintiffs workers compensation physicians advise.
(See attached Exhibits about Works comp advise/Grady Hospital letter to Dr
Flenaugh , Flenaugh refused to adjust plaintiffs work at that time ,and Suggested to make any work schedule adjustment Later ,If any adjustment is required, Anderson letter to Rose about plaintiff work time and workers com recommendation-See Harold stringer letter to flenaugh ,e-mails to plaintiff Khattab 1065-1066-1069) . 4-Creating false allegations against plaintiff in an effort to Fire him and further deport him to Syria (A Few Morehouse employees denied my rights as they believe I’m Not protected by law as I’m Not a US Citizen.). 5- Neglecting Plintiff Former Civil litigation attorney numerous efforts to ensure defendant compliance with the law. 6-Refusing to pay Plaintiff medical Bills.
See Document Khattab 0606(Filed in Motion Docket 41) On May 27 Xanthia Beery from Grady Health system askecd Janice Winston Morehouse 2005 ID control Chief (WHO WILL provide Medication ??WHO is responsible for his treatment? Who WILL PAY? Who is responsible for insurance ??(See Also that I sent copies via e-mail)to Dr Eric Fleangh and Dr Michael Hislier who neglected my health status .see also e-mails to TaDarol Bates Morehouse Vice president for Human Resources. The documents and details of all previous claims were previously discussed and submitted to court ,However plaintiff again will notify the court about a few important documents.
Dr Rose refused to meet plaintiff after the HIV needle stick incident, Therefore he sent her a certified letter and copies via e-mails in open format with copies(CC) to Michael Hislier ,Eric Fleanugh and Dr Fransua
( See Document khattab 0316 -0317).
(See Attached letters to Morehouse / Rose Dated May 2005 –see Khattab 0316/0317, the letters explaining worker compensation incident -See Document Khattab 0606(Filed in case docket Motion 41),See comments like WHO will pay ?(See Khattab 1213/ 0389/Rose admitted her refusal to met plaintiff in May and Jun 2005 See Rose deposition 2nd part Page 47L3-11).See worker
compensation incident ,Dr Anderson Deposition Page –
See Anderson deposition Page 11 L20-25/Page 12 L 7-25-Page 13L1-19 7-It is important to Note that on May 24,2005 Dr Stringer promissed plaintiff (in writing) that he will page him and set up an appointment for medical follow up ,(See Khattab 0603) unfortenitly on the next day he decided to stop taking care of plaintiff and referred him to another physician (Mesfin Fransua,Black from Ethiopia) to continue the treatment of plaintiff (See Khattab 0602). Mesfin Fransua delay examining plaintiff for 1 week and gave him a prescription that is undated although it includes DEA number (Plaintiff submitted a copy of Mesfin prescription to court ). ( I have documents which proves that Morehouse faculty members process prescriptions that includes DEA numbers –without dating them –Illegally and I encourage Judge Walker to send a Subpoena to the FDA to investigate this matter). Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). Morehouse failed to inform plaintiff about COBRA, although it usually officially inform all its separated employees about it ( When plaintiff asked his friends and private lawyers about (How to get a medical coverage to cover my bills) ,they informed him about COBRA . Plaintiff contacted Morehouse receive COBRA, however Morehouse neglected him and he was forced to ask a Lawyer to contact the School on his behalf about this matter and Later the School admitted that he deserve receiving COBRA. However Plaintiffs problem were never solved ,Morehouse refused to process his medical bills unless he sign a Subrogation form to reimburse Morehouse . Plaintiff consulted lawyers in Georgia , received an advise NOT to sign a Subrogation agreement . per instructions plaintiff requested receiving a copy of Morehouse alleged ERISA plan financial status as he was informed that Morehouse is involved in Illegal actions because It did not have a real ERISA plan and plaintiff is entitled to know the financial status of alleged ERISA Plan .
Morehouse refused to cooperate therefore plaintiff addressed this matter in his Rule 26(F) Plan with the defendant (First rule 26(f) conference took place inside the US Federal courthouse building in Detroit Michigan in 2006).. (See Khattab 1202-) Plaintiff informed Morehouse vice president(Tadarol Bates )and the CEO of Group Resources (Anday Willoughby) about going to Federal courts (ERISA Fraud).Kathlenn Carlson wrote t( Morehouse ALERTED Their Attorney.). Morehouse Environment (Hostility and quality) See Plaintiffs Section ( Brief summary of Abuse/Harassment /Failure to investigate May& Jun Abuse-Negligent ) that section evidence is sufficient to constitute a Hostile working environment. 42U.S.C. § 1981 status of limitation is(4)Four Years and it addresses HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT BASED UPON RACE and religion.
The U.S. Supreme Court held that claims arising under the 1991 amendments to section 1981 are governed by the four-year federal statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1658. Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 158 L. Ed. 2d
645, 124 S. Ct. 1836 (2004). Section 1981 claims based upon conduct occurring after the formation of an employment contract, including hostile work environment claims and claims of discrimination in compensation arise under the 1991 amendments. White v. BFI Waste Servs., LLC, 375 F.3d 288, 300 (4th Cir., 2004). James v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 370 F.3d 417 (4th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff filed this case in July 2006, In March, April and May 2007 Plaintiff informed this court about 42U.S.C. § 1981 and its valid status of limitation
Therefor this court can Not claim that plaintiff created a new allegation uncer 42 USC in 2008 , However plaintiff can even File a new lawsuit in 2009 based in the 4 years status ,further file a lawsuit also File a new lawsuit if this court is going to ignore May ,29,2007 incident –(Morehouse conspiracy to interrupt justice during deposition). This court has to consider that the manner in which defendant investigated and handled Plaintiffs Abuse and harassment compliment, can itself furnish grounds for a hostile environment claim(Defendant encouraged it employees to keep harassing and abusing plaintiff and refused to take any serious disciplinary action). All Incidents mentioned in Section (Summary of abuse and Hostile environment/Oyewo/Ivonya and May Abuse ) are enough evidence to any reasonable jury .,However Plaintiff would like to mention a few additional concerns about defendant Environment : 1-Dr Samuel Aguayo the former Chairman of Morehouse Medicine
Requested that plaintiff inform the court about his wishes to receive a subpoena to testify under oath and indicate that Morehouse has a Hostile
Discriminatory environment (against Non Black Physicians,), That Reed Rose and smith have a pattern of discrimination and hostility against Non Black .Dr Aguayo lawsuit against Morehouse proves Defendant Hostility about Morehouse. 2- In March 2005 Morehouse current employee James W Reed made a comment regarding Morehouse allegations about Plaintiff patient care and patient notes and indicated that (THIS COULD BE SUCCESSFULLY ACCOMPLISHED IN a MORE CONDUCIVE ENVIRONMENT).(See Dr Reed Letter of recommendation ). (See Reed 1st part deposition Reed 1st part deposition page 61 L 22-25 Page 63 –Page 65 L 18-15) .
3- -Threatening to Kill Dr Khattab in July 2004 might be a ground for a Horrible hostile working environment .(See Abuse section details and evidence). 4- Defendant admitted that one specific incident affected Plaintiff deeply and was a trauma . (See document Khattab 1626 created by Myra Rose and Martha Elks –khattab 1626 Line 6 This incident disturbed him deeply and it was clear that whatever happened was traumatic for him.). Plaintiff marshaled enough evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact as to each of the following elements of a Title VII & Section 1981 action against Morehouse
(1) The work environment was sufficiently hostile to
constitute intentional discrimination (see Brief section summary of
Abuse& Negligent/shame investigation/ work volume, work time ).
2 The discrimination was pervasive and regular;(see the brief summary explaining harassment and abuse through my
Employment starting Jun 04 and continuing until July 05),Further based on Morehouse hostility Felangh and Heisler ordered plaintiff to work although he was severely ill.(see May, Jun Abuse section). (3) Morehouse conduct detrimentally affected Plaintiff ;
(Defendant claimed that one incident affected plaintiff deeply and was traumatic for him –(Khattab 1625 line 7-6 ). That document is created by a Key decision maker Rose and Elks . Defendant conduct lead plaintiff to be unemployed , Financially devastated ,emotionally distressed and having a permanent metal implant in his leg. (4) Morehouse conduct was sufficiently hostile to Plaintiff a person protected by law.) , (To prove all elements of title VII actions a plaintiff must prove that (1) the work environment was sufficiently hostile, 2 the discrimination was pervasive and regular ,3 the conduct sufficiently affected the plaintiff the conduct was sufficiently hostile to’ a reasonable person protected by law.(citing Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469, 1482 (3d Cir. 1990)). Defendant Statistical Pattern of Discrimination. A plaintiff can win a discrimination lawsuit if he can demonstrate through statistics a pattern of Discrimination.
There are three ways in which a plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination: “by presenting direct evidence of discriminatory intent; by meeting the test set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973); or by demonstrating through statistics a pattern of discrimination.” Early v. Champion Int’l Corp., 907 F.2d 1077, 1081 (11th Cir. 1990). The Defendant and its employees have a History of discriminatory actions against Non Black Physicians and Muslims , Therefore it is clear that plaintiff is NOT the first victim of defendant Illegal conduct against Non Blacks and Muslims. Defendant refused to release information about lawsuits filed against Morehouse or its employees(Civil rights-workplace dispute ,Employment cases Fraud ..etc (See Defendant Answer to plaintiffs First Interrogatories-Request 5 page 10-11). Defendant has a history of abusive discriminatory conduct against Non Black and Muslims ,including but not limited to harassing plaintiffs former supervisors and friends ,Plaintiff can provide this short list of Civil rights/Employment lawsuits filed against defendant within the last 5 years.
A 1:06-cv-01095-JOF-SSC- Samuel M. Aguayo V The Morehouse School of Medicine, Inc Northern District Court of Georgia .Honorable Judge J. Owen Forrester. Dr Samuel Aguayo used to be the Chairman of the medicine department when Plaintiff started his employment . Dr Samuel Aguayo signed Plaintiff contract
(See attached copy of plaintiff contract signed by Dr Aguayo).
Plaintiffs Fomer chairman Dr Aguayo Filed a lawsuit against Morehouse School of Medicine and claimed that defendant discriminated against him because he was NOT a Black Physician, and appointing Non black in the Medicine department(see. 06-cv-01095-JOF). Defendant Former employee Dr Samuel Aguayo claimed in his lawsuit (1:06-CV-1095-JOF-SSC)that a few Morehouse African American Black employee(S) were involved in conspiracy against him and those employees includes but not limited to 1-Myra E Rose 2-James W Reed 3-Eddie Checks MD 4-Marjorie Smith MD
5-Dr David Satcher ,6-Louis Sullivan. The Defendant is responsible for discriminatory conduct against at least 3 of its Medicine department Non Black physicians , Plaintiff , his Former Medicine Chairman Dr Aguayo and Dr Mallu V. It is Not a co-incident that a few Morehouse Medicine black employees are involved in Discriminations action against Dr Samuel Aguayo and Dr Khattab and later also Dr Mallu . For example See 06-cv-01095-JOF Amendment initial complaint paragraph 110 .,166,205 -216, See Dean Smith evolvement in conspiracy and Discrimination (P201/202/203) It is Not a coincident that the individuals who Retaliated against Dr Aguayo ,retaliated also against the plaintiff in the same period of time (See Dr Aguayo amended complained information about Smith , Rose, Reed, ..etc).
(See RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PER HONORABLE JUDGE WALKER [AUGUST 2008 order Request 2,3, . Rose admitted that Dr Aguayo accused her that she is a racist (Rose Dep 2nd part page 83 L4-15).
See Rose comments about a Fox TV program covering Agauayo lawsuit and mentioning Morehouse former president deposition transcript (Rose Dep 2nd part page 82 L14-25,Page 83L 1-3 )(I heard about it ,I do NOT watch FOX (TV) ,I think they suck. This is the quality of environment defendant provided for Plaintiff .The Medicine Chairman and Medicine Director accusing each other of being racist/ corrupted ( See 06-CV-1095-JOF-SSC Aguayo 2nd Amendment . B
In 2006 /2007 the Defendant also engaged in discriminatory and abusive actions against Dr Mallu Vankata. (According to him he was a victim of discrimination because of his origin (Indian)and being Non Black , The Defendant General council Harold Jordan Jr interfered in Dr Mallu case and settled it before being filed in court (See Yolanda Christie Deposition confirming that Dr Mallu was represented by an attorney, See Dr Mallu Letter to the EEOC attached to plaintiff 5th request for admission , see also the Exhibit to plaintiffs Motion to Judge Story to compel answering requests for admission ). C
Defendant had a history of discriminatory actions against Muslims for example See this court case number
1:06-CV-2213-HTW /Abdul Ali Bashir, Jeffrey William ,Barnett and Hassan Rashid Lawsuit against Morehouse School of Medicine ,INC .(All plaintiffs were Muslims) Based on information and belief defendant settled the case and paid a reasonable amount of money all to the Muslim plaintiffs and their lawyers.
D
See this court case 2006cv00486- De Leon v. Morehouse Medical School, Inc. . Racial Discrimination (Dissemination based on Origin and race)
Based on information and belief, defendant signed a settlement in that case and paid a reasonable amount of money to the Hispanic plaintiff Dr Leon and his lawyer. E
See Fulton County case 2007CV141226
EDWIN KENDRICK, M.D. vs. MOREHOUSE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, INC., MOREHOUSE MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., EVE J. HIGGINBOTHAM, M.C., DEAN OF THE MOREHOUSE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND WILLIAM L. WEAVER, M.D F
See Fulton County case 2006CV116175( a Lawsuit Filed by former four Morehouse Surgery resident physicians.
LILIT NAZARIAN, M.D., ZARA NALBANDYAN, MD, FELIKS SINYAK, MD, AND AMANDPREET KAMBO, MD vs. MOREHOUSE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, INCORPORATED H
See Fulton county case 2005CV104349 -HECTOR DE LEON, M.D., PHD vs. MOREHOUSE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, INC
I
See this court case 1:2005cv03295 Leathers-McKinney v. The Morehouse School of Medicine, Inc- Civil Rights - Disabilities – Employment. J
See this court case 2004cv00410 Clay v. Morehouse
K
See this court case 2005cv00292 Hawkins v. Morehouse School of Medicine /Civil Rights – Employment Plaintiff can raise a Claim of discrimination based on the fact that defendant
Do NOT currently ( in 2008)employee Caucasian faculty members in its Medicine department (See Booth deposition page 158 L17-24)
(.When asked about the number of white Caucasian Faculty members in Morehouse Medicine department Mr Booth stated under oath that (In 2008, I DO NOT think we have any currently ). Defendant is Liable for its employee ( Rose ) discriminatory actions and decision to threaten plaintiff career by creating false documents in his residency File . Defendant subjected plaintiff to awful defamation in horrible report sent to the ABIM ( ALL US Hospital can have access to said Defamation Per Se ABIM report.) Defendant is liable for Rose unprofessional conduct and misbehavior , for Example See document Khattab 0302/Exhibit A to Dr Rose affidavit ,which is full of false and lying information that contradicts facts included in this Discovery documents. See Also Rose leter to Georgia Medical Board indicating
that (WE)Morehouse discovered that the EEOC found Dr Khattab claim Not worthy .
According to Morehouse discovery all plaintiffs supervisors From August 2004 to the end of November , 2004, described plaintiffs patient care , professionalism and medical knowledge as satisfactory or even superior .
Myra E Rose who never worked with plaintiff falsely claimed that he is far below average , does not understand the essential of medicine , can communicate in the written records the essential of medicine ,and does not understand the essential of medicine.(See Rose affidavit exhibits –Khattab 03020301-See Aug,Sep,Oct, Nov work evaluation .See defendant RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S September 2008 REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ,Request 6,7). Defendant committed lying when it denied that plaintiff was terminated after his former attorney contact Morehouse (See defendant RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S September 2008 REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ,Request
one)See Elkhalil Law firm Invoice khattab1199,See ELKS deposition Martha Elks admitted meeting the plaintiff attorney during Dr Khattab employment . This Honorable court should reject Defendant Legal argument (allegation) claim that Dr Khttab is a student and courts should not intervene or does not have jurisdiction over a School opinion against a Student or any Academic action. The Court should further note that 1-Morehouse admitted that plaintiff is an employee employed in a bona fide professional capacity.(Defendant Statement See-docket 98).The court and EEOC accepted that plaintiff is an employee employed in a bona fide professional capacity. (See Honorable Judge Walker order –August 2007). 2- Morehouse claimed that it had Only Valid business Reasons in it actions against Dr Khattab(See Answer to Initial complaint ).
Defendant EIGHTH DEFENSE /Plaintiff's claims against Defendant are barred because MSM employed only valid business reasons in its actions towards Plaintiff. This Honorable court should not alowe Defendant to use contradicting explanations for its action like
1-A claim in 2007 that Morehouse used only a valid business reasons in its action against plaintiff .
2-A claim in November 2008 that Dr Khattab is a Student and courts have No Jurisdictions in addressing academic decisions . Retaliation
Defendant retaliated against plaintiff because he opposed discriminatory practice, Filed numerous Discriminations complaints inside Morehouse , Refused discriminatory actions against uninsured patients ,and protected the civil rights of Grady –Morehouse patients who were described as dirty Niggers and White trash . In 2007 Plaintiff Filed Motions to explain evidence of Retaliation
Plaintiffs documents prove that Defendant illegally terminated his employment , in retaliation, for making verbal and written complaints about his employment rights and because Dr Khattab contacted lawyers during his
employment. Defendant resisted granting workers compensation and COBRAA .(See Elkhali April 2005 invoice document-khattab 1199) , See plaintiff deposition information about contacting attorney Ms S. Brawn ,Mr H H E,in spring 2005). This Honorable court should honor a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that has interpreted retaliation to include any action by an employer--whether job-related or not--that is "materially adverse" and could dissuade a reasonable employee or job applicant from exercising protected rights (Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 126 S.Ct. 2405 (2006)). Under the Court's decision, retaliatory actions are NOT limited to actions that are employment-related (i.e., that affect the terms and conditions of employment or that occur in the workplace), but include any action by an employer that has a materially adverse effect and could reasonably deter a person from engaging in activity protected by Title VII. Defendant retaliated against Dr Khattab ,After he was involved in the following action:
1- Contacting lawyers during his employment (2) discussed Morehouse discriminatory and Illegal business including violating the civil rights of Grady Hospital uninsured patients (opposing unlawful employment). (3)Plaintiff officially assigned an attorney to deal with Morehouse during his employment (See El-Khalil invoice 1199). (3-)Plaintiff refused to participate in abusing Grady Hospital uninsured patients (4).Plaintiff Refused to obey order to destroy medical records(See J.I-D.S-,D.M , Gregory , Y F documents as an example) .(5)Plaintiff helped poor patients who complained against Grady/ Morehouse violation of their civil rights).
This Honorable court can forward Plaintiffs document for Inspection In case Morehouse is going to make any dispute about them
(Plaintiff accept FBI/DA inspection) .6-Plaintiff sent numerous complaints
via e-mail to Morehouse president /Dean with copies to numerous US Health professional ls. (7- )- Defendant employees retaliated against plaintiff because he refused to be involved in fraud (Medicaid ,Medicare Fraud-,,,etc).
Notice Morehouse refused to certify its alleged amount of Federal funding received based on employing plaintiff ) . 8-Defendants employees (Ivonya , Oyewo)retaliated against plaintiff because he refused to Illegally process Georgia Death certificates and Medicare documents (Notice Saar Doyle threatened plaintiff that she, Morehouse and the relatives of any patient who died inside Grady Hospital WILL GO AFTER Dr Khattab if his is going to publish through the internet any Death certificate processed illegally in Grady Hospital . 9-Myra E Rose retaliated against plaintiff because he complained against her , sent numerous discrimination complaint s against her to Morehouse Dean/President , Filed a Discrimination/Grievance claim against Rose employees and friends , contacted lawyers to deal with Rose during plaintiffs employment .
(See plaintiffs former attorney El-khalil invoice about phone calla to Myra Rose in April 2005) (See Brief section about Rose Motivation for discrimination because She does NOT like Muslin Caucasians and wants to employee
Africans /Blacks ). Evidence of Retaliation
Plaintiff explained in previous Motions his evidence of Retaliation, ,However Plaintiff will briefly remember this honorable court about a few Evidence of Retaliation:
1- Plaintiff was illegally terminated, in retaliation, after numerous
requests for equal treatment and fair investigation of his allegations of discrimination . Defendant terminated Dr Khattab employment after he requested that Morehouse ensure compliance with the US constitution , Defendant claimed that any party outside Morehouse opinion DOES NOT matter(See the section about Felenugh and what he admitted under oath
about No 3rd or 4th party opinion matter) ) . In spring and summer 2005 Plaintiff and his former attorney informed defendant about the US constitution and anti-discrimination law ,However Morehouse neglected plaintiff information and complaints and refused to investigate its faculty members Like Rose,Rohr, ..etc (Defendant ignored Plaintiff request to activate
its discrimination policy) 2-Defendant terminated plaintiffs employment after he and his Former attorney informed Morehouse about Dr Khattab intentions to File a lawsuit .
3- Defendant(Falsified Evidence) , Created false termination documents to explain terminating Dr Khattab employment despite Morehouse faculty members written confirmation that Dr Khattab had a very satisfactory Academic status , superiors patient care ,excellent medical knowledge and professional l interest in improving the health care of Grady uninsured patients .
4-Defendant repeatedly and consistently ignored Dr Khattab numerous requests to be treated equally like all other Morehouse resident physicians without any abuse or discrimination ,further Defendant ignored Dr Khatab request to investigate abuse and discrimination allegations
(Complaints) plaintiff filed them against the Medicine department Director(Rose) and her faculty members(Rohr,Oyweo,Heisler ).
5-Defendant resisted granting Dr Khattab COBRA or workers compensation rights.
6- During the EEOC investigation process, Defendant threatened Dr Khattab that it will not give him a transfer document to work in any US Hospital until Dr Khattab sign a Release for Morehouse and all its 2005 employees (Marlin Pruitt made this threaten, Ms Sara Doyle refused to release any transfer document until May 22,2008) .
7-Plaintiff was falsely accused of having a verbal communication problem, psychiatric disease and not understanding the essentials of either medicine or English after he raised concerns about discrimination, patient care and safety.
(The Psychtric accusation per discovery documents include –Paranoia-Delusions, ADHA ,-Major depression, mood disorder , brain thought process disorder ..etc
(For example See Documents Khattab 0301-0302-0431-0298-See psychiatric evaluation See Khattab 0635 Line 13-25-Khattab 0622-0363-0635-0680-0859). Any reasonable jury will believe that Morehouse provide law quality of patient care simply because it accused plaintiff that he has numerous psychiatric diseases and ordered him to work inside Grady Hospital Intensive care Unit and ordered him to take care off critically ill patients . Dr Khattab State Law /Tort/Defamation Claims are Valid and Not Barred by the Statute of Limitations. 1-Defendant claimed that Dr Khattab Initial complaint was Filed on July
24,2006 ,and Georgia State Status of limitation is one year .
Assuming that defendant allegations is correct ,then Plaintiff could File A Slander /Defamation lawsuit in September 2006 based on what Morehouse submitted to the ABIM in September 2005.(See ABIM Letters signed by ABIM Vice chair and indication that Morehouse submitted reports about Dr Khattab in September 2005). 2-The Defamation/Tort/slander status of limitation start to run from the date the victim had knowledge about the injury /Defamation..Plaintiff received a full copy of what Morehouse submitted to the ABIM In March 2006 therefore any one year status of limitation expires in March 2007. The limitations period begins to run when the facts that will support a claim are apparent, or should be apparent to a person with a reasonably prudent regard for his rights . See Everett v . Cobb County Sch Dist ., 138 F .3d 1407, 1410 (11th Cir . 1998) .
I Dr Khattab's Slander Claims are valid as defendant submitted/published false Defamatory statements Morehouse School Of Medicine Intentionally submitted more than one report about plaintiff to the ABIM ( American Board of Internal Medicine )and let other US hospital has access to mentioned report . The ABIM reports includes false ,negative and untruthful information which were submitted simply to damage the plaintiff reputation and ian prevent him from finding a position in any US hospital or Residency program nationwide. (For details about Plaintiffs claims See his Motion to amend initial complaint to explain Slander and Defamation per Se. For example May 1st 2007 Motion To amend case and Supplemental documents) . During plaintiff employment defendant employees indicated that No report about Dr Khattab was sent to the ABIM ,However Dr Khattab sent a letters to Rose ,Flenaugh and Christie to address ABIM issues in April & May 2005
(Plaintiff sent his requests to Morehouse via certified Mail. ,e-mail ,
(Defendant attorney Ms Doyle did NOT deny receiving plaintiffs letters and she forwarded them to the EEOC . See Flenaugh ,Christie documents indicating that No report was sent , See Khattab letter to Rose about ABIM ,See Flenaugh e-mail to Christie about plaintiff (Document khattab-0485- indicating that (I INFORMED HIM that the evaluation were AVERAGE of Performance.. ,I never told him that one was sent for him ( Khattab ). It is beyond doubt that the contents of Morehouse ABIM report is very bad , False ,extremely negative and damage any physician reputation.(See the Horrible contents of the report which Morehouse submitted to the ABIM and use common sense and compare with plaintiffs documents –Section legitimate work -). Morehouse GME Director(booth) claimed under oath that he never reviewed the ABIM Report, is not involved in preparing or submitting the said report (See Booth Dep page 11 L10-18,P13 L18-20,P15 L 8-10,P16L6-10,P17 L 8-17 P22 L2-4)) . Booth claimed that he first Affidavit about plaintiffs ABIM report was based on communications with the Residency Manager Christie (Booth Dep P17 L18 -25, P18 , P 19 L1-6 ). .It is clear that the report information contradict the statements of Morehouse Medicine physicians and faculty members opinion (See Plaintiffs Brief –Section Legitimate work-Superior /satisfactory work evaluations ). Defendant refused to discuss the content of the ABIM report even after the ABIM suggested that Dr Khattab contact his Morehouse Director(Rose) Directly . Defendant refused to give Plaintiff a copy of mentioned report ,However the ABIM sent Dr Khattab a full copy in or around March 2006 and a summary in October 2005. Defendant Vice Medicine chair ( Reed) and GME Director (Booth ) stated under oath that they have never seen plaintiff ABIM report before being deposed , Further Defendant ,Reed and the ABIM confirmed that Myra Rose is the person who submitted the ABIM report (See Reed Dep 1st part Page 16 L9-15-,Page 21 L4-10 ,See ABIM letters to Dr Khatab ). In 2006 The EEOC released a document which indicate that Morehouse reported plaintiff to ABIM in April 2005, the report is an evident of Defamation Pr Se and the status of limitation start to run from the date plaintiff knew about the injury , therefore the one year deadline expires in 2007, However Dr Khattab Filed his lawsuit in July 2006. One of the false allegations in Sep2005 /ABIM report is Defendant statement that the REPORT was discussed with Dr Khattab (See the ABIM report last paragraph-See Reed Dep 1st part Page 21 L 23-25, P22 L 11-Dr Reed stated that he is Not aware that any person discussed the ABIM report with plaintiff). Booth c stated under oath that he does NOT know whether the ABIM report was supposed to be discussed with plaintiff or Not discussed. (Booth Deposition Page 19 L 23-25 ,Page 20).Further Booth claimed that he does Not know how the report was submitted (Booth Dep P 21 L6-10). Booth claimed that Rose, Christie discussed with him the fact that an ABIM
report was submitted about plaintiff AFTER Submitting the report to the Borad(Booth Dep-page 22-L5-25). Rose admitted that plaintiff did not review the report which she sent because he was not available (See Rose Deposition 2nd part March page 36L 16-25,Page 37 L 1-24)Rose claimed during her deposition that she did not discuss the report as plaintiff was Not available in Morehouse when she submitted the report (See Rose Deposition 2nd part ) Rose admitted that she is the person who submitted and approved the ABIM report (Rose Dep 2nd part March-Page 22 L 4-6 -Page 19 L11-22. During discovery Defendant admitted sending a report to ABIM about Dr Khattab in September 2005(See Khattab 0285/0298/-Rose Dep 2nd part March-Page 20 L1 -21. Notice
Defendant Attorney Mrs Sara Doyle admitted verbally in an open court hearing that US Hospitals had access to the reports which Morehouse sent about plaintiff to ABIM , Therefore the court should release this case open hearings transcript if Defendant or Mr Strickland is going to deny what
Ms Doyle admitted . Ms Doyle Refused to let Rose review documents and provide information Rose Dep 2nd part -Page77,78 L2-4 Why Not Reinstating plaintiff 1-Morehouse already received Federal funding(US taxpayers money)
As a result of employing plaintiff. 2-Plaintiff can NOT find a medical residency after he became a victim of awful defamation , and the US Government will NOT re-pay any US hospital the amount of Money which Morehouse took to provide a medical training to plaintiff. 3-No patient in Georgia complained against plaintiff .
Plaintiff work was legitimate ,Satisfactory –Plaintiff has Superior Medical knowledge and patients care. 4- Most defendant Black and Non Black/ employees , American and even originally Nigerian physicians , DO NOT Object reinstating plaintiff at Morehouse. 5- A Lot of Morehouse (black) Medicine faculty members testified under oath and claimed that they are NOT against reinstating plaintiff at Morehouse(see David Anderson , Akomolafe, Odwole Deposition),Further Others are ready to support plaintiff when Honorable Judge grant deposing them . Fraud
Plaintiff Motion to certify the amount of Money Morehousereceived from US Federal government is still pending in court . Defendant did not address Fraud is its Motion , Therefore there is Nothing to answer/object . ERISA Fraud will be addressed with the 11 circuit after
The courts certify refusing to address this matter. Respectfully submitted this 20th Day of November 2008
Khaldoun Khattab MD,
•