1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

ANDREW U. D. STRAW, ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) Case No.: 3:16-cv-342-JD-MGG 

CITY OF SOUTH BEND, AND ) Hon. Jon E. DeGuilio 

PETE BUTTIGIEG, MAYOR ) Judge Presiding 

OF SOUTH BEND, ) Hon. Michael G. Gotsch 

Defendants. ) Magistrate Judge 

) Jury Trial Demanded 

VERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT 

 

I, plaintiff Andrew U. D. Straw, for my Complaint against the 

defendants herein, claim that they discriminated against me on the 

basis of disability, retaliated when I opposed discrimination, and 

attempted to prevent me from making commentary protected by the 

First Amendment, and so violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 

1985(2) and 1985(3), and imposed intentional infliction of emotional 

distress on me by accusing me of Lanham Act violations and defamation 

in state court without merit. For violations of the above laws and ADA 

Title II and Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504, I claim relief to 

compensate me for violating my right to be free of embarrassment and 

humiliation, intimidation and coercion. Instead, defendants should 

have provided access as required under law when the defendants 

refused to make downtown and residential South Bend accessible in 

handicap parking and other accessible features. Regarding my First 

Amendment violations, the City Attorney filed a lawsuit against me for 

criticizing the City and its City Attorney at a website in the name of the 

ADA Coordinator and attorney for the South Bend Human Rights 

Commission. Two counsel for the City of South Bend (Aladean DeRose 

and Stephanie Nemeth) having harassed me in state court for opposing 

ADA violations, the City is responsible and must pay my damages for 

all of the above: 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00342-JD-MGG document 85 filed 01/05/17 page 1 of 19
2 

FACTS REGARDING MY DISABILITIES, DISABILITY RIGHTS 

LEGAL WORK, AND SOUTH BEND VIOLATIONS 

 

1. I am an attorney, Active in Good Standing, licensed in the State of 

Indiana, Bar# 23378-53. I also have a license in the Commonwealth of 

Virginia, VSB# 43651, currently in In Active in Good Standing Status. 

2. I am also licensed to practice law before the Northern and 

Southern Districts of Indiana since 2002. 

3. My residence is in Kane County, Illinois. I am an Illinois 

registered voter and my residence is 120 S. State Street, Unit 307, 

Elgin, Illinois, 60123. My registered agent and official office mailing 

address is located at 1900 E. Golf Rd., Suite 950A, Schaumburg, IL 

60173. 

DISABILITIES 

4. I have engaged in reform efforts in St. Joseph County, Indiana, 

both regarding disability discrimination at the Indiana Democratic 

Party headquarters and sexual harassment and other civil rights 

violations at the Housing Authority of South Bend. 

5. I have severe physical and mental disabilities from public service. 

I hereby incorporate by reference my affidavit regarding disabilities, 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00342-JD-MGG document 85 filed 01/05/17 page 2 of 19
3 

Exhibit 5, and all evidence thereof mentioned in that affidavit, Exhibits 

6-11. 

EVIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION 

6. I fully incorporate by reference my affidavit regarding photos and 

other evidence, Exhibit 23, and all exhibits referenced and evidence, 

statements, and information contained therein. This includes cases as 

Exhibits 1-4, photo evidence as Exhibits 13-18, and documentary 

evidence as Exhibits 19-22. 

7. These exhibits and the affidavit provide evidence of discrimination 

by the City of South Bend and its ADA Coordinator/City 

Attorney/Counsel for the South Bend Human Rights Commission. 

8. The FHWA Letter of Findings (Exhibit 2.0) and the email from the 

FHWA on November 18, 2016 (Exhibit 2.1) both are evidence of ongoing 

discrimination by the City and the FHWA made it clear that I have the 

right to sue, so this administrative finding presumes discrimination. 

No lawsuit would be possible without it. 

9. Further, when I set up a website at www.aladeanderose.com and 

commented on the poor ADA compliance of the City, the City Attorney 

(Aladean DeRose) employed another counsel of the City (Stephanie 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00342-JD-MGG document 85 filed 01/05/17 page 3 of 19
4 

Nemeth) to sue me in state court for Lanham Act violations and 

defamation. DeRose v. Straw, 71D07-1611-PL-000418 (St. Jos. Cty. 

Sup. Ct. 7). 

10. She also sought injunctive relief to prevent me from associating 

her with her own violations by using her name as the domain name. 

11. However, nothing I said was untrue on this website. 

12. Aladean DeRose did not have any trademark protection because 

she did not file for any trademark, state or federal, prior to my using 

the domain. 

13. Aladean DeRose did not protect her domain from a Canadian law 

firm with approximately the same name as her law firm: deroselaw.ca 

versus deroselaw.com. 

14. Aladean DeRose made a false statement to the state court under 

oath on November 28, 2016. 

15. I will provide the transcript of that hearing when available to 

show that DeRose exaggerated the similarity between her law firm 

website and my protest website. 

16. I have ordered the transcript from the state court reporter and 

will enter it here when complete. 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00342-JD-MGG document 85 filed 01/05/17 page 4 of 19
5 

17. DeRose said that her law firm’s domain name was 

“aladeanderoselaw.com” when in fact her law firm’s domain name was 

“deroselaw.com” and my website is called “aladeanderose.com” 

18. I made no mention of her law firm on my website and never 

mentioned her as a private lawyer whatsoever on my website. 

19. I exclusively criticized her behavior as ADA Coordinator and other 

roles she holds with the City, and posted photos of violations. 

20. I posted on my webpage all of the photos listed in Exhibit 18, and 

criticized DeRose because such violations happened under her as ADA 

Coordinator for the City. 

21. The state court asked me to voluntarily remove my content from 

the domain, which I did immediately after the November 28, 2016 

hearing. That content can be viewed at: 

http://www.andrewstraw.com/ad_down.html 

22. When I can put my content back on my domain, it will again 

appear here: www.aladeanderose.com 

STANDING AND OTHER LEGAL ARGUMENTS 

23. Since standing was a reason for dismissing the prior complaint, I 

provide a memorandum of law on the topic of standing, and hereby 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00342-JD-MGG document 85 filed 01/05/17 page 5 of 19
6 

incorporate it by reference and its reasons not to dismiss based on 

standing: Exhibit 12. 

24. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire Tinker case (Exhibit 1) 

correctly relied on the FHWA on the question of piling snow into 

accessible features like sidewalks. Notably, New Hampshire receives 

heavy snowfall in the winter, so that state’s experience with the ADA 

during the winter is probative. 

25. In the Parker case (Exhibit 3), the First Circuit decided that 

sidewalks must be maintained for disability access. Not doing so 

caused significant injury to the plaintiff in that case. The court 

analogized ADA Title II cases to tort cases because safety is one of the 

main reasons for the rules to maintain features. 

26. The Ninth Circuit in the Barden case (Exhibit 4) held that 

sidewalks are services of the public entity and subject to the ADA and 

its regulations. 

27. I complained to the FHWA about South Bend leaving snow in 

accessible features and the FHWA checked this when it visited on 

January 8, 2016. (Exhibit 2.0). The FHWA in its Letter of Findings 

chastised the City of South Bend about blocking accessible features. 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00342-JD-MGG document 85 filed 01/05/17 page 6 of 19
7 

28. The Letter of Findings is in accord with Tinker, Parker, and 

Barden regarding snow and blocking features. 

29. My evidence of broken sidewalks in Exhibit 18 and the lack of 

curb cuts at these parallel parking handicap spaces (Exhibits 13-18) 

show a total disregard for people who need these features to be 

maintained properly. 

30. In Fortyune v. City of Lomita, 2:11-cv-06644-DDP-JCG (9th Cir. 

2014), it was clearly established by a federal court of appeals that 

handicap parking is required even if regulations do not exist yet. 

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2014/09/08/fortyune

opinion.pdf 

31. This Fortyune case was cited in the FWHA Letter of Findings to 

support the idea that handicap parking falls under the ADA, even 

without binding regulations specifically on topic. 

32. The only relevant precedent provided by the 2016 Hummel case 

(Exhibit 28) from the Seventh Circuit was that anyone wanting to make 

further complaints about the St. Joseph County Courthouse needed to 

create a fresh record. I am certainly not limiting my complaint to the 

county courthouse. Violations are rife in the City and that is precisely 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00342-JD-MGG document 85 filed 01/05/17 page 7 of 19
8 

why in Exhibit 2.1 the FHWA stated that it would be monitoring the 

City to make sure it comes into compliance for “many years.” 

33. I found no precedent for a Building Department being able to 

choose lower standards than ADA Title III standards when enforcing 

accessibility on public accommodations. This case will create a new 

precedent in this area. The U.S. Department of Justice Technical 

Assistance Manual for Title II does provide guidance: 

II-1.4200 Other Federal and State laws. Title II does not 

disturb other Federal laws or any State laws that provide 

protection for individuals with disabilities at a level greater 

or equal to that provided by the ADA. It does, however, 

prevail over any conflicting State laws. 

https://www.ada.gov/taman2.html#II-1.4000 

34. I am eligible to use handicap parking in South Bend because I 

have a handicap placard and I am, as a matter of law under the ADA, a 

person who uses a wheelchair because without my prosthetics, I could 

not even stand (Exhibits 5 & 12). 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(D) & 42 U.S.C. § 

12102(4)(E)(i)(I-IV). 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00342-JD-MGG document 85 filed 01/05/17 page 8 of 19
9 

COUNT I: CITY OF SOUTH BEND VIOLATES ADA TITLE II AND 

REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973, SECTION 504, IN NOT 

PROVIDING PROPER AND SAFE HANDICAP PARKING AND SAFE 

SIDEWALKS AND CURB CUTS, ETC., NOT ENFORCING ADA 

TITLE III STANDARDS IN BUILDING ENFORCMENT, INTER ALIA 

 

35. Reviewing the photos of the downtown area around the CityCounty Building and the Federal Courthouse, it is easy to see the 

violations. The City provides what it calls handicap parking, but none 

of the handicap parking signs create a handicap parking space unless 

they meet ADA, Title II standards, which the federal government 

provides on www.ada.gov and in the regulations pertaining thereto. 

The State of Indiana also does not allow handicap parking spaces 

without all signage and marking and access aisles. (Exhibit 20, pp. 1-

2). The restriping standards were issued in 2015. Current regulations 

under Title II were issued in 2010. But the Fortyune case shows that 

handicap parking that is reasonably provided is a requirement whether 

there are specific standards in the regulations or not. FHWA confirmed 

this.

36. The violations downtown, which I photographed on Memorial Day, 

05/30/2016, and November 9, 2016, also fall under 29 U.S.C. §794, the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504. I will seek discovery or 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00342-JD-MGG document 85 filed 01/05/17 page 9 of 19
10 

admissions that the City of South Bend has taken federal funds making 

it responsible for Rehabilitation Act violations by the City.

37. I have asked repeatedly over the past 5 years for handicap access 

to meet ADA standards in South Bend, but the city resisted just like the 

Housing Authority when I demanded change for my clients in that 

sexual harassment nightmare of a workplace.

38. I want compensation for the lack of proper and safe handicap 

parking when I asked for it this last year. This has gone on long 

enough. The law is on my side. The violations are egregious and 

deliberate. I have been humiliated time and again when I was told by 

the City that I was wrong and that disability access is perfect in South 

Bend.

39. This was a slap in the face to me. I am a leader on disability 

issues and to repeatedly hear the same excuses for violations made me 

feel rejected as a human being, attacked as a civil rights leader, and 

embarrassed when I tried to effect change and was rejected due to the 

hostility of the mayor and City Attorney. I ask compensatory damages 

for the violation of my rights and emotional damages due to the 

continual discrimination against myself and other disabled people I care 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00342-JD-MGG document 85 filed 01/05/17 page 10 of 19
11 

about in South Bend. My demand is based on pervasive discrimination 

I have demonstrated with the help of my exhibits and the FHWA 

findings, not any single violation.

COUNT II: MULTIPLE LAW VIOLATIONS 

FROM STATE COURT LAWSUIT 

 

40. The City Attorney/ADA Coordinator/Counsel for South Bend 

Human Rights Commission has employed another of the city’s attorneys 

to sue me and prevent me from commenting on her failures to protect 

disabled people who need ADA standards to be enforced.

41. Her lawsuit was frivolous at best and malicious at worst.

42. Aladean DeRose made false testimony to the state trial court.

43. That false testimony was to obtain an advantage over me in the 

argument before the state court, and so obtain damages and other 

relief, including removing my right to complain about her performance 

as ADA Coordinator for the City of South Bend and associate it with her 

using her name as a website domain.

44. She failed to answer my counterclaim (Exhibit 24), which I filed 

on November 17, 2017 with the state court, file stamped on that date. 

(Exhibit 25) 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00342-JD-MGG document 85 filed 01/05/17 page 11 of 19
12 

45. I provided service to Stephanie Nemeth by email on November 17, 

2016. (Exhibit 26)

46. I filed my motion for judgment on the pleadings in the state court 

on December 8, 2016 and served this to Stephanie Nemeth by email. 

(Exhibit 27) The exhibits attending that state court motion are 

attached (Exhibits 27.A – 27.C), along with the counterclaim (Exhibit 

24).

47. My counterclaim avers that the City is responsible for the lawsuit, 

and when the City Attorney suing me admits this through action of the 

Indiana Trial Rules, that admission should be accepted here.

48. DeRose as City Attorney and agent for the City violated my First 

Amendment right to criticize her in her public roles, and I claim 

damages for this violation. This is a Bivens claim against the City.

49. Further, to protect this First Amendment right, I claim damages 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against DeRose, with the City responsible as a 

Monell claim.

50. Further, I claim that DeRose and the other city attorney, 

Stephanie Nemeth, violated my rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (2) and 

(3). 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00342-JD-MGG document 85 filed 01/05/17 page 12 of 19
13 

51. I claim that DeRose and Nemeth conspired to deter me from 

opposing disability access violations and this violated 42 U.S.C. § 1985 

(2).

52. I further claim that DeRose and Nemeth conspired to deprive me 

of equal protection of the laws and my equal privileges and immunities 

as protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (3).

53. I claim damages against DeRose because she is the City Attorney 

and she has admitted through failure to respond to my counterclaim 

that the City is responsible for what she did.

54. Finally, I claim damages under 42 U.S.C. § 12203 because DeRose 

retaliated against me for opposing disability access violations and 

connecting these with her using her name. I have a right to oppose 

violations of the ADA and she may not retaliate for me doing so, but she 

did so using the instrumentalities of the state court.

55. All of the photos that I placed on the aladeanderose.com website 

are in Exhibit 18 here, and they represent disability violations. Most 

obvious is the lack of van-accessible handicap parking at the South 

Bend Human Rights Commission, where DeRose is the counsel. 

 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00342-JD-MGG document 85 filed 01/05/17 page 13 of 19
14 

COUNT III: INJUNCTION RELIEF 

56. Because the City is suborning discrimination under Title III of the 

ADA by not living up to its own obligations under the ADA, Title II, I 

ask for injunctive relief. Please direct the City of South Bend to do a 

full audit of all public and private parking lots within the City limits to 

ensure that every business that provides parking also provides the 

handicap parking required by law.

57. Since the City has indicated a willingness to dedicate a certain 

percentage of its parking downtown to handicap parking, I ask this 

Court to direct the City to adjust every handicap parking space that is 

currently marked in any way by a sign so that the handicap space 

meets all of the requirements of the ADA, including its striping 

technical standards and size standards, mentioned supra. If the City 

abides by the recommendations of the FHWA and the PROWAG 

standards mentioned by the FHWA, I accept this as sufficient. 

58. Just because the City puts a sign up does not mean a handicap 

space has been created. Without access aisles and curb cuts, disabled 

people will have to get out into open traffic or bike lanes and travel 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00342-JD-MGG document 85 filed 01/05/17 page 14 of 19
15 

through that traffic to an intersection, and the ADA certainly does not 

allow this kind of safety violation.

59. In addition, I ask the City to be directed to create handicap 

parking on the street at the Federal Courthouse building and build it in 

such a way that the Courthouse will have handicap parking that meets 

ADA standards under PROWAG.

60. Further, I would ask specifically that the City be directed to 

enforce the ADA against any known or apparent violators. One very 

obvious example is the Democratic Headquarters across the street from 

the City-County building. The mayor actually provided a ramp that is 

too short for ADA standards, with no handrails. (Exhibit 22) The City 

is responsible for violations at Democratic Headquarters when it did not 

a single thing in over 20 years to enforce the ADA under the Building 

Code.

61. That’s not acceptable, especially when Democrats run South Bend. 

A one-party system that excludes disabled people is precisely the sort of 

situation that cries out for judicial remedy, and I respectfully ask the 

Court for that remedy. 

 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00342-JD-MGG document 85 filed 01/05/17 page 15 of 19
16 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

62. For the Count I ADA violations based on actual, physical 

violations, I request $250,000 in compensatory damages that I believe 

after South Bend violated a law that is so dear to my heart for 5 years 

since I started asking is now due. Given the fact that the ADA was 

passed 26 years ago, I have been violated by the City since my car 

accident in 2001. Barnes v. Gordon, 536 U.S. 181 (2002) provides for 

compensatory damages in ADA, Title II, cases and Rehabilitation Act of 

1973, Section 504, cases and I ask the full amount of available 

compensatory damages due to the exclusion and emotional injuries I 

have sustained. I seek compensation because the City of South Bend 

has violated its obligations under 42 U.S.C. §12132 not to discriminate 

or exclude based on disability. If the Court and a jury feel that more is 

warranted, I would accept it and I would use that money to help 

disabled people and make further efforts to “eliminate ... 

discrimination,” which is the purpose of the Act. 42 U.S.C. § 

12101(b)(1).

63. Further, I seek an additional $250,000 for the ADA retaliation 

described in Count II.

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00342-JD-MGG document 85 filed 01/05/17 page 16 of 19
17 

64. Further, I seek under Count II $500,000 in combined 

compensatory damages in total for the Bivens Action, the 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 action, the 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) actions, 

and further punitive damages as the Court and jury deem fit from the 

City of South Bend in compensation for Aladean DeRose’s attempts to 

retaliate against my ADA advocacy as Monell claims.

65. I seek injunctive relief as the Court deems fit, per Count III.

66. I ask any other relief that this Court and a jury may deem fit 

under the circumstances.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

67. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 

1331, as it contains federal questions based on the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, Title II, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 

504, also known as 29 U.S.C. § 794, and also the First Amendment of 

the U.S. Constitution, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, 

and federal actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2), and 

42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00342-JD-MGG document 85 filed 01/05/17 page 17 of 19
18 

68. Venue properly lies in the Northern District of Indiana under 28 

U.S.C. §1391(b), as a substantial part of the events giving rise to this 

action occurred within this district. 

I, Attorney Andrew U. D. Straw, certify that to the best of my 

knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable 

under the circumstances, that the above statements and factual 

representations are true and correct under penalty of perjury. 

Respectfully submitted, 

s/ ANDREW U. D. STRAW 

1900 E. Golf Rd., Suite 950A 

Schaumburg, IL 60173 

Telephone: (312) 985-7333 Fax: (877) 310-9097 

andrew@andrewstraw.com 

December 9, 2016 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00342-JD-MGG document 85 filed 01/05/17 page 18 of 19
19 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Andrew U. D. Straw, certify that I filed the above VERIFIED 

AMENDED COMPLAINT and EXHIBITS with the Clerk of this Court 

via the Court's CM/ECF system on December 9, 2016 and this will be 

served on all attorneys of record as well as permanently available 

through Pacer.gov. 

Mayor Pete Buttigieg City of South Bend 

County-City Building, Room 1400 N C/o Aladean M. DeRose 

227 W. Jefferson Blvd. Office of the City Attorney 

South Bend, IN 46601 County-City Building 1200 

574-233-0311 227 W. Jefferson Blvd. 

 South Bend, IN 46601 

Respectfully submitted, 

s/ ANDREW U. D. STRAW 

1900 E. Golf Rd., Suite 950A 

Schaumburg, IL 60173 

Telephone: (312) 985-7333 

Fax: (877) 310-9097 

andrew@andrewstraw.com 

Plaintiff, Proceeding Pro Se

December 9, 2016 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00342-JD-MGG document 85 filed 01/05/17 page 19 of 19