STATE OF MISSOURI IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CITY OF ST. LOUIS (CIVIL DIVISION) RAJA AWAIS NAEEM, Plaintiff, v.

METROPOLITAN TAXICAB COMMISSION Serve At: Ronald L. Klein, Executive Director Metropolitan Taxicab Commission 2628 Delmar St. Louis, MO 63103 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Cause No._______________ Div. No._________

and THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI Serve At: Francis G. Slay, Mayor City of St. Louis St. Louis City Hall, Room 401 1200 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63103 Defendants. and WHELAN SECURITY, Serve At: 1699 S. Hanley Road Suite 350 St. Louis, MO 63144 and Copy Served On: The Honorable Chris Koster, Missouri Attorney General Supreme Court Building 207 W. High St. Jefferson City, MO 65102

) CLERK TO ISSUE SUMMONS ACCORDING TO LAW

COMPLAINT ACTION AGAINST THE METROPOLITAN TAXICAB COMMISSION COUNT I COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Raja Naeem, and for his cause of action against the Defendant, Metropolitan Taxicab Commission, by and through his attorney Drew C. Baebler, states as follows: 1. The Plaintiff, Raja Naeem, is a citizen of the state of Missouri living in St. Louis County, Missouri. He operates a taxicab for Harris Cab. He also manages a shuttle service doing business as A-1 Shuttle where he employees one or more Islamic taxicab drivers. Raja Naeem is originally from Pakistan, is a U.S. citizen and practices the Islamic religion. 2. The Metropolitan St. Louis Taxicab Commission is a commission established by the state of Missouri to establish and enforce vehicle for hire codes for the regulation of taxicab services in the region of St. Louis City and St. Louis County. This commission is bound by the laws of the state of Missouri with the authority to sue and be sued. 3. While operating a cab at the Lambert St. Louis International Airport on June 12, 2011, to pick up a customer who had requested his services, the Plaintiff Raja Naeem was detained by Whelan Security guard Gerald Watson who advised the Plaintiff that he was not properly attired, because the Plaintiff was wearing his Muslim religious dress. Mr. Watson wrote a citation to the Plaintiff for wearing foreign country religious dress. The Plaintiff and his passenger were detained for thirty minutes. As a result of this citation, the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission entered a violation in the Plaintiffs permanent record and fined Mr. Naeem. Raja Naeem paid his $25 fine to Director, Ronald Kline of the MTC. 4. On 11/17/11, Raja Naeem filed a Complaint with the Human Rights Commission of the State of Missouri alleging that the actions of the MTC, and Whelan Security, violated the Missouri Constitution and Chapter 213 of the Revised Missouri Statutes against discrimination based on religion.

5. On 2/3/12, the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission by and through Whelan Security, wrote the Plaintiff a citation for having body damage to his cab and for wearing religious dress. The Plaintiffs taxicab was taken out of service by Whelan Security and the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission for these violations, thereby depriving the Plaintiff of his livelihood. 6. On April 30, 2012, while on his way to pick up a customer at the airport, the Plaintiff was prevented from entering the airport by the MTC agents and Whelan Security, because he was wearing his religious attire. The airport police asked the Plaintiff to leave the premises but refused to write him a ticket. The Whelan Security employee advised the Plaintiff that the MTC Director wanted him to let the Plaintiff know that he was not exempt from the MTC dress code. At that time, Raja was also threatened and harassed indicating that as the security officer told him that persistence in wearing his religious attire would result in his losing his license and Plaintiffs ability to pick up any patrons from the airport. 7. On or about May 12, 2012, the MTC notified Plaintiff that his taxi license was suspended. 8. On November 11, 2012, Whelan Security Officer Bruce Wroblewski stopped and detained Sohail Amar who was a driver working for Raja Naeem. Mr. Amar was wearing his religious dress. As a result of wearing the religious dress, he was detained by the Whelan Security officer. Plaintiff Raja Naeem appeared to find out what the problem was. Raja Naeem was told that he could not wear his religious dress at the airport and that his driver also could not wear this religious dress at the airport. At that time, he was threatened to be arrested. The Plaintiff was advised that he was trespassing because of his religious dress. Plaintiff was also told to get the airport rules from the airport authority who would show him the rules. He was told this numerous times. As a result, on November 13, 2012, the Plaintiff went to the airport to pick up their rules. He was advised that he was trespassing. Arrest was threatened if he did not leave the premises from Whelan Security officer, Mr. Sparks. As a result of this confrontation by Whelan Security, the Plaintiff was not given the airport rules and left the premises. Subsequently, on December 7, 2012, the Plaintiff was harassed, detained and ultimately arrested by Whelan Security officers acting for the MTC and by police officers acting on behalf of the City of St. Louis at 9:30 a.m. because he was wearing his religious dress trying to exercise his religion. The Plaintiff was booked and

was falsely imprisoned and unlawfully detained at that time. He was issued two citations with fines from the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission for not being in proper uniform. He was also issued a citation from Lambert St. Louis International Airport for not being in proper uniform in violation of Plaintiffs religious rights and his constitutional civil rights. 9. At the time of his arrest, Police Officer Schubert, working for the City of St. Louis, took Plaintiffs religious hat from his head and threw it in a pile with the rest of his personal belongings thereby insulting the Plaintiff and his religious sensitivities. His hat is known as a kufi. 10. The actions against the Plaintiff by the MTC and Whelan Security and by the police officers working for the City of St. Louis were in retaliation against Plaintiff for his initial complaints made to the Missouri Commission of Human Rights for discrimination against the Plaintiff over his religious dress. 11. The actions stated above taken on April 30th and May 12th, 2012, violated the Missouri Constitution and the rights of the Plaintiff against religious discrimination. These actions were also made in retaliation of the complaints previously made before the Commission of Human Rights in further violation of Missouri law. 12. The Plaintiff filed several complaints with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights including numbers E11/1140060; E11/1140059; E2/1240384; E2/1240385; E2/12-40386; 5/12-40733; E5/1240734. The Missouri Commission on Human Rights investigated these complaints and issued to the Plaintiff a Right to Sue letter on each Complaint less than 90 days from the filing of this lawsuit. 13. With regard to the citations issued by the MTC and the Airport Authority through Whelan Security, the Plaintiff has challenged and exhausted his administrative remedies through the MTC making this challenge to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis appropriate. 14. These actions of the MTC, and of Whelan Security acting as the agent of the MTC and of the City of St. Louis discriminated against the Plaintiff, Raja Naeem, in violation of the Missouri Constitution Article 1, Section 5 that prohibits the discriminate action against the Plaintiff based up his practice of his personal religious beliefs.

15. The actions set forth above by the MTC, Whelan Security and the City of St. Louis violate Chapter 213.070 of the Missouri Revised Statutes. This statute prohibits the State of Missouri or any political subdivision of Missouri from discriminating based upon religion. 16. The actions of the MTC, Whelan Security and the City of St. Louis in retaliating against the Plaintiff for filing a Complaint with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights violates Missouri Revised Statute 213.070(2) that prevents a political subdivision of Missouri from retaliation, because someone filed a Complaint under Chapter 213. 17. The actions by the MTC as set forth above, were in excess of the powers given to the MTC by the Missouri legislature. The Missouri revised statute Section 67.1814 prohibits the MTC from regulating the airport or airport taxicabs including passenger loading at the airport. The tickets and fines assessed were therefore in excess of the MTCs authority. 18. The MTCs system of fines and administrative penalties for violations of its code prosecuted against the Plaintiff is unlawful and against the Missouri Constitution. Article 1, Section 31 of the Missouri Constitution prohibits a commission from making any rule that fixes a fine for its violation. The tickets written by the MTC through its agents, Whelan Security, fixed a fine for the violations. As such, this system of fines is in violation of the Missouri Constitution. Further, the Missouri legislature passed Statute 67.1818, giving the MTC authority to impose administrative penalties not to exceed $200 against taxicab operators. This Missouri Statute is unconstitutional in violation of Missouri Constitution Article 1, Section 31. 19. As a direct result of the discrimination, retaliation and violations and unconstitutional action as set forth above, the Plaintiff, Raja Naeem, has been harmed. He has incurred humiliation, harassment, and emotional distress; he was unlawfully detained; he has incurred loss of income; he has incurred damage to his reputation; he has suffered actual damages for the deprivation of his civil rights which were and continue to be perverse and extreme; he has suffered emotional distress of mind and body; he has incurred attorneys fees which are recoverable pursuant to Section 213.111.2 and will continue to incur

attorneys fees to redress his civil rights; he has also incurred attorneys fees as set forth in Section 536.087. 20. In addition to attorneys fees, the Plaintiff has incurred costs and expenses for seeking the redress of his civil rights; all to his damage.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays damages against the Defendant, The Metropolitan Taxicab Commission in such sum that is fair and reasonable together with attorneys fees, costs and pre-judgment interest herein. COUNT II ACTION AGAINST WHELAN SECURITY COMES NOW the Plaintiff and for his cause of action against the Whelan Security Company, by and through his attorney, Drew C. Baebler, states as follows: 1. All allegations in Count I are hereby adopted and re-alleged as if set forth in their entirety in this Count as if fully set forth herein. 2. Whelan Security is a corporation acting in the State of Missouri with authority to sue and be sued. At all pertinent times, Whelan Security was acting on its own and as an agent either actual or ostensible for the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission. 3. The actions and inactions of Whelan Security set forth in Count I violated the civil rights of Raja Naeem and specifically violated the Missouri Constitution and the Missouri Statutes that prohibit discrimination based upon religion. 4. As a direct result of the violations by Whelan Security as set forth above, Raja Naeem was injured as set forth in Count I. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Raja Naeem prays judgment against Whelan Security in such sum that is fair and reasonable together with attorneys fees, costs and pre-judgment interest herein.

COUNT III ACTION AGAINST THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS COMES NOW Plaintiff, Raja Naeem, and for his cause of action against the City of St. Louis, by and through his attorney, Drew C. Baebler, states as follows: 1. All allegations in Count I and Count II are hereby adopted and re-alleged as if fully set forth herein. 2. The City of St. Louis is a municipality within the State of Missouri. The City of St. Louis owns and operates Lambert St. Louis International Airport by and through the airport authority. 3. The airport police identified in Count I are the employees and agents, either actual or ostensible, of the City of St. Louis. 4. The ordinance of the City of St. Louis bearing number 67.119, makes it unlawful for the city to discriminate based upon religion. This ordinance further requires the City of St. Louis to uphold Section 213 of the Missouri Statute prohibiting discrimination based upon religion. 5. The actions as set forth in Count I by the airport police officers were made as agents, either actual or ostensible, of the City of St. Louis and said actions violated the civil rights of Raja Naeem as set forth in Count I and violated City Ordinance #67.119 and RSMO Sec. 213. 6. As a direct result of the discrimination, retaliation and violation of the Plaintiffs civil and constitutional rights to exercise his religion, the Plaintiff suffered damages as set forth in Count I. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against the City of St. Louis in such sum as is fair and reasonable together with attorneys fees, costs and pre-judgment interest herein. PUNITIVE DAMAGES COUNT IV COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Raja Naeem, and for his cause of action against the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission, Whelan Securities and the City of St. Louis by and through his attorney, Drew C. Baebler, for punitive damages states as follows:

1. The Plaintiff hereby adopts and re-alleges all allegations in Counts I, II and III as if fully set forth herein. 2. The actions and inactions of the Defendants as set forth above were intentional, egregious, reckless and in conscious disregard for the civil rights of Raja Naeem and others similarly situated. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Raja Naeem requests punitive damages against each Defendant in such sum as is appropriate to punish each Defendant and to prevent each Defendant in acting from conscious disregard of the civil rights of the citizens of the State of Missouri in the future. EQUITABLE RELIEF COUNT V COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Raja Naeem, by and through his attorney, Drew C. Baebler, and hereby requests this Court for equitable relief to prevent discrimination as set forth above in the future. In support hereof, Plaintiff states: 1. All allegations in Counts I through IV are hereby adopted and re-alleged as if fully set forth herein. 2. The discrimination as set forth above against the Plaintiff is pervasive and continuing on a daily basis. 3. As recently as December 7, 2012, the Plaintiff was harassed and unlawfully detained due to his religious beliefs and religious dress as set forth in Count I. The Plaintiff himself continues to be harassed and threatened whenever wearing his religious dress when at Lambert International Airport. He has been told that he will be put in jail by the police officers, as well as, Whelan Security if he wears his religious dress in the future and they have told him that he is banned from the airport property if he is wearing his religious dress. 4. Issuing the Plaintiff tickets, as set forth above, the MTC set up a procedure for someone to request the ability to wear religious dress. The Plaintiff, Raja Naeem, attempted to satisfy the Defendants procedures and included an Affidavit attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 1. The MTC, however, refused to grant the Plaintiffs request to wear his religious dress. In this way, the Defendant

continues to unconstitutionally harass the Plaintiff and to prevent the Plaintiff from exercising his freedom of religion. 5. The procedures established by the MTC that allows them to determine whether someones religious beliefs are valid before allowing them to exercise their freedom of religion is humiliating and in violation of RS.Mo.Section 213.065. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enjoin all Defendants from prohibiting the Plaintiff and others similarly situated from wearing their required religious dress while in the performance of their work duties.

Respectfully submitted,

DREW C. BAEBLER, MO Bar #32052 Bauer & Baebler, PC 1716 South Broadway St. Louis, MO 63104 314-241-7700 314-241-0003 (fax) law@bauer-baebler.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF