Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 1 of 32

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DR. ROBERT H. WAINBERG,

Plaintiff, Civil Action File No.

2:22-CV-155-RWS
v.

JAMES MELLICHAMP,
THOMAS A. ARRENDALE,
THOMAS M. HENSLEY JR,
STEWART SWANSON,
DOCK C. SISK,
DWIGHT H. EVANS, and
MYLLE MANGUM,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW Plaintiff Dr. Robert H. Wainberg and hereby submits this

Complaint against the above-named Defendants on the following grounds:

NATURE AND PURPOSE

1.

This is a lawsuit is brought due to unlawful conspiracy, as prohibited by 42

U.S.C. § 1985(2) and for neglect to prevent such conspiracy under 42 U.S.C.

Section 1986.

1
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 2 of 32

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2.

Subject matter jurisdiction of this action is conferred upon this Court under

the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

3.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and § 1343, 28

U.S.C. §90 as the claims occurred in this judicial circuit and the Defendants reside

in this judicial circuit and division.

PARTIES

4.

Plaintiff Robert Wainberg is a former tenured employee of Piedmont

University who currently has a case before this Court (Robert H. Wainberg v.

Piedmont University, U.S. District Court Northern District of Georgia, Civil

Action #: 2:19- cv-00251-MHC (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s First Lawsuit”)) and he is

entitled to bring actions of this kind and nature.

5.

James Mellichamp is the President of Piedmont University. He is an active

participant in the agreements and overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy

alleged herein and specifically approved of and joined in the goals of such

2
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 3 of 32

conspiracy and the actions constituting the overt acts of such conspiracies. This

Defendant had knowledge that the conspiracy alleged herein under 42 U.S.C.

Section 1985(2) was about to be committed, and had the power to prevent or aid in

preventing the commission of the same, yet neglected or refused so to do and, as a

proximate result thereof, such wrongful act was committed, such that he may be

found liable to the Plaintiff herein under 42 U.S.C. Section 1986. This Defendant

may be served with process in accordance with through personal service at his

residence or place of business, at 1021 Central Avenue, Demorest, GA 30535.

6.

Defendant Thomas A. “Gus” Arrendale is presently a member of the

Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees and is the Chairman of the Board of

Piedmont University. He is an active participant in the agreements and overt acts in

furtherance of the conspiracy alleged herein and specifically approved of and

joined in the goals of such conspiracy and the actions constituting the overt acts of

such conspiracies. This Defendant had knowledge that the conspiracy alleged

herein under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(2) was about to be committed, and had the

power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, yet neglected or

refused so to do and, as a proximate result thereof, such wrongful act was

committed, such that he may be found liable to the Plaintiff herein under 42 U.S.C.

3
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 4 of 32

Section 1986. This Defendant may be served with process in accordance with

through personal service at his residence or place of business, at 555 Broiler Blvd.,

Baldwin, GA 30511.

7.

Thomas M. Hensley Jr is presently a member of the Executive Committee of

the Board of Trustees of Piedmont University. He is an active participant in the

agreements and overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy alleged herein and

specifically approved of and joined in the goals of such conspiracy and the actions

constituting the overt acts of such conspiracies. This Defendant had knowledge

that the conspiracy alleged herein under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(2) was about to be

committed, and had the power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of

the same, yet neglected or refused so to do and, as a proximate result thereof, such

wrongful act was committed, such that he may be found liable to the Plaintiff

herein under 42 U.S.C. Section 1986. This Defendant may be served with process

in accordance with through personal service at his residence or place of business,

at 555 Broiler Blvd., Baldwin, GA 30511.

8.

Stewart Swanson is presently a member of the Executive Committee of the

Board of Trustees of Piedmont University. He is an active participant in the

4
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 5 of 32

agreements and overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy alleged herein and

specifically approved of and joined in the goals of such conspiracy and the actions

constituting the overt acts of such conspiracies. This Defendant had knowledge

that the conspiracy alleged herein under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(2) was about to be

committed, and had the power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of

the same, yet neglected or refused so to do and, as a proximate result thereof, such

wrongful act was committed, such that he may be found liable to the Plaintiff

herein under 42 U.S.C. Section 1986. This Defendant may be served with process

in accordance with through personal service at his residence or place of business,

at Jasper Wireless Inc., at Northwinds in Alpharetta, GA, 11625 Rainwater Dr.,

Suite 200, Alpharetta, GA 30009.

9.

Dock C. Sisk is presently a member of the Executive Committee of the

Board of Trustees of Piedmont University. He is an active participant in the

agreements and overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy alleged herein and

specifically approved of and joined in the goals of such conspiracy and the actions

constituting the overt acts of such conspiracies. This Defendant had knowledge

that the conspiracy alleged herein under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(2) was about to be

committed, and had the power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of

5
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 6 of 32

the same, yet neglected or refused so to do and, as a proximate result thereof, such

wrongful act was committed, such that he may be found liable to the Plaintiff

herein under 42 U.S.C. Section 1986. This Defendant may be served with process

in accordance with through personal service at his residence, at 820 Mount Olivet

Rd., Homer, GA 30547.

10.

Dwight H. Evans is presently a member of the Executive Committee of the

Board of Trustees of Piedmont University. He is an active participant in the

agreements and overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy alleged herein and

specifically approved of and joined in the goals of such conspiracy and the actions

constituting the overt acts of such conspiracies. This Defendant had knowledge

that the conspiracy alleged herein under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(2) was about to be

committed, and had the power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of

the same, yet neglected or refused so to do and, as a proximate result thereof, such

wrongful act was committed, such that he may be found liable to the Plaintiff

herein under 42 U.S.C. Section 1986. This Defendant may be served with process

in accordance with through personal service at his residence or place of business at

2084 Spencers Way, Stone Mountain, GA 30087.

6
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 7 of 32

11.

Mylle Mangum is presently a member of the Executive Committee of the

Board of Trustees of Piedmont University. She is an active participant in the

agreements and overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy alleged herein and

specifically approved of and joined in the goals of such conspiracy and the actions

constituting the overt acts of such conspiracies. This Defendant had knowledge

that the conspiracy alleged herein under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(2) was about to be

committed, and had the power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of

the same, yet neglected or refused so to do and, as a proximate result thereof, such

wrongful act was committed, such that she may be found liable to the Plaintiff

herein under 42 U.S.C. Section 1986. This Defendant may be served with process

in accordance with through personal service at her residence or place of business at

IBT Enterprises, LLC, 500 Pinnacle Court, Suite 130, Norcross, GA 30071.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

12.

Plaintiff’s key witness—former faculty professor Dr. Richard M. Austin, Jr.

testified as to several acts of sexual harassment and discrimination by Defendant

Mellichamp and gave such testimony to the same in the action presently pending as

Robert H. Wainberg v. Piedmont University, U.S. District Court Northern District

7
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 8 of 32

of Georgia, Civil Action #: 2:19- cv-00251-MHC (“Plaintiff’s First Lawsuit”).

13.

On March 13, 2019, Dr. Austin testified under subpoena in a deposition in

Plaintiff’s First Lawsuit. Defendants objected and contacted the Court to prevent

him from testifying to Mellichamp’s sexually harassing conduct. As a result, Dr.

Austin provided two Affidavits in Plaintiff’s First Lawsuit, testifying that Dr.

James Mellichamp and Piedmont University did not comply with Title IX with

reference to Dr. Wainberg.

14.

Since that subpoenaed testimony and Affidavits, Plaintiff has been subjected

to numerous retaliatory acts by Piedmont University, Dr. James Mellichamp, the

officers of Piedmont University, and others associated with, or employed by,

Piedmont University.

15.

Dr. Austin recounted, in his affidavit, specific allegations of conduct by

Defendant Mellichamp that were for the purpose of depriving, either directly or

indirectly, Dr. Austin and the class of persons – specifically male students or

faculty members at Piedmont University – of the equal protection of the laws by

engaging in sexual harassment of such persons and retaliation against such

8
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 9 of 32

persons, including specifically Dr. Austin, who opposed or complained about

Mellichamp’s conduct.

16.

The specific allegations of Dr. Austin’s initial affidavit included the

following:

3. During my time as a student at Piedmont University, I observed Dr.

Mellichamp engage in inappropriate conduct with students which
included him purchasing alcohol for minors, drinking with students, at
times to the point of visible intoxication, and taking students to a gay
bar on a college sanctioned trip.

5. Moreover, as a faculty member, I have personal knowledge that Dr.

Mellichamp engaged in sexual harassment of a faculty member,
specifically myself.

6. Over the years, I have received unsolicited emails and/or statements

that Dr. Mellichamp has made towards me that are sexual in nature, that
included either sexual innuendo, sexual overture or were inappropriate
in nature.

7. There was an incident I remember in August of 2011 involving an

interaction with Dr. Mellichamp that constituted sexual assault. I
remember that it was my last year in the Legislature and I needed to ask
the President Hollingsworth for permission to miss the first day of
faculty orientation for the academic year because Governor Deal had
specifically asked me to be present for a press conference. I was in
President Hollingsworth's outer Office. At the time, Dr. Mellichamp
was Vice President. l was talking to Debbie Zimmerman, the President's
Secretary. As I waited for the President to become available for a short
conversation, Dr. Mellichamp approached and grabbed my buttocks
remarking "Oooh you're in shorts today" continuing to walk by into the
President's inner Office. His action and language was clearly overtly
sexual in nature to me.

9
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 10 of 32

8. During that time, Dr. Mellichamp was my superior as the Chief

Academic Officer in his role as Vice President for Academic Affairs.
His action was clearly overtly sexual in nature to me I believe
constituted a sexual assault and an abuse of power. I remember stating
to Debbie Zimmerman "Did you see that?" and she replied, “Yes I saw
that." Then I said to her “I am uncomfortable," and she replied, "I am
uncomfortable too."

9. After this incident, I made a complaint of sexual harassment to the

President concerning Dr. Mellichamp's actions against me letting him
know that the Vice President had grabbed my rear end and that his
behavior directed towards me made me uncomfortable. l also stated to
him that it was inappropriate and I did not want it to happen again. Dr.
Mellichamp's behavior towards me has been both traumatic and
uncomfortable because of having to hear over the years from other
faculty and students "James [Dr. Mellichamp] has a thing for you."

10. After making my complaint of sexual harassment, no one from

Piedmont University ever conducted an investigation addressing this
issue.

11. I believe that Dr. Mellichamp has not just engaged in sexual
harassment but has deliberately covered up unlawful acts of sexual
harassment. I am aware that a couple years ago a female employee was
being sexually harassed by one of Dr. Mellichamp's Vice Presidents.
After she indicated that she made a complaint against Vice President
Ken Jones of sexual harassment, President Mellichamp dismissed her
oral report and told her: ''I just need you to sit on this for awhile."

12. I believe that Dr. Mellichamp engaged in retaliation against me by

targeting my son as a student through the excess scrutiny and discipline
he has received because he is my son.

13. When my wife met with Dr. Mellichamp in a scheduled meeting to

address the college's inequitable treatment towards our son, she
reminded him of his own inappropriate behavior as a faculty member
towards students, including but not limited to, providing alcohol to her
as an underaged student. In response to this, I believe our family was

10
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 11 of 32

subjected to further retaliation.

(Exhibit 1, Affidavit of Dr. Rick Austin, dated March 16, 2019.)

17.

Piedmont University’s directors and officers, including Mellichamp and the

rest of defendants thereafter engaged in repeated acts of retaliation against Dr.

Austin. As examples of such acts of retaliation, the day after his deposition, on

March 14, 2019, an email was sent by Dean Steven Nimmo to Dr. Austin’s

department chair, Dr. Elaine Bailey, specifically asking if she had taken care of

“the biology problem”, a reference to Dr. Austin, who is a biologist and biology

professor in Piedmont University’s Department of Natural Sciences; on April 29,

2019, President James Mellichamp sent an email to members of the City Council

and staff of the City of Demorest (of which Dr. Austin was Mayor) stating that

Mellichamp had received advice not to be any party to any discussion which

included Dr. Austin; on May 1, 2019, Mellichamp submitted an affidavit accusing

Dr. Austin of lying in his sworn testimony and attaching thereto Dr. Austin’s son’s

Piedmont University disciplinary records; and on June 13, 2019, the then Title IX

Director of Piedmont University, Fred Bucher, sent an email to the City of

Demorest stating that Dr. Austin had a “personal issue” and that he was “trying to

stick it to the college for some perceived wrong”. In that email, Bucher told Dr.

11
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 12 of 32

Austin “to grow up”.

18.

The actions set forth in the foregoing paragraph were taken for the purpose

of retaliating against Plaintiff and Dr. Austin on account of Dr. Austin’s prior

testimony and to deter Dr. Austin and other of Plaintiff’s witnesses from testifying

in the future regarding Mellichamp’s violations of Title IX. In fact, Mellichamp’s

action in obtaining, producing, and filing in open Court the disciplinary records of

Dr. Austin’s son was independently unlawful, as it was a violation of the Family

Educational Rights and Privacy Act (hereinafter “FERPA”). This very District has

held that “Under a plain language interpretation of the FERPA, student disciplinary

records are education records because they directly relate to a student and are kept

by that student's university.” Such records were filed solely in an attempt to

retaliate against Dr. Austin for past testimony and deter his future testimony in

Plaintiff’s First Lawsuit regarding Mellichamp’s sexually harassing and retaliatory

conduct.

19.

Defendants agreed and conspired among themselves to escalate the effort to

retaliate against Plaintiff and Dr. Austin and deter witnesses like Dr. Austin from

future testimony. Accordingly, on August 7, 2020, Piedmont General Counsel

12
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 13 of 32

Patrick McKee, with the express agreement and consent of such Defendants, wrote

a letter to Dr. Austin and the City Council and various employees of the City of

Demorest threatening facially frivolous litigation, purportedly because, in 2018,

the City of Demorest had increased its water and sewer rates applicable to

Piedmont University. The actual reason was because of Dr. Austin’s role as a

witness in Plaintiff’s First Lawsuit, as set forth above and later admitted by

Piedmont in its lawsuit filed against Dr. Austin.

20.

In this demand their agent and attorney in fact, General Counsel McKee,

with the express agreement and consent of such Defendants, threatened to harm

Dr. Austin in his employment with Piedmont University, purportedly on account of

official actions taken by the City of Demorest and unless the City of Demorest

took more favorable official actions to reduce Piedmont University’s water and

sewer rates.

21.

Notwithstanding the fact that the City of Demorest had no control over Dr.

Austin’s employment with Piedmont University, General Counsel McKee, with the

express agreement and consent of such Defendants, alleged that Dr. Austin had

breached his contract because he had taken official actions in his capacity as

13
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 14 of 32

Mayor which Piedmont University disfavored, instead of taking official actions

favored by Piedmont University.

22.

Despite the existence of contractually binding rights which govern the

substantive reasons and procedural mechanisms by which Dr. Austin, as a tenured

Professor, could be disciplined by Piedmont University, General Counsel McKee,

with the express agreement and consent of such Defendants, threatened that any

resolution of the above referenced frivolous claims would require Dr. Austin’s

termination.

23.

On November 23, 2020, Piedmont University filed a lawsuit against Dr.

Austin in the Superior Court of Habersham County, seeking, inter alia, the

termination of Dr. Austin’s employment with Piedmont and the removal of Dr.

Austin from his position as Mayor of the City of Demorest (“Piedmont Lawsuit”).

In filing this lawsuit, Piedmont University acted with the actual knowledge and

express agreement and approval of Defendants.

24.

Among the reasons identified by Piedmont University for filing the

Piedmont Lawsuit against Dr. Austin and seeking the termination of his

14
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 15 of 32

employment and his removal as Mayor of the City of Demorest are:

a. Dr. Austin’s significant role in supporting Plaintiff’s First Lawsuit; and

b. Dr. Austin’s March 2019 affidavit in Plaintiff’s First Lawsuit claiming

Mellichamp had subjected him to sexual harassment and retaliation. (Ex. 1.)

25.

Defendants characterized Dr. Austin’s testimony and participation as false

and in bad faith, which Defendant Mellichamp, of his own personal knowledge,

knows to be false. The evidence adduced thus far in Plaintiff’s First Lawsuit

additionally put the Defendants on notice that such allegations were false and that

the claims made by Defendants against Dr. Austin were false and frivolous.

26.

For example, Dr. William Benjamin Cash, III gave testimony supporting

Plaintiff’s witness’s allegation and testified, in part:

5. I remember that approximately seven years or so ago Dr. Carlos

Camp informed me of an incident that had just occurred where it had
been reported that Dr. James Mellichamp had physically grabbed Dr.
Rick Austin's rear end. I remember learning this about this incident
shortly after it had occurred. Later, Dr. Rick Austin informed me of the
incident. I know that others knew that this report had been made.

6. The effect on me hearing this information (and the lack of

institutional action) and the effect it had on my subsequent course of
conduct was to not recommend to my daughter and other students to
consider Piedmont University while Dr. James Mellichamp remained a
part of the leadership administration.

15
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 16 of 32

(Exhibit 2, Affidavit of Dr. William Benjamin Cash III, dated June 5, 2019.)

27.

A second example, former student Nicolai Peek, testified, in relevant part:

3. In the Spring of 2012, while riding in the car from Piedmont

University and going to an American Guild of Organists meeting in
Atlanta, Georgia, I heard Dr. James Mellichamp say, "Look at that nice
ass." The comment was made while we were stopped at a traffic light
regarding a group of people walking by the car.

4. In a separate instance, in Fall 2012, I heard Dr. James Mellichamp

say, "Look at that nice ass in that skirt," while stopped at a traffic light.
The comment was directed toward an African-American woman who
was crossing the street in front of the vehicle. This comment was made
while approximately three male students were riding in the car with Dr.
Mellichamp going from Piedmont University to an American Guild of
Organists meeting in Atlanta, Georgia.

(Exhibit 3, Declaration of Nikolai Peek, dated June 17, 2019.)

28.

A third example, then current student “R.A.” testified, in part:

6. On August 30th, 2017, President Mellichamp was walking by me

between Stewart Hall and Daniel Hall. As he approached me, he moved
his eyes and head up and downwards as he stared at my crotch region.
He then moved his eyes up and down my pelvic area in a sexually
suggestive manner, made intense eye contact and then asked me in a
sexually provocative way: “How are YOU today” as he looked at me
in a manner that was clear that he was propositioning me as his eyes
gazed me up and down in my crotch area and then stared at my eyes
hard while raising his eyebrows.

16
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 17 of 32

7. I am certain of this date because after it happened I took a picture of

myself and made a little joke on Snapchat that 1 sent to friends stating:
“You know you' re wearing a dope outfit when Dr. Mellichamp does
the ‘down-up checking you out’ look before smiling and asking how
you are today.” At the time I was certainly caught off guard but it makes
me uncomfortable because I don’t think any President should be
making those types of sexual suggestions towards students. I still have
this photograph with the date.

(Exhibit 4, Affidavit R.A., dated May 2, 2019.)

29.

A fourth example, former student Paul King- Allen testified to Mellichamp’s

personal knowledge that a member of the faculty under his direct supervision had

an on-going sexual relationship with him when he was only 17 years of age. Mr.

King-Allen testified, in relevant part:

2. When I was 17 years old I attended Piedmont College as a student.

3. One of the faculty members within the music department was a man
named Dr. Joseph Jackson who began a sexual relationship with me
when I was a student and still underaged as 17 year old minor.

4. As an underage student at Piedmont College, I personally did work

for Dr. Mellichamp at his home.

5. A Dr. Mellichamp was chair of the music department and knew of

the sexual relationship I had with his faculty member Dr. Joseph
Jackson from the moment it started. Dr. Mellichamp never acted as if
he disproved of the relationship.

6. When I tried to break off the sexual relationship with Dr. Joseph
Jackson he became obsessive and abusive, engaging in stalking and
sexually harassing behavior towards me which was extremely

17
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 18 of 32

traumatic.

7. I reached out to Dr. Mellichamp for help on several occasions to get

him to stop Dr. Joseph Jackson sexually harassing me but Dr.
Mellichamp did nothing to solve the problem.

8. Dr. Mellichamp was chair of the music department of which Dr.

Joseph Jackson was a part of.

9. I remember attending choir tours with Dr. Mellichamp, Dr. Jackson

and other students at Piedmont College.

10. On the choir tour I remember that they would always make sure I
was seated next to Dr. Jackson on a plane or that our hotel rooms with
a connecting door would always be placed together.

11. On the choir tour I remember that Dr. Mellichamp would drink in
excess with students and buy students alcohol, including underage
minor students like myself, a 17 year old. I further observed Dr.
Mellichamp engage in what I believe to be inappropriate conduct with
students.

12. When Dr. Jackson continued his obsessive stalking and harassing
behavior towards me after I cut off the sexual relationship with him, I
repeatedly came to Dr. Mellichamp and asked him for help and would
ask Dr. Mellichamp: “Did you talk to him and tell him to leave me
alone?”

13. Dr. Mellichamp did nothing to stop the sexual harassment against
me from Dr. Jackson, a faculty member within his music department.

14. Because of this my parents notified Piedmont College’s

administration that Dr. Joseph Jackson had a sexual affair with their
son, an underaged minor and would not stop harassing their son.

15. I remember my mother and I notifying the Piedmont College

administration that I had asked Dr. James Mellichamp Chair of the
Music Department for help in order to stop Dr. Jackson from continuing

18
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 19 of 32

his stalking and obsessive sexual harassing behavior towards me but

that Dr. Mellichamp didn’t do anything to stop it.

16. Piedmont College knew that Dr. Mellichamp had knowledge of the
sexual harassment I had suffered and that I had asked him for help but
that he failed to do anything to stop it. In response, Piedmont College
fired Dr. Jackson but did not fire Dr. Mellichamp.

17. Dr. Jackson was the only voice coach of the Piedmont College
music department and so Dr. Mellichamp acted upset towards me
saying retaliatorily: “If I had known you were going to burn everything
down [i.e. the voice coaching program within the music department by
getting Dr. Jackson fired] I would have hired Luciano Pavarotti as your
vocal coach.”

18. My life was made very difficult because I reported it.

19. I had to drop out of Piedmont College that semester because this
was so traumatic and transfer to another college for some time.

20. The predatory conduct of Dr. Joseph Jackson that was tacitly
approved by Dr. Mellichamp because he failed to stop his behavior
when I asked for help, deeply affected my life in a traumatic way. For
years I went back in the closet and married women before I could come
out and accept my sexual identity as a gay man because of this
experience.

21. I returned to Piedmont College in the early 2000’s to finally finish

my degree. I encountered Dr. Mellichamp who avoided me and not at
all friendly. He stated to me “I assure you will not be bothered”
however his actions towards me were different and behaved as if he
held a grudge against me.

22. I know that Piedmont College knew that Dr. Mellichamp failed to
stop the sexual harassment I was experiencing after I sought help from
him and asked for him to get it to stop. I know this to be true because I
along with my parents informed the Piedmont College’s administration
of this fact.

19
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 20 of 32

23. Despite knowing that Dr. Mellichamp knew about the sexual
harassment I was subjected to as a student from a music faculty member
and failed to stop it from happening, Piedmont College continued to
retain Dr. Mellichamp as a faculty member and would end up hiring
him as a president.

(Exhibit 5, Declaration of Paul King-Allen, dated August 27, 2020.)

30.

A fifth example, former student Taylor Brown testified as to Mellichamp’s

retaliation against her for bringing a Title IX complaint against him as well as

other Piedmont University employees for engaging in Title IX sexual harassment

and retaliation against her, in relevant part:

12. There is no question that I was subjected to Title IX sexual

harassment by a University employee (my coach) who tried to engage
in a sexual threesome with me and sent me multiple, unwelcome sexual
images and messages over the past year and a half.
13. President Mellichamp and the University co-signed the Title IX
sexual harassment by subjecting me to incredible retaliation as a result
of me making a Title IX complaint.
14. My mother alerted the Board of Trustees repeatedly that President
Mellichamp was engaged in Title IX violations and retaliating against
me.
15. I made Title IX complaints against President Mellichamp, Athletic
Director Jim Peeples, Coach Jamie McCormack; Assistant Coach
Rachel Selmore, and Vice President Craig Rogers. An investigation
began that was absolutely biased, one-sided, and retaliatory against me
and then was promptly dismissed, denying my rights to a fair grievance
hearing or complaint process.

20
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 21 of 32

16. The Board has been negligent by failing to do anything and have
continued to retain James Mellichamp as president, despite knowing his
behavior and pattern of violating Title IX.
17. My parents and I knew of President Mellichamp’s serial and
disturbing pattern of violating Title IX and retaliating against those who
report it as it has been well documented as a part of the court public
record as seen in the recent lawsuit by our City Mayor and former
faculty member Rick Austin who detailed the sexual harassment he
experienced from President Mellichamp and the retaliation he
experienced from reporting it.
18. The Board has continued to retain James Mellichamp as
president without taking any action, knowing that he has this
propensity to violate Title IX, despite the fact that I have written the
Board personally as a student for help and they have failed to do
anything.
23. After the fact-finding process, the University sent letters to us
dismissing each and every Title IX complaint I had made against
President Mellichamp, the coach, and other violators, denying me any
fair hearing or equitable grievance process as I am entitled to pursuant
to the Title IX policy.

(Exhibit 6, Declaration of Taylor Brown, dated April 1, 2022.)

31.

A sixth example, former professor Carson Webb testified as to Mellichamp’s

retaliation against him for bringing a Title IX complaint, stating:

4. In late Fall of the 2021-2022 school year, I reported my Title IX

concerns to the administration, specifically that I observed a Piedmont
male administrator engage in what I perceived to be inappropriate
conduct with a female student.

21
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 22 of 32

5. In response to making this report, I was subjected to retaliation by

Piedmont University administration, culminating with the non-renewal
of my faculty contract by President Mellichamp. As a result, I stated
my intention not to return to Piedmont in protest of the ethical
misconduct committed by President Mellichamp.

(Exhibit 7, Declaration of Carson Webb, dated July 7, 2022.)

32.

Exhibits 2-7 provide third party witness testimony, known to Defendants,

which demonstrate that Mellichamp engaged in conduct remarkably similar to that

alleged by Dr. Austin in his own affidavit, yet Defendants ignored such testimony

in falsely claiming Dr. Austin’s affidavit testimony – protected under 42 U.S.C.

Section 1985(2) – is a proper basis for seeking his removal from his employment

with Piedmont University and his removal from his position as Mayor.

33.

Plaintiff’s First Lawsuit constitutes a lawsuit filed in a Court of the State of

Georgia to “enforce[e], or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of

persons, to the equal protection of the laws” as provided in the second clause of 42

U.S.C. Section 1985(2).

34.

Since testifying in Plaintiff’s First Lawsuit, Dr. Austin and other witnesses

were subjected to retaliation, as outlined his second affidavit, stating:

22
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 23 of 32

Since making the Title IX complaint and testimony support of Plaintiff,

employer continues to subject me and some of my colleagues who
testified in the matter Wainberg v. Piedmont College to retaliation
including. but not limited to. threats the administration concerning ..
‘troublesome biology faculty’ during the week we were testifying.

(Exhibit 8, Affidavit of Rick Austin, dated September 25, 2019.)

35.

Consequently, as one of Plaintiff’s primary witnesses Dr. Austin, who was

then a full-time tenured faculty member at Piedmont, was subjected to witness

intimidation and retaliation and alleged by him on September 13, 2019 via his

email to Human Resources and the Piedmont College Title IX office writing: “It

has been painfully clear through the actions of President James Mellichamp...that

Piedmont College has repeatedly engaged in retaliation, harassment and

intimidation” by “repeated actions of retaliation...and harassment since [his]

testimony, deposition, and affidavit on March 13, 2019” for Dr. Wainberg’s

lawsuit. (Exhibit 9.)

36.

Regrettably since, Defendants have been engaged in ongoing retaliation in

an effort to intimidate, harass, and tamper with Plaintiff’s witnesses for testifying

in Plaintiff’s First Lawsuit, including but not limited to:

23
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 24 of 32

a. Subjecting Dr. Austin to ominous threats or warnings by high-ranking agents

of Piedmont (such as the Title IX officer, Chief of Police, and other

administrators);

b. Mellichamp filing confidential FERPA protected student disciplinary

documents on public record of Dr. Austin’s son during his son’s law school

admissions acceptance process;

c. Mellichamp sitting in the courtroom throughout Dr. Austin’s trial in a

private business dispute, engaging the jury, assisting Dr. Austin’s

opponent’s counsel during jury selection, and glad-handing the jury,

amongst many other incidents too many to count. (See Ex. 8.)

d. Going after other faculty members who testified as witnesses for Plaintiff

including but not limited to job demotions or terminations of their spouses.

37.

At the time the Piedmont Lawsuit was filed against Dr. Austin, Plaintiff’s

First Lawsuit was pending in the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Georgia, Gainesville Division; Plaintiff’s witness’ affidavit testimony

had been submitted therein; and, therefore, Plaintiff’s witness Dr. Austin was a

“witness in [a] court of the United States who had “attended or testified” in a court

of the United States.

24
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 25 of 32

38.

Therefore, Defendants’ agreement to threaten to file the Piedmont Lawsuit

and action in filing the Piedmont Lawsuit constituted a retaliatory conspiracy in

violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(2).

39.

Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ and witness’ fees, costs, and expenses of

litigation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988.

40.

All conditions precedent to bringing this Count have been completed,

performed and/or waived.

COUNTS OF THE COMPLAINT

COUNT ONE:
CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2)

41.

The preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated herein by

reference as if fully stated herein, as each such paragraph is a relevant to claims

plead in this Count One.

42.

The conspiracy alleged herein violates 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(2), both

because Plaintiff’s witnesses’ testimony has been submitted and relied upon in this

25
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 26 of 32

United States District Court and because the conspiracy alleged in this Count One

was for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any

manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to

any citizen, specifically including, but not limited to Plaintiff Robert Wainberg, Dr.

Austin, and others, the equal protection of the laws, or to injure them or any one of

them in their person or property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce,

the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws.

43.

Based on the testimony of Mellichamp in his deposition in Plaintiff’s First

Lawsuit that he specifically communicated with the other Defendants the bases

upon which Piedmont University was filing the Piedmont Lawsuit, and other facts

plead herein and, on information and belief, to be uncovered during discovery in

this matter, Defendants James Mellichamp, Thomas A. Arrendale, Thomas M

Hensley Jr, Stewart Swanson, Dock C. Sisk, Dwight H Evans, Mylle Mangum,

[hereinafter “the conspirators”] unlawfully conspired to retaliate against Plaintiff

and his witnesses on account of his witnesses’ aforementioned testimony and to

prevent and deter them from testifying in the future in this proceeding and to deter

them from testifying in future court proceedings, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §

1985(2). These Defendants are sued jointly and severally for the voluntary,

26
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 27 of 32

malicious, and deliberate conspiracy to harm Plaintiff and his witnesses for all

harms flowing from the actions of each conspirator, whether or not such action was

specifically approved or known to the other conspirators, so long as it was in

furtherance of the aims of the conspiracy alleged.

44.

The conspirators anticipated, in light of Dr. Austin’s prior testimony, that he

would provide such and additional testimony in this Court and conspired to injure

Plaintiff and his witnesses on account of his witness having testified in a United

States District Court proceeding and/or “to deter, by ... intimidation, or threat, . . .

[any] witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from

testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure

such . . . witness in his person or property on account of [her] having so attended or

testified” in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(2).

45.

In the above-referenced conspiracy, each of the conspirators performed or

caused to be performed acts in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, as

shown above, whereby Plaintiff was injured in his person and property, and

deprived of having and exercising rights and privileges of a citizen of the United

States, such that Plaintiff, as the party so injured or deprived, has an action for the

27
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 28 of 32

recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or

more of the conspirators, jointly and severally, for each and every act in

furtherance of the aims of such conspiracy.

46.

As a direct result of the Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered harm to

his reputation, has suffered mental and emotional distress, humiliation, outrage, the

deprivation of his rights under state and federal law, retaliation for his testimony in

a federal court proceeding, and, in that the conspiracy complained of is presently

ongoing, is likely to continue to suffer other and additional harms entitling him to

injunctive relief and compensatory damages.

47.

The Defendants’ actions constitute crimes against the United States and,

being criminal in nature, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 371, 1503, and 1512,

constitute an actionable conspiracy, notwithstanding the extent to which the

conspiracy alleged is intra-corporate in nature or the communications in

furtherance of the conspiracy are alleged to have been funneled through General

Counsel McKee as a conduit of communications in aid of the conspiracy.

28
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 29 of 32

48.

The Defendants’ actions were willful, intentional, malicious, and conducted

in bad faith, thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages.

49.

Because of Defendants’ wealth (in some cases extraordinary wealth) and

standing in the community, they are unlikely to be prosecuted for these crimes and

the only punishment they are likely to receive is in civil money damages, such that

this action is necessary to deter them and others like them from engaging in such

conduct, no matter how wealthy, important, or powerful they may be or believe

themselves to be.

COUNT TWO:
NEGLECT TO PREVENT UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1986

50.

The preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated herein by

reference as if fully stated herein, as each such paragraph is a relevant to claims

plead in this Count Two.

51.

The Defendants had knowledge of the nature and goals of the conspiracy

and that Defendants intended to undertake actions in furtherance thereof, such that

Defendants were aware of the wrongs conspired to be done and which are set forth

29
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 30 of 32

above were about to be committed, and each had the power by exercise of

reasonable diligence to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same,

and neglected or refused so to do. The foregoing wrongful acts were thereafter

committed, such that these Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for all damages

caused by such wrongful acts under 42 U.S.C. § 1986.

52.

As a direct result of the Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered harm to

his reputation, has suffered mental and emotional distress, humiliation, outrage, the

deprivation of his rights under state and federal law, retaliation against his

witnesses providing truthful testimony in a federal court proceeding, and, in that

the conspiracy complained of is presently ongoing, is likely to continue to suffer

other and additional harms entitling him to injunctive relief and compensatory

damages.

53.

The Defendants' actions were willful, intentional, malicious, and conducted

in bad faith, thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages.

30
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 31 of 32

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court:

(a) Take jurisdiction of this matter;

(b) Consolidate this case into Dr. Robert H. Wainberg v. Piedmont

University C.A. No. 2:19-cv-00251-MHC

(c) Temporarily, preliminarily, and permanently enjoin Defendants from

future acts of retaliation against witnesses because of their testimony

in the Plaintiff’s First Lawsuit;

(d) Enter a judgment that Defendants’ conduct violated 42 U.S.C.

§§1985(2) and 1986;

(e) Award Plaintiff compensatory, punitive, and/or nominal damages

against the Defendants and each of them, jointly and severally, for the

acts complained of herein;

(f) Award Plaintiff pre-judgment interest;

(g) Award Plaintiff his costs and expenses of this action, including

reasonable attorney’s fees as authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1988;

(h) Grant a trial by jury; and

(i) Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and

proper.

31
 Case 2:22-cv-00155-MHC Document 1 Filed 08/07/22 Page 32 of 32

PLAINTIFF HEREBY DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY.

Respectfully submitted, this 7th day of August 2022.

WILLIAMS OINONEN LLC

/s/ JULIE OINONEN

Julie Oinonen (Ga. Bar No. 722018)
Counsel for Plaintiff
44 Broad Street, NW, Suite 200
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
(404) 654-0288/ (404) 592-6225 FAX
julie@goodgeorgialawyer.com

32