3:14-cv-03504-CMC

Date Filed 04/20/15

Entry Number 23

Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
TERESA CULPEPPER,
on behalf of her minor child C. C.,
Plaintiff,

C.A. No.: 3:14-cv-03504-CMC

vs.
KEVIN A. SHWEDO,
in his official capacity as the Executive
Director of the South Carolina Department
of Motor Vehicles,

PLAINTIFFS VERIFIED PETITION

FOR APPROVAL OF MINOR
SETTLEMENT

and
TAMMY KING,
in her official capacity as the Manager of the
Anderson Office of the South Carolina
Department of Motor Vehicles,
Defendants.

The parties have settled this action. Plaintiff/Petitioner Teresa Culpepper (Plaintiff), on
behalf of her minor child C. C. (C. C.), asks the Court to (1) appoint Plaintiff as guardian ad
litem of C. C. for purposes of this settlement, and (2) approve the settlement of C. C.s claims
against Defendants in this matter on the terms summarized herein and set forth in the attached
copy of the parties Settlement Agreement (Exhibit A).

Plaintiff respectfully submits this

Petition in accordance with Local Rule 17.02, D.S.C., and Judge Curries filing preferences.

3:14-cv-03504-CMC

I.

Date Filed 04/20/15

Entry Number 23

Page 2 of 6

Legal and factual basis of Plaintiffs authority to seek settlement approval.

At the time this matter was filed, and at the present time, Plaintiff was and is C. C.s
natural mother and legal guardian. Other facts which show good cause for the Court to appoint
Plaintiff as the guardian ad litem for C. C. include:

Plaintiff has had physical custody of C. C. from birth to the present;

Plaintiff has provided for the health, safety, care, and nourishment of C. C. from
birth to the present.

For these reasons, Plaintiff asks the Court to find good cause to appoint her as the
guardian ad litem for C. C. for purposes of approval of this settlement.

II.

The nature of the action.

Plaintiffs Complaint alleges that the Defendants, acting in their official capacities,
unconstitutionally required that C. C., a sixteen-year-old high school student, remove everyday
cosmetic makeup before being permitted to take a drivers license photo in March 2014. As
alleged in the Complaint, Defendants relied on the following language in SCDMV Procedure
DL-201:
At no time will an applicant be photographed when it appears that
he/she is purposely altering his/her appearance so that the photo
would misrepresent his/her identity.
(the SCDMV Photo Policy). (Compl. 58.)
In September 2014, Plaintiff brought the Complaint alleging Defendants had
(1) impermissibly

discriminated

against

C. C.

based

on

sex

and

sex

stereotypes,

(2) unconstitutionally restrained C. C.s freedom of expression and compelled and continue to
compel C. C. to convey an ideological message of their design, and (3) deprived C. C. of the

3:14-cv-03504-CMC

Date Filed 04/20/15

Entry Number 23

Page 3 of 6

constitutionally protected liberty interest in C. C.s personal appearance. Moreover, Plaintiff

alleged that the SCDMV Photo Policy is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, enabling
SCDMV personnel to make arbitrary and capricious decisions based on their perception of how a
particular individual should look as a male or female.
Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, declaring
the SCDMVs Photo Policy unconstitutional as interpreted and applied by Defendants,
prohibiting Defendants from applying the SCDMV Photo Policy in an unconstitutional manner
and ordering Defendants to allow C.C. to be photographed for a drivers license while wearing
everyday makeup that C.C. wears on a regular basis. Plaintiff also asked that the Court strike the
policy as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and an unconstitutional grant of unfettered
discretion and award reasonable costs and attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988.

III.

The stage of the proceedings at the time of settlement.

Defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss the action on the ground that
Plaintiffs claims had been mooted by a change in SCDMV procedure that Defendants asserted
would allow C. C. to retake a drivers license photo while wearing regular everyday makeup.
Plaintiff submitted a memorandum in opposition, contending that the change in procedure was
minor and did not alter or purport to supersede the defective language that led to discrimination
against C. C. Defendants did not file a reply memorandum. At the parties joint request, the
motion remained pending while the parties pursued settlement discussions. There has been no
discovery.

3:14-cv-03504-CMC

IV.

Date Filed 04/20/15

Entry Number 23

Page 4 of 6

The nature and extent of injuries.

Plaintiffs claimed injuries are the infringement of C. C.s constitutional rights as

summarized above and set forth in the Complaint.

V.

Factors influencing the decision to settle the claim.

Defendants agreed to allow C. C. to take a drivers license photograph wearing everyday

cosmetic makeup and to modify SCDMVs policies and procedures and training materials in
such a way as to address the alleged constitutional infirmities that led to the bringing of this
action. Accordingly, Plaintiff believes that C. C.s rights have been fully vindicated, the defects
in the SCDMV Photo Policy have been corrected, and accordingly there is no reason to proceed
further with this litigation.

VI.

The amounts and nature of any insurance coverage relevant to the action.

Not applicable.

VII.

The names of any creditors and amounts of their claims.

None.

VIII. The amount and terms of the settlement and detailed explanation of how
proceeds will be distributed.
Plaintiff has agreed to dismissal of this action with prejudice in exchange for Defendants
agreement to allow C. C. to take a drivers license photograph wearing everyday cosmetic
makeup, and to modify the SCDMVs policies and procedures and training materials as set forth

3:14-cv-03504-CMC

Date Filed 04/20/15

Entry Number 23

Page 5 of 6

in detail in the Settlement Agreement attached as Exhibit A. The settlement does not involve
any exchange of money or property.

IX.

The nature of the release to be given.

The action is to be dismissed with prejudice.

X.

The status of any other actions arising out of the same incident which have
been or may be filed and the impact on the fairness of any settlement in this
action.

The parties are not aware of any other lawsuits, or potential lawsuit, related to this matter.

XI.

Known, anticipated, or potential disputes as to the distribution of proceeds

or approval of the settlement.

There are no known, anticipated, or potential disputes as to the approval of the

settlement. As noted, this settlement does not involve any exchange of money or other property.

XII.

Set forth the amount of attorneys fees and costs.

Plaintiffs counsel have handled this representation as a matter pro bono publico, are not
charging any attorneys fees or costs to the Plaintiff, and as part of the settlement are not seeking
any award of attorneys fees or costs from the Defendants.

XIII. Petitioners statement.

Teresa Culpepper believes that the terms of the settlement are fair and reasonable and in
the best interests of her child C.C., and she asks the Court to approve the settlement.

3:14-cv-03504-CMC

Date Filed 04/20/15

Entry Number 23

XIV. S.C. Code Ann. 62-5-433.

Not applicable.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Wallace K. Lightsey
Marshall Winn (529)
Wallace K. Lightsey (1037)
WYCHE, P.A.
44 East Camperdown Way
Greenville, S.C. 29601
Tel.: 864-242-8200
Fax: 864-235-8900
mwinn@wyche.com
wlightsey@wyche.com

Of Counsel:
(Pro Hac Vice Applications To Be Filed)
Peter Guirguis
Melanie M. Kotler
David B. Schwartz
FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP
666 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10103
Tel.: (212) 318-3000
Fax: (212) 318-3400
peter.guirguis@nortonrosefulbright.com
melanie.kotler@nortonrosefulbright.com
david.schwartz@nortonrosefulbright.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Michael D. Silverman
TRANSGENDER LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATION
FUND, INC.
151 W. 19th Street
Suite 1103
New York NY 10011
Tel.: (646) 862-9396
Fax: (914) 920-4057
msilverman@transgenderlegal.org

Dated: April 20, 2015

Greenville, South Carolina

Page 6 of 6

3:14-cv-03504-CMC

Date Filed 04/20/15

Entry Number 23-1

Page 1 of 9

3:14-cv-03504-CMC

Date Filed 04/20/15

Entry Number 23-1

Page 2 of 9

3:14-cv-03504-CMC

Date Filed 04/20/15

Entry Number 23-1

Page 3 of 9

3:14-cv-03504-CMC

Date Filed 04/20/15

Entry Number 23-1

Page 4 of 9

3:14-cv-03504-CMC

Date Filed 04/20/15

Entry Number 23-1

Page 5 of 9

3:14-cv-03504-CMC

Date Filed 04/20/15

Entry Number 23-1

Page 6 of 9

3:14-cv-03504-CMC

Date Filed 04/20/15

Entry Number 23-1

Page 7 of 9

3:14-cv-03504-CMC

Date Filed 04/20/15

Entry Number 23-1

Page 8 of 9

3:14-cv-03504-CMC

Date Filed 04/20/15

Entry Number 23-1

Page 9 of 9

3:14-cv-03504-CMC

Date Filed 04/20/15

Entry Number 23-2

Page 1 of 1

3:14-cv-03504-CMC

Date Filed 04/20/15

Entry Number 23-3

Page 1 of 1