Ethan Saylor lawsuit

Parents file lawsuit in movie-theater death of 26-year-old with Down syndrome

Case 1:13-cv-03089-WMN Document 1 Filed 10/17/13 Page 1 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
(Northern Division)
THE ESTATE OF ROBERT
ETHAN SAYLOR,
Patricia Saylor & Ronald Saylor
Co-Personal Representatives
6274 North Steamboat Way
New Market, Maryland 21702

*
*
*
*

and
*
PATRICIA SAYLOR,
6274 North Steamboat Way
New Market, Maryland 21702

*
*

and
*
RONALD SAYLOR,
8009 Runnymede Drive
Frederick, Maryland 21702

*
*

Plaintiffs,
*
v.
*
REGAL CINEMAS, INC.,
7132 Commercial Park Drive
Knoxville, Tennessee 37918

*
*

Serve on:
The Corporation Trust, Inc.
351 W. Camden Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201

*

and

*

RICHARD ROCHFORD,
Law Enforcement Center
110 Airport Drive East
Frederick, Maryland 21701

*

*
*
*

and
*

Civ. A. No.: ___________

Case 1:13-cv-03089-WMN Document 1 Filed 10/17/13 Page 2 of 20

SCOTT JEWELL,
Law Enforcement Center
110 Airport Drive East
Frederick, Maryland 21701
and
JAMES HARRIS,
Law Enforcement Center
110 Airport Drive East
Frederick, Maryland 21701

*
*
*
*
*
*

and
*
HILL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.,
9640 Deereco Road
Timonium, Maryland 21093

*
*

Serve on:
Michael L. Quinn
One South Street, 27th Floor
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
and

*
*
*

THE FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND *
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,
Frederick County
*
Law Enforcement Center
110 Airport Drive East
*
Frederick, Maryland 21701
*
Serve on:
Charles Jenkins
Law Enforcement Center
*
110 Airport Drive East
Frederick, Maryland 21701
*
and
FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND,
12 East Church Street
Frederick, Maryland 21701

*
*
*

2

Case 1:13-cv-03089-WMN Document 1 Filed 10/17/13 Page 3 of 20

Serve on:
John Mathias, Esq.
12 East Church Street
Frederick, Maryland 21701
Defendants.
*

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs, Patricia Saylor and Ronald Saylor, individually and as personal representatives
of the Estate of Robert Ethan Saylor, by their attorneys, Sharon Krevor-Weisbaum, Joseph B.
Espo and Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP, for their Complaint state:
INTRODUCTION
1.

On January 12, 2013, Robert Ethan Saylor, a 26-year-old man with Down

Syndrome died at the hands of three off-duty Frederick County Sheriff's Deputies who had been
summoned by Regal Cinemas to remove him from a theater where he was sitting quietly
awaiting another showing of a movie he had just watched. If any of the Defendants had heeded
Mr. Saylor's aide as to how to deal with Mr. Saylor, his tragic and unnecessary death would have
been avoided.
PARTIES
2.

The Estate of Robert Ethan Saylor was opened in Frederick County in March

2013, No. 36975. Patricia Saylor and Ronald Saylor are co-personal representatives.
3.

Patricia Saylor is a resident of Frederick County, Maryland, the mother of the late

Robert Ethan Saylor, and a co-personal representative of the late Mr. Saylor's estate. She sues
individually and for the Estate.

3

Case 1:13-cv-03089-WMN Document 1 Filed 10/17/13 Page 4 of 20

4.

Ronald Saylor is a resident of Frederick County, Maryland, the father of the late

Robert Ethan Saylor, and a co-personal representative of the late Mr. Saylor's estate. He sues
individually and for the Estate.
5.

Regal Cinemas, Inc. owns and operates Regal Cinemas Westview Stadium 16.

The action of its employee in asking the three deputies to remove Mr. Saylor from the theater
was negligent, grossly negligent or reckless, and resulted in the death of Mr. Saylor. Regal
Cinemas, Inc. also is a joint employer of Defendants Richard Rochford, Scott Jewell, and
James Harris.
6.

On information and belief Richard Rochford is a resident of Frederick County,

Maryland. He is employed full-time as a Frederick County Deputy Sheriff and on the night
Mr. Saylor was killed was working as a security guard at Westview Promenade. Mr. Rochford's
negligence, gross negligence, and recklessness resulted in the death of Mr. Saylor.
7.

On information and belief Scott Jewell is a resident of Frederick County,

Maryland. He is employed full-time as a Frederick County Deputy Sheriff and on the night
Mr. Saylor was killed was working as a security guard at Westview Promenade. Mr. Jewell's
negligence, gross negligence, and recklessness resulted in the death of Mr. Saylor.
8.

On information and belief James Harris is a resident of Frederick County,

Maryland. He is employed full-time as a Frederick County Deputy Sheriff and on the night
Mr. Saylor was killed was working as a security guard at Westview Promenade. Mr. Harris's
negligence, gross negligence, and recklessness resulted in the death of Mr. Saylor.
9.

Hill Management Services, Inc. is the property manager of the Westview

Promenade Mall and with Regal Cinemas was a joint employer of Defendants Rochford, Jewell,

4

Case 1:13-cv-03089-WMN Document 1 Filed 10/17/13 Page 5 of 20

and Harris. Because Hill Management Services, Inc. was the employer of Rochford, Jewell, and
Harris when their actions caused the death of Mr. Saylor, it is responsible for his death.
10.

The Frederick County Sheriff's Department is a law enforcement agency located

in Frederick County, Maryland.
11.

Defendant Frederick County is a government entity in Maryland.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12.

This Court has jurisdiction over the claims brought under 42 U.S.C. ? 1983 and

the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ?1331. It has jurisdiction
over the balance of Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ? 1367.
13.

Venue is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. ? 1391 in that the events giving rise to this

lawsuit all took place in Maryland and all defendants are located in Maryland.
FACTS
14.

Robert Ethan Saylor, known as Ethan, was 26 at the time of his death. Mr. Saylor

had an I.Q. of about 40. Ethan was a person with Down Syndrome. He had physical and facial
features common to individuals with Down Syndrome and was easily recognizable as someone
with this disability. Indeed, many witnesses to some of the events leading to Mr. Saylor's death
told investigating deputies that Mr. Saylor appeared to have cognitive delays or, more generally,
that he appeared to be "handicapped" in some way.
15.

Mr. Saylor was both short and obese, being about 294 pounds and about 5 feet 6

inches tall.
16.

Despite Mr. Saylor's cognitive delays he had attended school and was living

happily in the Frederick County community. Mr. Saylor lived in a separate apartment connected
to his mother's home. To assist Mr. Saylor in living in the community he received a variety of

5

Case 1:13-cv-03089-WMN Document 1 Filed 10/17/13 Page 6 of 20

support services. Among those supports was a full-time aide, Mary Crosby, employed by
Mr. Saylor, through a self-directed Medicaid waiver program. Under that program, Mr. Saylor
had his own Employer Information Number for tax reporting purposes.
17.

Mr. Saylor had a fascination with law enforcement officers and agencies. He had

at various times visited the Frederick County Sheriff's Department and had even helped wash the
department's patrol vehicles. Mr. Saylor also knew how to call 911 and would sometimes do so
simply so he could talk with police officers and Sheriff's deputies.
18.

To thank the Frederick County Sheriff's Department for its previous dealings with

her son, Patricia Saylor had delivered cookies to the Department during the Christmas season
prior to his death. Through Mr. Saylor's actions he had become known to a number of the
Sheriff's deputies.
19.

Mr. Saylor was also an enthusiastic moviegoer and had been a regular patron of

Regal Cinemas Westview Stadium 16.
20.

Mr. Saylor did not like being touched, particularly by strangers. This was known

to Ms. Crosby, other caretakers, and family members. He had also sometimes displayed anger
when he was frustrated and could be difficult to redirect from one activity to another.
21.

On the evening of January 12, 2013 Mr. Saylor and Ms. Crosby went to the

Westview Regal Cinemas at Westview Promenade in Frederick County to see the movie Zero
Dark Thirty. Mr. Saylor had seen hundreds of movies at that theater. At the conclusion of the
movie, Mr. Saylor and his aide left the theater and went outside. When Ms. Crosby asked
Mr. Saylor if he was ready to return home he became angry. Ms. Crosby then called Mr.
Saylor's mother for advice. Mrs. Saylor suggested Ms. Crosby should bring her car around to
give Ethan the chance to calm down. Mr. Saylor's care plan did not require that his aide be at his

6

Case 1:13-cv-03089-WMN Document 1 Filed 10/17/13 Page 7 of 20

side or within his line of sight at all times. Because Ms. Crosby's conduct was permitted under
the care plan and, since Mrs. Saylor's advice was sound, Ms. Crosby did as Mr. Saylor's mother
suggested.
22.

On her return to the theater, Ms. Crosby discovered that Mr. Saylor had gone back

inside the movie theater to see the movie a second time. While she was in the lobby Ms. Crosby
was approached by the theater manager and told that Mr. Saylor either needed to purchase
another ticket or leave. Ms. Crosby explained to the manager that Mr. Saylor had Down
Syndrome and requested that the manager simply wait a bit to allow her to deal with Mr.
Saylor's desire to stay. She also explained that no one should attempt to speak with Mr. Saylor.
23.

Ms. Crosby was then approached by a Sheriff's Deputy, believed to be Defendant

Rochford, who said Mr. Saylor had to leave the theater or purchase another ticket. She told the
Deputy about Mr. Saylor's disability and asked again that they just "wait out" Mr. Saylor's
refusal to leave the theater. She told the deputy that she had spoken with Mr. Saylor's mother,
who was coming to the theater, and that Mr. Saylor would "freak out" if he was touched and that
he would resist being forcibly ejected. She told the deputy that if given sufficient time she and
Mrs. Saylor could handle the situation.
24.

When Mr. Saylor returned to the theater he went to the same seat from where he

watched the movie earlier, which was in the row immediately behind a railing in the upper part
of the theater. That was the same general location where Mr. Saylor sat whenever he attended a
movie at Regal Cinemas, where each of the screens has the same general seating configuration.
Until others attempted to get Mr. Saylor to leave, he was, as attested to by numerous witness
accounts, sitting quietly in his seat not causing any disturbance or disruption. During the time he
was in his seat Mr. Saylor called directory information several times, dialing "411."

7

Case 1:13-cv-03089-WMN Document 1 Filed 10/17/13 Page 8 of 20

25.

Despite the advice of Ms. Crosby, Deputy Rochford told Mr. Saylor he had to

leave the theater, which Mr. Saylor refused to do.
26.

The original deputy on the scene asked the theater manager to call for the

assistance of two other off-duty sheriff's deputies who were working mall security, saying "we
are gonna have an issue here." The deputies then approached Mr. Saylor and told him he had to
leave. Before starting the confrontation with Mr. Saylor, the deputies ordered Ms. Crosby to stay
out of the theater, thus preventing her from trying to calm Mr. Saylor.
27.

When Mr. Saylor refused to leave the theater, two of the three deputies grabbed

Mr. Saylor, one by each arm, and tried to drag him from the theater while telling him he was
going to jail. As they neared the rear of the theater with the struggle underway the Deputies
handcuffed Mr. Saylor with his hands behind his back. Mr. Saylor was heard to scream
"mommy, mommy" and say "it hurts."
28.

At the back of the theater, Mr. Saylor - handcuffed and held by the deputies -

ended up on the floor with at least one deputy on top of him. As the deputies manhandled
Mr. Saylor, they fractured his larynx making it difficult for him to breathe. Because this was
apparent, the deputies rolled him to his side, removed his handcuffs, and called emergency
medical technicians. It was too late - Mr. Saylor suffocated.
29.

Mr. Saylor was pronounced dead at Frederick Memorial Hospital at

approximately 11:58 p.m. on January 12, 2013.
30.

On February 15, 2013 the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of Maryland

ruled Mr. Saylor's death a homicide; that is, a death at the hands of another.

8

Case 1:13-cv-03089-WMN Document 1 Filed 10/17/13 Page 9 of 20

31.

As a result of the actions of the theater, its manager, the three individual deputies,

and the Frederick County Sheriff's Department, Robert Ethan Saylor died a violent, terrifying,
and painful death.
32.

As a direct consequence of Defendants' conduct, Ronald and Patricia Saylor have

suffered an immense loss of the affection, love, and companionship of their son.

CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
Negligence-Survival Action
(Estate of Robert Ethan Saylor v. Regal Cinemas, Inc.)
33.

Plaintiff, the Estate of Robert Ethan Saylor, incorporates by reference the

allegations of all preceding paragraphs as if set out again.
34.

Defendant Regal Cinemas, Inc., d/b/a Westview Regal Cinemas is a place of

public accommodation under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. ? 12101
et seq. ("ADA" or "Title III"). Robert Ethan Saylor was a person with a disability as that term is
defined in the ADA.
35.

Pursuant to Title III, places of public accommodation are required to make

reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are
necessary to afford their goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to
individuals with disabilities.
36.

The failure of Westview Regal Cinemas to modify its policies, practices, and

procedures to permit Mr. Saylor the time and assistance he required to leave the movie theater
(or to have his aide or mother buy him another $12.00 ticket) without the intervention of law
enforcement was negligent. That negligence by Westview and its employees was the proximate
cause of the subsequent events which led to the death of Mr. Saylor.
9

Case 1:13-cv-03089-WMN Document 1 Filed 10/17/13 Page 10 of 20

37.

As the direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Robert Ethan

Saylor sustained severe conscious pain and suffering between the time of the initiation of his
encounter with the sheriff's deputies to his death.
38.

Mr. Saylor was not contributorily negligent.
COUNT II
Negligence-Survival Action
(Estate of Robert Ethan Saylor v. Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris)

39.

Plaintiff, the Estate of Robert Ethan Saylor, incorporates by reference the

allegations of all preceding paragraphs as if set out again.
40.

The failure of Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris to comply with the

mandate of Title III when they attempted to remove Mr. Saylor from the movie theater for
Westview Regal Cinema was negligent.
41.

The conduct of Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris in attempting to remove

Mr. Saylor from the theater despite having been informed: of his having Down Syndrome; of the
need to give him time to calm himself; of Mr. Saylor's reaction to being touched; and of the
imminent arrival of his mother was negligent.
42.

The conduct of Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris in attempting to remove

Mr. Saylor from the theater despite their knowing or having reason to know that he was
developmentally disabled and not posing a threat to himself or others was negligent.
43.

The risks of asphyxiation of individuals being handcuffed are well known in the

law enforcement community. Deaths resulting from what is called positional asphyxia and
excited delirium are a documented hazard of handcuffing excited individuals with their hands
behind their back, particularly those who are obese.

10

Case 1:13-cv-03089-WMN Document 1 Filed 10/17/13 Page 11 of 20

44.

Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris knew, had reason to know, or should

have known of the risks of positional asphyxia and excited delirium.
45.

The conduct of Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris in handcuffing

Mr. Saylor with his hands behind his back despite his obesity and the risk of death to him was
negligent.
46.

The negligence of Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris, as set out above,

proximately and foreseeably caused the death of Robert Ethan Saylor.
47.

As the direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence, Robert Ethan

Saylor sustained severe conscious pain and suffering between the time of the initiation of his
encounter with the sheriff's deputies to his death.
COUNT III
Negligence-Survival Action
(Estate of Robert Ethan Saylor v. Defendant Hill Management Services, Inc.)
48.

Plaintiff, the Estate of Robert Ethan Saylor, incorporates by reference the

allegations of all preceding paragraphs as if set out again.
49.

As a joint employer of Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris, Defendant Hill

Management Services, Inc. is liable in respondeat superior for the negligence of Defendants
Rochford, Jewell, and Harris.
50.

As the direct and proximate result of the negligence of this Defendant's agents,

Robert Ethan Saylor sustained severe conscious pain and suffering between the time of the
initiation of his encounter with the sheriff's deputies to his death.
COUNT IV
Gross Negligence-Survival Action
(Estate of Robert Ethan Saylor v. Defendant Regal Cinemas, Inc.)
51.

Plaintiff, the Estate of Robert Ethan Saylor, incorporates by reference the

allegations of all preceding paragraphs as if set out again.
11

Case 1:13-cv-03089-WMN Document 1 Filed 10/17/13 Page 12 of 20

52.

In directing Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris to remove Mr. Saylor from

its theater despite knowing that he had Down Syndrome and despite having been told that
Mr. Saylor needed some time to calm himself and that he would react negatively or freak out if
touched, Defendant Regal Cinemas, Inc. demonstrated that it was indifferent to Mr. Saylor's
right to live and acted with reckless disregard for the consequences to Mr. Saylor's life and
safety.
53.

Defendant Regal Cinemas, Inc.'s conduct in acting with reckless disregard for

Mr. Saylor's life and health constituted gross negligence.
54.

As the direct and proximate result of Defendant's gross negligence, Robert Ethan

Saylor sustained severe conscious pain and suffering between the time of the initiation of his
encounter with the sheriff's deputies to his death.
COUNT V
Gross Negligence-Survival Action
(Estate of Robert Ethan Saylor v. Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris)
55.

Plaintiff, the Estate of Robert Ethan Saylor, incorporates by reference the

allegations of all preceding paragraphs as if set out again.
56.

The conduct of Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris in attempting to remove

Mr. Saylor from the theater despite having been informed: of his having Down Syndrome, of the
need to give him time to calm himself, of his reaction to being touched, and of the imminent
arrival of his mother was grossly negligent.
57.

The conduct of Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris in attempting to remove

Mr. Saylor from the theater despite their knowing or having reason to know that he was
developmentally disabled and not posing a threat to himself or others was grossly negligent.
58.

The risks of asphyxiation of individuals being handcuffed are well known in the

law enforcement community. Deaths resulting from what is called positional asphyxia and
12

Case 1:13-cv-03089-WMN Document 1 Filed 10/17/13 Page 13 of 20

excited delirium are a documented hazard of handcuffing excited individuals with their hands
behind their back, particularly those who are obese.
59.

Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris knew, had reason to know, or should

have known of the risks of positional asphyxia and excited delirium.
60.

The conduct of Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris in handcuffing

Mr. Saylor with his hands behind his back despite his obesity and the risk of death to him was
grossly negligent.
61.

The gross negligence of Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris, as set out

above, proximately and foreseeably caused the death of Robert Ethan Saylor.
62.

As the direct and proximate result of Defendants' gross negligence, Robert Ethan

Saylor sustained severe conscious pain and suffering between the time of the initiation of his
encounter with the sheriff's deputies to his death.
COUNT VI
Gross Negligence-Survival Action
(Estate of Robert Ethan Saylor v. Defendant Hill Management Services, Inc.)
63.

Plaintiff, the Estate of Robert Ethan Saylor, incorporates by reference the

allegations of all preceding paragraphs as if set out again.
64.

As the joint employer of Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris, Defendant

Hill Management Services, Inc. is liable in respondeat superior for the gross negligence of
Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris.
65.

As the direct and proximate result of the gross negligence of Defendant's agents,

Robert Ethan Saylor sustained severe conscious pain and suffering between the time of the
initiation of his encounter with the sheriff's deputies to his death.

13

Case 1:13-cv-03089-WMN Document 1 Filed 10/17/13 Page 14 of 20

COUNT VII
Battery-Survival Action
(Estate of Robert Ethan Saylor v. Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris)
66.

Plaintiff, the Estate of Robert Ethan Saylor, incorporates by reference the

allegations of all preceding paragraphs as if set out again.
67.

The conduct of Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris in first attempting to

remove Mr. Saylor from Regal Cinemas and then in physically confronting him, handcuffing
him, throwing him to the floor, and fracturing his larynx constituted an intentional unwelcome
and unprivileged touching of Mr. Saylor, and was undertaken deliberately and with actual
malice.
68.

As a direct, proximate, and consequential result of the conduct of Defendants

Rochford, Jewell, and Harris, described above, Robert Ethan Saylor endured severe conscious
pain and suffering between the time of the initiation of his encounter with the sheriff's deputies
to his death.
COUNT VIII
Battery-Survival Action
(Estate of Robert Ethan Saylor v. Defendant Hill Management Services, Inc.)
69.

Plaintiff, the Estate of Robert Ethan Saylor, incorporates by reference the

allegations of all preceding paragraphs as if set out again.
70.

As the joint employer of Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris, Defendant Hill

Management Services, Inc. is liable in respondeat superior for the battery committed by
Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris.
71.

As the direct and proximate result of the battery committed by Defendant's

agents, Robert Ethan Saylor sustained severe conscious pain and suffering between the time of
the initiation of his encounter with the sheriff's deputies to his death.

14

Case 1:13-cv-03089-WMN Document 1 Filed 10/17/13 Page 15 of 20

COUNT IX
Section 1983-Survival Action
(Estate of Robert Ethan Saylor v. Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris)
72.

Plaintiff, the Estate of Robert Ethan Saylor, incorporates by reference the

allegations of all preceding paragraphs as if set out again.
73.

The arrest of Robert Ethan Saylor was at all times unjustified and constituted an

unnecessary and unreasonable use of force by Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris.
74.

Plaintiff sues each and all Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris in their

individual capacity.
75.

At all times relevant to this action, Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris were

duly appointed sheriff's deputies employed by the Frederick County Sheriff's Department of the
State of Maryland. The arrest of Robert Ethan Saylor arose out of Defendants' status as duly
appointed state agents authorized to enforce the laws of the State of Maryland. Accordingly,
Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris were acting under color of state law.
76.

Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris, while acting under color of law,

deprived Robert Ethan Saylor of rights and privileges secured to him by the Constitution and
laws of the United States, in violation of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983. Specifically, Defendants Rochford,
Jewell, and Harris deprived Robert Ethan Saylor of his right under the Fourth Amendment to the
United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable seizures and the use of unreasonable
force.
77.

Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris knew that Robert Ethan Saylor suffered

from Down Syndrome and should have known that any use of force was objectively
unreasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances.

15

Case 1:13-cv-03089-WMN Document 1 Filed 10/17/13 Page 16 of 20

78.

Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris knew or should have known that

applying forceful pressure to a suspect's back causes death from positional asphyxia.
79.

At no time was Robert Ethan Saylor under suspicion of committing a serious

crime. At no time did Robert Ethan Saylor possess a weapon or pose an immediate threat to
Defendants Rochford, Jewell, or Harris or anyone else.
80.

Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris knew or should have known that their

actions violated clearly established law of which a reasonable sheriff's deputy would have
known.
81.

At all times relevant to this action, Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris were

off-duty from their sheriff's job working for a secondary employer.
82.

As the direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants Rochford, Jewell,

and Harris, including the use of unnecessary and unreasonable force leading to death, Robert
Ethan Saylor sustained severe conscious pain and suffering between the time of the initiation of
his encounter with the Defendants to his death.
COUNT X
ADA Title II - Survival Action
(Estate of Robert Ethan Saylor v. Defendants Frederick County, Maryland
and the Frederick County Sheriff's Department)
83.

Plaintiff, the Estate of Robert Ethan Saylor, incorporates by reference the

allegations of all preceding paragraphs as if set out again.
84.

Pursuant to Title II of the ADA each state and local government and each agency

of such a government is obligated to evaluate its current services, policies, and practices, and
their effects, that do not or may not meet the requirements of Title II of the ADA, and if
modification of services, policies, and practices is needed to achieve compliance, make the
necessary modifications.
16

Case 1:13-cv-03089-WMN Document 1 Filed 10/17/13 Page 17 of 20

85.

To assure compliance with the ADA, local and state governments should conduct

training of their employees. In that way, each state and locality and each instrumentality of such
a state or locality can assure that individuals with disabilities are provided services in a manner
that complies with the ADA.
86.

On information and belief neither Frederick County nor the Frederick County

Sheriff's Department has any training for its deputies in how to interact with developmentally
disabled individuals.
87.

On information and belief neither Frederick County nor the Frederick County

Sheriff's Department has any policy, procedure, manual, general order, or other guidance for
their deputies in how to interact with and provide services to individuals with developmental
disabilities.
88.

The failure of Defendants Frederick County and the Frederick County Sheriff's

Department to properly train Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris in how to interact with
and provide services to individuals with developmental disabilities violated Title II of the ADA.
89.

Defendants' violation of Title II of the ADA proximately caused the death of

Robert Ethan Saylor.
90.

Defendants' violations of the ADA caused Robert Ethan Saylor to sustain severe

conscious pain and suffering between the time of the initiation of his encounter with the sheriff's
deputies to his death.
COUNT XI
ADA Title II - Survival Action
(Estate of Robert Ethan Saylor v. Defendants Frederick County, Maryland and The
Frederick County Sheriff's Department)
91.

Plaintiff, the Estate of Robert Ethan Saylor, incorporates by reference the

allegations of all preceding paragraphs as if set out again.
17

Case 1:13-cv-03089-WMN Document 1 Filed 10/17/13 Page 18 of 20

92.

By their conduct in attempting to remove Mr. Saylor from Westview Regal

Cinemas, Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris violated Title II of the ADA.
93.

As a joint employer of Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris, Defendants

Frederick County and the Frederick County Sheriff's Department are liable for their acts done in
violation of Title II of the ADA.
94.

The acts done in violation of Title II of the ADA, as set out above, proximately

caused the death of Robert Ethan Saylor.
95.

Defendants Rochford, Jewell, and Harris's violations of the ADA caused

Robert Ethan Saylor to sustain severe conscious pain and suffering and fright between the time
of the initiation of his encounter with the sheriff's deputies to his death.
COUNT XII
WRONGFUL DEATH
(Patricia Saylor and Ronald Saylor v. All Defendants)
96.

Plaintiffs, Patricia Saylor and Ronald Saylor, individually, incorporate by

reference the allegations of all preceding paragraphs as if set out again.
97.

Plaintiffs, Patricia Saylor and Ronald Saylor, are the parents of decedent

Robert Ethan Saylor.
98.

At the time of his death, decedent was an unmarried resident of Frederick County

with no children.
99.

Plaintiffs are both primary beneficiaries in this action pursuant to Md. Code Ann.,

Cts. & Jud. Proc. ? 3-904. On information and belief there are no other individuals entitled by
law to recover damages for Mr. Saylor's death.
100.

By the wrongful acts set out above, Defendants caused the death of Robert Ethan

Saylor.

18

Case 1:13-cv-03089-WMN Document 1 Filed 10/17/13 Page 19 of 20

101.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful acts in causing the death

of Robert Ethan Saylor, Patricia Saylor and Ronald Saylor sustained mental anguish, emotional
pain and suffering, loss of society, loss of companionship, and loss of comfort.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court:
(a)

Award compensatory damages to Plaintiffs Patricia and Ronald Saylor and the
Estate of Robert Ethan Saylor, jointly and severally, against all defendants; and;

(b)

Award punitive damages to Plaintiffs Patricia and Ronald Saylor and the Estate of
Robert Ethan Saylor, jointly and severally, against all defendants; and

(c)

Award the Estate of Robert Ethan Saylor attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42
U.S.C. ? 12205; and

(d)

Issue any and all other further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,

/s/
Sharon Krevor-Weisbaum (Fed. Bar No. 04773)
Joseph B. Espo (Fed. Bar No. 07490)
BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY, LLP
120 E. Baltimore Street, Suite 1700
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
T: (410) 962-1030
F: (410) 385-0869
skw@browngold.com
jbe@browngold.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Dated: October 17, 2013

19

Case 1:13-cv-03089-WMN Document 1 Filed 10/17/13 Page 20 of 20

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs hereby request a jury trial.

/s/
Joseph B. Espo

20