By Jamie Satterfield of the Knoxville News Sentinel

A federal appeals court this week struck down a judge's decision to award only $1 in damages to a Sunni Muslim state trooper fired after a military liaison falsely labeled him a budding terrorist, calling the amount "wholly inadequate."

The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ordered U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell to consider "a more appropriate damages award" for De'Ossie Dingus, a 10-year veteran of the Knoxville branch of the Tennessee Highway Patrol fired in 2010. The firing came after military liaison Maj. Kevin Taylor called Dingus a potential terrorist after a brief encounter in November 2009 in which Dingus complained about the airing of a video on the radicalization of children during a training class that was supposed to teach troopers how to recognize weapons of mass destruction.

Document: De'Ossie Deon Dingus 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision

Campbell deemed the state Department of Safety, the THP's umbrella organization, and its officials guilty of discriminating against Dingus because of his religion. But she turned aside attorney Arthur Knight III's bid for $300,000 in damages, primarily because Dingus did not seek counseling or other psychological treatment. Instead, she gave Dingus, who already had won a separate civil service hearing that netted him back pay and lost wages, $1 in a symbolic gesture.

Knight said Wednesday that Dingus, a military veteran, should not be denied damages simply because he has "a very strong constitution."

"For De'Ossie, I don't think he ever said anything about money," Knight said. "You have a guy who is an American citizen who served in the armed forces, who was honorably discharged. It's a heck of a thing in this day and age to be called a terrorist because somebody says you are and then they railroad you out of the Department of Safety.

"Our position (on damages) all along has been Dingus shouldn't be punished because he didn't run to a psychiatrist and cry and talk about everything wrong with his life since then."

Taylor claimed Dingus was disruptive and belligerent during the class and confrontational afterward. But none of the 35 other troopers in the training class backed up Taylor's claim. An internal investigation showed none of Dingus' co-workers shared Taylor's view. Most said they'd never once heard Dingus mention his faith.

But THP commanders fired Dingus anyway, relying on a psychological evaluation even the examiner said was based entirely on Taylor's conclusion.

Knight presented documents showing officials, including now retired Safety Commissioner David Mitchell, THP Col. Mike Walker, staff attorney Deborah Martin and human resources staffer Kerri Balthrop, began the process of firing Dingus even before an internal investigation of the terrorist tendencies claim was finished.

Campbell presides over a federal court division in Utah but heard the case while Knoxville's federal court was short a judge as then-nominee Pamela Reeves was undergoing the congressional confirmation process. It's not clear yet whether the case will go to Reeves, now a sitting judge in U.S. District Court here, or whether Campbell will return to conduct the hearing on damages ordered up by the appellate court.

Dingus opted to retire early after winning his job back. The appellate court noted he struggled "to pay his bills" for the three years as he battled through the civil service process and federal court to make his case of wrongful termination.

The 6th Circuit panel soundly condemned the Department of Safety in its ruling and opined the court record clearly showed Dingus suffered "emotional distress" that rated an award of damages.

"In light of the egregious nature of the (department)'s conduct, the $1 award of damages for Dingus's mental anguish and emotional distress is wholly inadequate," the court stated.

Knight called the agency's conduct "sickening."

"To be labeled a disloyal American who is capable of terroristic activities, I don't know what amount of money (should be awarded) for that, but I think what (the appeals court) is saying is you need to come up with something," Knight said. "Money is the deterrent factor not to engage in certain activities again. Other than the department being embarrassed by (publicity over the case), there wasn't a lot of teeth backing it up."