Middleton v. Tucson, City of et al
Filing
69
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Judge enter an order GRANTING Defendant City of Tucson's 53 Motion for Summary Judgment. Any party may serve and file written objections within 14 days after being se rved with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. No replies shall be filed unless leave is granted from the District Judge. If objections are fil ed, the parties should use the following case number: CV-15-0185-TUC-JGZ. Failure to file timely objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate Judge may result in waiver of the right of review. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bruce G Macdonald on 7/17/17.(BAC)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Andrea Middleton,
10
No. CV-15-0185-TUC-JGZ (BGM)
Plaintiff,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
11
12
13
v.
The City of Tucson, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16
17
Currently pending before the Court is Defendant City of Tucson’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 53). Defendant has also filed a Statement of Facts in Support
18
19
of Its Motion for Summary Judgment (“SOF”) (Doc. 54). Plaintiff has responded (Doc.
20
61) and filed her separate Objections to City’s Statement of Facts and Plaintiff’s
21
Statement of Facts and Exhibits Opposing Summary Judgment (“SSOF”) (Doc. 60), and
22
23
Defendant replied (Doc. 62). Additionally, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Summary
24
Judgment Brief (Doc. 66) and Defendant responded to the same (Doc. 67).1 As such, the
25
motion is fully briefed and ripe for adjudication.
26
27
28
1
These additional filings were made pursuant to this Court’s direction at oral argument.
See Minute Entry 5/23/2017 (Doc. 63).
1
2
Pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, this matter
was referred to Magistrate Judge Macdonald for Report and Recommendation. On May
3
4
5
6
23, 2017, Judge Macdonald heard oral argument. Minute Entry 5/23/2017 (Doc. 63).
The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court grant in part and deny in part
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 53).
7
8
9
10
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
11
Plaintiff’s Employment at the Tucson Police Department and her
Relationship with Lt. Greene
12
Plaintiff Andrea Middleton graduated from the police academy and began
13
A.
employment with the Tucson Police Department (“TPD”) in September 2005 as a patrol
14
15
officer. Pl.’s SSOF (Doc. 60), Middleton Decl. 4/25/2017 (Exh. “1”) at ¶ 3; see also Pl.’s
16
First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (Doc. 39) at ¶ 10. In early 2009, Plaintiff met Lt.
17
Greene in the course of her employment when he spoke with her about contacting a
18
19
defense lawyer for an interview. Pl.’s SSOF (Doc. 60), Exh. “1” at ¶ 4; see also Pl.’s
20
FAC (Doc. 39) at ¶ 13. In February 2009, Plaintiff began dating Lt. Frank Greene which
21
was mutual and welcome at the time it started.2 Pl.’s FAC (Doc. 39) at ¶¶ 13–15. At the
22
time their relationship started, Lt. Greene was Plaintiff’s direct supervisor and
23
24
approximately twenty-three (23) years her senior. Id. at ¶¶ 13–14. Plaintiff described Lt.
25
Greene as “approximately 6’ 1” tall and weigh[ing] approximately 270 pounds.” Pl.’s
26
27
28
2
Defendant relies on Plaintiff’s FAC (Doc. 39) which places the beginning of Plaintiff’s
relationship with Lt. Greene in February 2009. Plaintiff’s declaration states “Spring of 2009.”
Pl.’s SSOF (Doc. 60), Exh. “1” at ¶ 10. Regardless of the precise date the relationship began, it
is undisputed that it was early in 2009.
-2-
1
2
SSOF (Doc. 60), Middleton Decl. 4/25/2017 (Exh. “1”) at ¶ 9. She further stated that Lt.
Greene “was a dedicated weightlifter and had the physique of a bodybuilder[,] . . . [with]
3
4
5
6
an established reputation within the TPD as being an intimidating, physically threatening
person.” Id.
In August 2009, Lt. Greene ceased to be in Plaintiff’s chain of command.3 Id.;
7
8
Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), Middleton Depo. 12/14/2016 (Exh. “B”) at 24:21–25:1. When
9
Plaintiff and Lt. Greene began dating, they kept the relationship secret from TPD,
10
because they knew that while TPD did not prohibit officers from having off duty
11
12
relationships, TPD did have a policy that prohibited romantically involved officers from
13
being in the same direct supervisory chain of command. Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), Exh. “B”
14
at 12:3–23.
15
Plaintiff states that although she “was generally aware of th[e] rule
[regarding supervisor-subordinate relationships,] . . . [she] did not have any experience
16
17
18
19
with how it was interpreted or applied.” Pl.’s SSOF (Doc. 60), Exh. “1” at ¶ 11. Plaintiff
asserts that she “was uncomfortable trying to maintain a secret relationship[,] but . . . []
followed Lt. Greene’s instruction that [she] had to keep it secret.” Id., Exh. “1” at ¶ 12.
20
21
Their relationship remained consensual until shortly before Middleton was placed on
22
administrative leave for abuse of confidential police computer information in November,
23
2012. Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), Exh. “B” at 64:23–65:15.
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff asserts that “[f]rom the beginning of their relationship, Lt. Greene was
insecure, jealous, and controlling of [her] behavior while she was on duty as a patrol
3
In opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 53), Plaintiff asserts
that even after August 2009, Lt. Greene “remained a superior officer with general supervisory
authority over her.” Pl.’s SSOF (Doc. 60), Middleton Decl. 4/25/2016 (Exh. “1”) at ¶ 5.
-3-
1
2
officer.” Pl.’s SSOF (Doc. 60), Exh. “1” at ¶ 13. Plaintiff further asserts that Lt.
Greene’s “jealous[y] and controlling behavior toward her while she was on duty
3
4
5
6
increased significantly in the summer of 2009[,] and grew worse until the end of her
employment. Id. Plaintiff states that “from the beginning of [their] relationship, [Lt.
Greene] wanted [Plaintiff] to keep him informed of [her] location and what [she] was
7
8
doing while on duty, and specifically whether [she] was interacting with male fellow
9
officers, male complainants, or Tucson Fire Department personnel.” Pl.’s SSOF (Doc.
10
60), Exh. “1” at ¶ 15. Plaintiff further asserts that “Lt. Greene discouraged and told [her]
11
12
not to volunteer to respond to calls where male Tucson Fire Department personnel were
13
likely to be present[,] because he was concerned [that she] might flirt with them.” Id.,
14
Exh. “1” at ¶ 14. Plaintiff states that if she did not follow Lt. Greene’s instructions
15
“sufficiently to his liking, he would become angry and call or text [her] and angrily call
16
17
18
19
[her] vulgar names, usually some variation of ‘fucking whore’ or ‘cunt’ and other nasty,
sexually related slurs.” Id., Exh. “1” at ¶ 16. Plaintiff claims that she first became aware
of Lt. Greene’s jealousy and temper ten (10) days after she first dated him in February
20
21
2009, when he berated her for what he believed was a ‘date,’ but what was really a
22
birthday dinner with her parents. Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), Middleton Depo. 12/15/2016
23
(Exh. “A”) at 8:9–21.
24
25
In June 2009, Plaintiff states that she was swimming with Lt. Greene at his home
26
and he wanted to engage in sex, which Plaintiff declined. Pl.’s SSOF (Doc. 54), Exh. “1”
27
at ¶ 17. Plaintiff asserts that Lt. Greene “became enraged and threw a deck chair against
28
a patio pillar, damaging the pillar.”
Id.
Plaintiff states that she “went inside [Lt.
-4-
1
2
Greene’s] house to get [her] things and leave[,] [and] Lt. Greene confronted [her] and
blocked the exit door in the laundry room [she] was trying to use to leave.” Id. Plaintiff
3
4
5
6
further states that when she tried to leave, Lt. Greene “grabbed and tore and ripped the
tank top [she] was wearing, exposing [her] breasts[,] [and] . . . punched a hole through a
wooden back door.” Id. Plaintiff asserts that she was too afraid to report this incident to
7
8
TPD, because she feared what Lt. Greene would do in retaliation. Id. Plaintiff also states
9
that “[o]n another occasion[,] early in [their] relationship[,] . . . Lt. Greene . . . threw a
10
pointed tipped bottle opener toward [Plaintiff] and it stuck in the wall behind [her.]” Pl.’s
11
12
SSOF (Doc. 60), Exh. “1” at ¶ 18. Plaintiff states that she “stayed in a relationship with
13
Lt. Greene . . . because [she] . . . hop[ed] [it] was an isolated incident[,] and because [she]
14
was scared of how he might react if [she] tried to end the relationship.” Id., Exh. “1” at ¶
15
19.
16
17
18
19
B.
The 2009 Incident and Investigation
On December 4, 2009, Plaintiff and Lt. Greene were involved in a verbal
altercation which escalated to a physical fight while off-duty at Lt. Greene’s home.
20
21
Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), TPD Personnel Rpt. Re: Office of Internal Affairs (“OIA”) Case
22
No. 09-0853 (Exh. “C”) at Bates No. 471COT0063. “Both parties sustained physical
23
injuries.”4 Id., Exh. “C” at Bates Nos. 471COT0059, 471COT0073. Plaintiff objects to
24
25
26
27
28
any suggestion that she and Lt. Greene “were equally ‘involved’ in the argument and
domestic violence assault” on this date. Pl.’s SSOF (Doc. 60) at 1. Plaintiff maintains
4
Plaintiff objects to this statement of fact; however, it is a direct quote from the TPD
Personnel Reports. Furthermore, whether or not both parties sustained injury is not material to
the fact of the December, 2009 incident’s occurrence or Plaintiff’s position that she was a victim.
-5-
1
2
that Lt. Greene was the sole aggressor and that she was the victim. Pl.’s SSOF (Doc. 60),
Middleton Decl. 4/25/2017 (Exh. “1”) at ¶¶ 23–24.
3
1. Plaintiff’s Statement
4
5
6
Plaintiff states that on December 4, 2009, she had gone to Lt. Greene’s “house in
the evening to socialize and decided later to leave without engaging in sex.” Pl.’s SSOF
7
8
(Doc. 60), Exh. “1” at ¶ 23. Plaintiff further states that “Lt. Greene got angry and
9
accused [her] of lying about the last time [she] had seen an old boyfriend.” Id. Plaintiff
10
further asserts that “Lt. Greene became enraged and would not let [her] leave[,]” despite
11
12
her insistence and attempts to do so. Id. Plaintiff “picked up [her] duffel bag containing
13
[her] uniform and duty belt and slung it across [her] shoulder, Lt. Greene grabbed the
14
strap and used it to violently pull [her] down on the bed in his bedroom.” Id. The force
15
of this action “caused bruising on [Plaintiff’s] shoulder and chest,” which were
16
17
18
19
photographed the following day by TPD Office of Internal Affairs investigators. Id.
Defendant asserts that “[t]he bruises were from [Plaintiff’s] heavy equipment bag getting
tangled up while she was getting up and down[,] and that Greene did not hit her or grab
20
21
the bag.” Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54) at ¶ 40(a) (citing Middleton Interview, Case No. 09-0853
22
(Exh. “C”) at 47:2–48:23 (Bates Nos. 471COT0536–471COT0537).
23
characterizes this statement as “a partial and seriously misleading excerpt of Ms.
24
25
Plaintiff
Middleton’s testimony to IA investigators.”5 Pl.’s SOF (Doc. 60) at 3:12–13. During her
26
interview, Plaintiff stated “I don’t even remember if he grabbed the bag or if he like
27
grabbed the bag and pushed the bag and I went with the bag because it probably weighed
28
5
The Court agrees that this is only a partial and somewhat misleading statement.
-6-
1
2
more than I do[.]” Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), Exh. “C” at Bates No. 471COT0536:25–28.
Further, at the start of the interview, Plaintiff explained that she “kept picking up [her]
3
4
5
6
bag, which had, cuz I had all my work stuff cuz I came right over there from work and so
it was full and so he pulled it and then fell on the bed[,] [a]nd then every time [Plaintiff]
[got] up, he’d pull it and it’d rip and then, cuz the, the strap kept grinding on my arm[.]”
7
8
Pl.’s SSOF (Doc. 60), OIA Case No. 09-0853, Middleton Interview (Exh. “3”) at Bates
9
No. AM010:23–31. Plaintiff stated that Lt. Greene “wasn’t holding [her] down[,] . . . but
10
every time[,] uh, I would try to get up, I’d be pushed back down.” Pl.’s SSOF (Doc. 60),
11
12
Exh. “3” at Bates No. AM016:22–28.
Plaintiff agreed with the interviewer’s
13
paraphrasing of Plaintiff’s description as Lt. Greene “[s]watting [her] down as soon as
14
[she] tried to get up[.]” Id., Exh. “3” at Bates No. AM016:39–41. Later in the interview,
15
Plaintiff explained that her bag “kept flying down[,] [a]nd so it was pinching so freaking
16
17
18
19
bad right there[,] . . . the whole thing ended up getting twisted because I get on the bed,
and I’d like wrap around and then I’d get back up and it just kept making this huge
freaking knot around my arm.”
Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), Exh. “C” at Bates No.
20
21
471COT0537. Plaintiff went on, “So every fucking time I fell back on the bed, it[, the
22
bag and strap,] just got, kept getting tighter.”6 Id. Plaintiff further asserts that Lt. Greene
23
threw a boot at her, and as she continued to try to leave, “grabbed the butt grip of my
24
25
holstered duty pistol and said, “Are you scared now?” Pl.’s SSOF (Doc. 60), Middleton
26
27
28
6
Plaintiff cites to Page 49 of her interview in OIA Case No. 09-0853 regarding Lt.
Greene pushing her onto the bed; however, this page was not included in any of the exhibits. As
such, the Court cannot assess the veracity of Plaintiff’s statement regarding statements on that
page, and relies only on the cited pages it has reviewed.
-7-
1
2
Decl. (Exh. “1”) at ¶ 25. Plaintiff states that “[a]fter that statement, Lt. Greene snapped
out of his rage and became apologetic, stating how sorry he was.” Id., Exh. “1” at ¶ 26.
3
4
5
6
Plaintiff also asserts that “[t]his became a regular pattern during [their] relationship, with
Lt. Greene becoming angry with [her] and making physical threats of harming [Plaintiff]
or [her] family, and then becoming apologetic.” Id. After Plaintiff left Lt. Greene’s
7
8
house she “stopped in a parking lot for a while just to stop shaking[,]” and then called Lt.
9
Greene who asked her to come back to his house, which she did. Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54),
10
OIA Case No. 09-0853, Middleton Interview (Exh. “C”) at Bates Nos. 471COT0516:33–
11
12
13
14
15
471COT0517:3.
2. Lt. Greene’s Version
Lt. Greene told investigators that the argument was just verbal, never became
loud, and he “told [Plaintiff] to pick up her stuff and go if she needed to go[,] so she
16
17
18
19
packed up and left and then she came back about a half hour later and we went to bed.”
Pl.’s SSOF (Doc. 60), OIA Case No. 09-0853, Greene Interview (Exh. “4”) at Bates No.
AM313. Lt. Greene later told investigators that Plaintiff initiated the first physical
20
21
contact which resulted in her bruises, then as he tried to break off her attack she grabbed
22
his finger. See Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), Exh. “K” at Bates No. AM161. Lt. Greene also
23
stated that a bruise inside of Plaintiff’s upper left arm came from him trapping her arm
24
25
against her body when she put her hand on her gun.
Id., Exh. “K” at Bates No.
26
AM162:1–42. Lt. Greene further asserted that Plaintiff tried to hit him with her car when
27
she left his house. Id., Exh. “K” at Bates No. AM165:21–36. Lt. Greene also alleged
28
-8-
1
2
that Plaintiff asked him to kill two of her former boyfriends. See id., Exh. “K” at Bates.
Nos. AM166–AM167.
3
3. Investigation Outcome
4
5
6
Initially, this incident was investigated as possible criminal misconduct involving
domestic violence/assault. Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), Exh. “C” at Bates No. 471COT0055.
7
8
As outlined above, precisely how the fight took place and its escalation are described
9
differently by each party. Id., Exh. “C” at Bates No. 471COT0063. Neither Plaintiff nor
10
Lt. Greene reported the incident to their respective supervisors. Id., Exh. “C” at Bates
11
12
Nos. 471COT0059, 471COT0073. Plaintiff did, however, tell a friend about what had
13
occurred, and the friend reported the incident to TPD OIA. Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54),
14
Middleton Depo. 12/15/2016 (Exh. “B”) 13:8–14:11; see also Exh. “C” at Bates No.
15
471COT0055.
OIA interviewed both Plaintiff and Lt. Greene, and obtained other
16
17
18
19
evidence.
Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), Exh. “C” at Bates Nos. 471COT0055–56,
471COT0059, 471COT0063, 471COT0073.
Plaintiff told investigators that she did not believe that this sort of incident would
20
21
happen again.
Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), Exh. “C” at Bates No. 471COT0496:20–26.
22
Plaintiff also stated that investigators wouldn’t “find anybody more honest” than Lt.
23
Greene and that his “honesty is impeccable.”
24
25
Id., Exh. “C” at Bates Nos.
471COT0500:11–18, 471COT0501:23–26. During the investigation, Plaintiff indicated
26
that she was not trying to minimize anything or protect Lt. Greene. Def.’s SOF (Doc.
27
54), Exh. “C” at Bates Nos. 471COT0509:20–471COT0510:14.
28
-9-
Lt. Greene told
1
2
investigators that Plaintiff was always portraying herself as a victim. Def.’s SOF (Doc.
54), OIA Case No. 09-0853, Greene Interview (Exh. “K”) at Bates No. AM153:1.
3
4
5
6
Plaintiff further stated that she kept Lt. Greene informed about what she was
doing, and that was more her thing than his. Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), Exh. “C” at Bates
No. 471COT0513:17–37. Plaintiff also explained that allowing Lt. Greene to see her
7
8
phone or answer it was her idea, and not because he wanted to check up on her. Id., Exh.
9
“C” at Bates No. 471COT0526:21–37. Lt. Greene characterized Plaintiff as jealous of
10
other women and insistent that he keep her informed of what he was doing. Def.’s SOF
11
12
13
14
15
(Doc. 54), Exh “K” at Bates No. AM153:19–42.
The case was reviewed by the City prosecutors who declined to file criminal
charges against either of the parties.
Id., Exh. “C” at Bates Nos. 471COT0059,
471COT0073. Plaintiff and Lt. Greene were admonished not to discuss the matter
16
17
18
19
pending the OIA investigation. Id., Exh. “C” at Bates Nos. 471COT0059, 471COT0073.
Plaintiff text messaged Lt. Greene and discussed the investigation, as well as discussed
the incident with a coworker. Id., Exh. “C” at Bates No. 471COT0059. She was
20
21
suspended for twenty (20) hours. Id. Lt. Greene “text messaged an unidentified and
22
unauthorized person with the intention of directing that person not to cooperate with
23
investigators if contacted by the Office of Internal Affairs.” Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), Exh.
24
25
“C” at Bates No. 471COT0073 (quotations omitted); see also Pl.’s SSOF (Doc. 60), TPD
26
Personnel Rpt. (Exh. “2”) at Bates No. AM008. Lt. Greene was given a thirty (30) hour
27
suspension. Id. Plaintiff later admitted that she tried to minimize Lt. Greene’s conduct
28
because of their continuing relationship, as well as her fear about how he would react to
- 10 -
1
2
her providing information regarding the incident to the OIA. Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54),
Middleton Depo. 12/14/2016 (Exh. “A”) at 12:23–14:6; Pl.’s SSOF (Doc. 60), Middleton
3
4
5
6
Decl. 4/25/2017 (Exh. “1”) at ¶¶ 27–28.
C.
Reactions to the 2009 Incident and Investigation
While the 2009 Internal Affairs investigation was pending, Sergeant Pete Trusko,
7
8
one of Plaintiff’s supervisors, told Plaintiff that she needed to be careful because she now
9
“had a target on her back” as a result of having complained about Lt. Greene. Pl.’s SOF
10
(Doc. 60), Middleton Decl. 4/25/2017 (Exh. “1”) at ¶ 35. Plaintiff states that she found
11
12
this statement “scary and distressing,” because it came from a supervisor. Id. Moreover,
13
the statement discouraged Plaintiff from complaining further about Lt. Greene’s conduct,
14
because she felt she would be “targeted” for reporting any concerns. Id. Sgt. Trusko also
15
told Plaintiff that he was being pressured by more senior supervisors to “keep a close eye
16
17
18
19
on” and watch Plaintiff, because of her involvement in initiating a potentially serious
Internal Affairs investigation against a senior member of the command staff. Pl.’s SSOF
(Doc. 60), Exh. “1” at ¶ 36.
20
21
Plaintiff asserts that she felt like she “was being punished for having told Internal
22
Affairs that Lt. Green had assaulted [her], and [she] was surprised at how little discipline
23
Lt. Greene received given the findings of the Internal Affairs investigators about
24
25
domestic violence and witness tampering.” Id., Exh. “1” at ¶ 39. As a result of the
26
investigation and the statements by Sgt. Trusko, Plaintiff felt it would be pointless to
27
lodge complaints about Lt. Greene’s continuing harassing conduct toward her. Id., Exh.
28
“1” at ¶ 40.
- 11 -
1
2
D.
Lt. Greene’s Post-2009 Treatment of Plaintiff
Beginning in 2009, Lt. Greene insisted that Officer Middleton not wear makeup
3
4
5
6
while on duty; she wear her hair modestly, in a tight bun; she dye her hair a darker shade
instead of blonde; and wear sunglasses to cover her eyes.
Pl.’s SSOF (Doc. 60),
Middleton Decl. 4/25/2017 (Exh. “1”) at ¶ 44. Regarding Lt. Greene’s insistence that
7
8
Plaintiff wear sunglasses while on duty, because he did not want her looking at male
9
officers with her “come fuck me eyes,” Plaintiff asserts that Lt. Greene’s statement made
10
her feel humiliated and objectified as a sex object, not a professional police officer. Id.,
11
12
Exh. “1” at ¶ 45. Plaintiff states that Lt. Greene also repeatedly said that the only reason
13
she would wear makeup would be to attract other guys so she could sleep with them. Id.,
14
Exh. “1” at ¶ 46. Plaintiff also asserts that Lt. Greene insisted that she be speaking with
15
him on his cellular telephone as she entered daily, pre-shift squad briefings, so that he
16
17
18
19
could know that she was not speaking with other mostly male officers and so that male
fellow officers would know she was speaking with him. Id., Exh. “1” at ¶ 51.
As Plaintiff’s relationship with Lt. Greene continued in 2010, he increasingly
20
21
monitored what she was doing while on duty and questioned her about every detail of her
22
patrol shifts. Pl.’s SSOF (Doc. 60), Middleton Decl. 4/25/2017 (Exh. “1”) at ¶ 42.
23
Plaintiff stated that Lt. Greene would become jealous, suspicious, and often angry about
24
25
an interaction she had with male TPD officers or male Tucson Fire Department (“TFD”)
26
personnel. Id., Exh. “1” at ¶ 43. Plaintiff asserts that while she was on duty, Lt. Greene
27
would call her a cunt, whore, or other variations thereof, and accuse Plaintiff of wanting
28
to “whore around” with male officers and TFD personnel. Id., Exh. “1” at ¶ 46. Lt.
- 12 -
1
2
Greene would call Plaintiff names via text message, in person, and by phone. Id., Exh.
“1” at ¶ 48. Plaintiff further asserts that this vulgar and sexually accusing language while
3
4
5
6
she was on duty was humiliating, often made her feel physically ill, and interfered with
her ability to perform her patrol duties. Id.
Plaintiff recounts one occasion on which Lt. Greene called her while she was on
7
8
duty and said that he had driven past her in her patrol car and could see that she had
9
“slapped on a shit ton of makeup” and that she was “all done up for the guys.” Pl.’s
10
SSOF (Doc. 60), Exh. “1” at ¶ 49. When Plaintiff told Lt. Greene that she was not
11
12
wearing any make up, he demanded that she prove it by sending him a picture of her face.
13
Id. Plaintiff felt like Lt. Greene was following her during her patrol shift, and was scared
14
and physically intimidated. Id. Plaintiff further asserts that Lt. Greene would call or text
15
message her, demanding to know where she was and what she was doing in order to
16
17
18
19
ensure that she was not around male officers. Id., Exh. “1” at ¶ 50. Lt. Greene would ask
Plaintiff to send pictures of her locations to prove her whereabouts. Id.
Plaintiff believes that Lt. Greene was regularly monitoring her patrol activities,
20
21
because he would rather ask her things that he could only know if he were monitoring her
22
on-duty activities. Pl.’s SSOF (Doc. 60), Exh. “1” at ¶ 52. Plaintiff further states that
23
from 2009 through 2012, if she did not affirmatively keep Lt. Greene informed of her
24
25
location and actions, he would regularly get angry and accuse her of flirting with male
26
officers, “whoring around,” or having “fuck buddies.” Id., Exh. “1” at ¶ 53. Plaintiff
27
provides the following examples of Lt. Greene’s treatment of her while she was on duty:
28
- 13 -
1
2
a) In later 2009, Plaintiff discovered an elderly man with memory problems
seemingly lost in a park, and helped have him returned to his family. TPD
3
4
5
6
issued a department-wide commendation congratulating her on her actions. In
response, Lt. Greene called Plaintiff, belittling her, referring to her as a
“fucking attention grabbing whore” and using other profanity and vulgarities;
7
8
b) In approximately May 2010, Lt. Greene called Plaintiff immediately after she
9
had been dispatched to respond to a nearby car accident scene where there
10
were male TFD personnel on scene, and said, “you fucking cock juggling
11
12
13
14
15
whore, you jumped all over that call,” insinuating that Plaintiff had responded
to the call only to flirt with TFD personnel;
c) In approximately October 2012, Plaintiff apprehended an armed robbery
suspect and was then assigned to transport the arrest suspect to the main
16
17
18
19
downtown police station. Lt. Greene again accused her of being a “fucking
attention seeking whore” and of having wanted to take the suspect downtown
because she wanted to “go shake [her] ass” in front of male officers and
20
21
22
23
24
25
command staff at the main station;
d) Regarding performing pat downs on male suspects for weapons, Lt. Greene
told Plaintiff that he knew “how [she] like[d] to grab their cocks”;
e) As part of prisoner transport duty, Plaintiff was holding a handcuffed male
26
suspect by the arm and escorting him into the downtown police station through
27
the parking garage, when she noticed Lt. Greene parked nearby in his City-
28
assigned unmarked car. Lt. Greene “peeled out” as he drove away and later
- 14 -
1
2
told Plaintiff that “it was nice to see [her] arm [in] arm” with the suspect and
that they looked like a “happy couple”;
3
4
5
6
f) Plaintiff was assigned to prisoner transport duty with Christina Davis, another
female officer, and Lt. Greene told Plaintiff that he did not want her riding
along with Officer Davis, because he thought Officer Davis was “such a
7
8
fucking whore”;
9
g) In late 2011 or early 2012, Lt. Greene looked up the photo and information
10
about a fellow male officer, John Collamore, with whom Plaintiff had worked
11
12
13
14
15
on a call. After the call, Lt. Greene telephone Plaintiff to ask if Officer
Collamore’s blue eyes “made her wet”;
h) In or about September 2012, Plaintiff was on a patrol shift and parked her
squad car at a Circle K to use the restroom.
When she came out, she
16
17
18
19
encountered two (2) male TFD personnel and exchanged small talk about a
call. The following day, Lt. Greene confronted Plaintiff and demanded to
know why she was not wearing sunglasses when she approached and spoke
20
21
22
23
24
25
with the TFD personnel.
Pl.’s SSOF (Doc. 60), Exh. “1” at ¶ 54.
Over time, Lt. Greene’s conduct degraded from sexually discriminatory verbal
abuse to increasingly frequent threats of physical violence.
Id., Exh. “1” at ¶ 55.
26
Plaintiff alleges that Lt. Greene made statements about wanting to shove his fist down her
27
throat, and told her that if she tried to leave him he would bash in her face and shoot her
28
if he saw her again. Id. In or about August 2012, Lt. Greene told Plaintiff that he would
- 15 -
1
2
“put [her] in a grave so [she] could rot like [she] deserved[,]” because she had been on a
call where numerous male officers and command staff had responded to assist. Id., Exh.
3
4
5
6
“1” at ¶ 57. Plaintiff also alleges that Lt. Greene made threats against her elementary
school aged daughter if Plaintiff ended their relationship. Id., Exh. “1” at ¶ 73. Plaintiff
further alleges that Lt. Greene appeared at crime scenes or incident locations where
7
8
Plaintiff was working, despite not having a legitimate police related business reason to be
9
there. Pl.’s SSOF (Doc. 60), Exh. “1” at ¶ 56. Plaintiff asserts that Lt. Greene’s
10
statements and conduct toward her, while she was on duty and about her actions while on
11
12
duty, caused her to feel fear, threatened, beaten down, trapped, depressed, and defeated.
13
Id., Exh. “1” at ¶ 58. This conduct also resulted in Plaintiff suffering weight loss, trouble
14
sleeping, and physical illness. Id., Exh. “1” at ¶ 63. Plaintiff began seeing a psychologist
15
in 2010 in an effort to help her deal with the emotional distress and anxiety stemming
16
17
18
19
from her relationship with Lt. Greene. Id., Exh. “1” at ¶ 62. During 2010 through 2012,
Plaintiff would take leave from work due to her depression and illness arising from her
relationship with Lt. Greene. Id., Exh. “1’ at ¶ 61.
20
21
Plaintiff states that later in her relationship with Lt. Greene, there were times when
22
she just parked her patrol car while on duty and did not seek out or respond to calls,
23
because Plaintiff was afraid of what Lt. Greene’s reaction would be if she did something
24
25
that he did not like or failed to keep him informed of her activities. Pl.’s SSOF (Doc. 60),
26
Exh. “1” at ¶ 59. Plaintiff was also afraid to respond to calls involving TFD personnel or
27
certain male TPD officers. Id., Exh. “1” at ¶ 60. Plaintiff further alleges that other male
28
officers avoided her because of their fear of crossing Lt. Greene. Id., Exh. “1” at ¶ 67.
- 16 -
1
Plaintiff’s father was also employed at TPD and held the rank of Lieutenant at the
2
time she was employed, until his retirement in June 2009.7 See Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54),
3
4
5
6
Middleton Depo. 12/15/2016 (Exh. “B”) at 17:2–8; Pl.’s SSOF (Doc. 60), Exh. “1” at ¶
69. Plaintiff’s father was very popular in the police department. Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54),
Exh. “B” at 17:20–18:9. Plaintiff overheard a conversation between her father and
7
8
Captain Mike Gillooly, in which Gillooly warned that Plaintiff staying in a relationship
9
with Lt. Greene would ruin her career. Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), Exh. “B” at 23:7–17,
10
28:25–29:25; see also Pl.’s SSOF (Doc. 60), Exh. “1” at ¶ 69. Middleton further stated
11
12
that she was often warned by people at TPD to stay away from Lt. Greene, because of his
13
temper and because he hated the world. See Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), Exh. “B” at 21:1–
14
22:5, 34:14–35:6, 93:14–95:22.
15
In 2011, a fellow officer on prison transfer and
Plaintiff’s sergeant advised her to get out of the relationship when Lt. Greene was
16
17
18
19
overheard mistreating her on a telephone call.8 Id., Exh. “B” at 47:11–49:13.
Plaintiff admits that no one at TPD other than Lt. Greene told her that she would
gain or lose any employment benefit by staying in a sexual relationship with Lt. Greene.
20
21
Id., Exh. “B” at 22:16–24:20. At no point during her employment did anyone from
22
TPD’s supervisory or command staff approach Plaintiff outside of an Internal Affairs
23
investigation and ask her about Lt. Greene’s conduct toward her as it related to her work
24
25
26
27
28
7
Plaintiff’s declaration indicates that her father was a Captain; however, her Separate
Statement of Facts, as well as Defendant’s Statement of Facts, places his rank as a Lieutenant.
Plaintiff’s father’s precise rank is immaterial.
8
Defendant’s SOF further states that Plaintiff did not expect the sergeant to interfere with
her private consensual relationship, but that is not an accurate portrayal of Plaintiff’s complete
response. Although she answers “no” to that question, she goes on to say that “[i]t really didn’t
become that private when it was so involved with work . . . [s]o[,] in a sense[,] it really wasn’t
private anymore.” Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), Exh. “B” at 5–22.
- 17 -
1
2
duties or performance. Pl.’s SSOF (Doc. 60), Exh. “1” at ¶ 70. Plaintiff asserts that no
one from Internal Affairs or any other City department took her concerns regarding Lt.
3
4
5
6
Greene’s conduct toward her seriously, nor were there any investigations. Id., Exh. “1”
at ¶ 66. Plaintiff further asserts that she did not formally report Lt. Greene’s history of
verbal abuse to TPD management or the City’s Equal Employment Office (“EEO”),
7
8
9
10
11
12
because she was too afraid of Lt. Greene to do so. Id., Exh. “1” at ¶ 75.
E.
The May 2010 Investigation
In May 2010, Plaintiff was investigated by OIA for failing to respond to a radio
call for assistance from another officer, Pierre De La Ossa. See Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54),
13
OIA Case No. 10-0363, Middleton Interview (Exh. “D”). Plaintiff stated that she did not
14
respond to the radio call due to issues with her force commander and that she did not feel
15
comfortable around Officer De La Ossa. Id., Exh. “D” at Bates Nos. 471COT2981:28–
16
17
18
19
471COT2982:38. Plaintiff further acknowledged that she needed to put her feelings
about Officer De La Ossa aside while working.
Id., Exh. “D” at Bates No.
471COT2982:29–38. Plaintiff stated that Lt. Greene did not dictate what she did on the
20
21
job, did not contact people to interfere with her job performance, nor did she believe that,
22
in light of his character, Lt. Greene had or would contact someone and question them
23
about what they had said about her on the job.
24
25
Id., Exh. “D” at Bates Nos.
471COT2982:40–471COT2983:14, 471COT2987:4–23.
26
Plaintiff indicated that she was just parking her patrol car while on duty and not
27
responding to calls for assistance due to the stress of the investigation of the December
28
2009 incident, and not due to her personal relationships. Id., Exh. “D” at Bates Nos.
- 18 -
1
2
471COT2987:25–471COT2989:7. Plaintiff further indicated that these issues would not
continue in the future, and that there was nothing else that she wanted to say regarding
3
4
5
6
the situation. Id., Exh. “D” at Bates No. 471COT2990:9–40.
F.
Plaintiff’s 2011 Complaint
In January 2011, Plaintiff filed a Personnel Report with her sergeant alleging that
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Officer Pierre De La Ossa was involved in vandalizing her car and making anonymous
telephone calls to harass her. Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), OIA Case No. 11-0030, TPD
Investigation Summ. Rpt. (Exh. “E”) at Bates No. 471COT0634.
Plaintiff further
indicated that she did not have proof regarding who was responsible, but suspected
Officer De La Ossa’s involvement. Id.
G.
The 2012 Incidents
1. The Trout Incidents
16
17
18
19
In May 2012, Plaintiff thought that Lt. Greene was having a romantic relationship
with another woman. Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), OIA Case No 12-0508, TPD Investigation
Rpt. (Exh. “F”) at Bates No. 471COT2064. Plaintiff obtained a license plate for Sabian
20
21
Trout, the person she believed Lt. Greene to be seeing, and asked Officer Rudy
22
Dominguez to use the police computer network to obtain confidential information
23
regarding Ms. Trout. Id., Exh. “F” at Bates Nos. 471COT2064, 471COT2164. Plaintiff
24
25
26
27
28
lied to Officer Dominguez about the reason she needed the license plate information, so
that he would believe her request was for police business. Id.
On November 15, 2012, Ms. Trout filed an OIA complaint against Plaintiff.
Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), Exh. “F” at Bates No. 471COT2062 & OIA Case No. 12-0532,
- 19 -
1
2
TPD Investigation (Exh. “H”) at Bates No. 471COT0704. Ms. Trout reported that she
had received several calls from a restricted number which she did not answer, as well as
3
4
5
6
calls from a restricted number which when she answered Plaintiff was on the line. Id.,
Exh. “F” at Bates No. 471COT2062 & Exh. “H” at Bates No. 471COT0704. In the
second call that Ms. Trout answered, Ms. Trout described Plaintiff as “out of control,
7
8
belligerent, insulting, using profanity, and calling her names.” Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54),
9
Exh. “H” at Bates No. 471COT0704 (internal quotations omitted); see also Exh. “F” at
10
Bates No. 471COT2062. Ms. Trout further reported that Lt. Greene had told her that
11
12
Plaintiff knew Ms. Trout’s last name and date of birth. Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), Exh. “H”
13
at Bates No. 471COT0704. Ms. Trout also stated that this information made her so
14
scared that she could not sleep the previous night. Id. Ms. Trout stated that Lt. Greene
15
also informed her that Plaintiff had sent him a text message revealing that she knew
16
17
18
19
where Ms. Trout worked. Id. Ms. Trout believed that the only way Plaintiff could have
obtained this information was from checking her license plate on confidential police
networks. Id. Ms. Trout was worried that Plaintiff would follow her or physically harm
20
21
her. Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), Exh. “F” at Bates No. 471COT2062.
22
On June 12, 2013, Ms. Trout sought an Injunction Against Harassment as to
23
Plaintiff based upon the allegations that on June 6, 2013, “Ms. Middleton beat on the
24
25
26
doors and windows of a residence I was visiting with a pipe,” calling Ms. Trout obscene
names and demanding that she come out.9 Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), Pima County Justice
27
9
28
Defendant refers to a Protective Order; however, Ms. Trout checked the box seeking an
Injunction Against Harassment not an Order of Protection.
- 20 -
1
2
Court Case No. CV13013508, Petition for Injunction Against Harassment (Exh. “K”) at
Bates Nos. AM146–AM148. In her petition, Ms. Trout indicated that those encouraging
3
4
5
her to seek an injunction believed Plaintiff was a danger to Ms. Trout and that Ms.
Trout’s life may be in jeopardy because of Plaintiff’s threatening behavior.10 Id.
6
2. The Hause Incidents
7
8
9
10
11
12
In November 2012, Plaintiff thought Lt. Greene was having a romantic
relationship with another woman, Valerie Hause. Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), Exh. “F” at
Bates Nos. 471COT2063.
Plaintiff again asked another officer to obtain personal
identification information for her personal purposes.
Id., Exh. “F” at Bates No.
13
471COT2064, 471COT2170. She did not disclose that it was for personal reasons, and
14
believed that the officer thought it was for official business. Id., Exh. “F” at Bates No.
15
471COT2064. Plaintiff also asked Communications Supervisor Paul Liams to run Ms.
16
17
18
19
Hause’s license plate, and lied to him about why she needed the information.
Id.
Plaintiff stated that she knew what she had done was wrong. Id.
Between November 25 and 28, 2012, Plaintiff made several calls to Ms. Hause.11
20
21
Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), Exh. “F” at Bates No. 471COT2063. Ms. Hause reported to OIA
22
that she was becoming uneasy about the telephone calls from Plaintiff. Id. Ms. Hause
23
agreed to return a call to Plaintiff from the OIA office with police monitoring their
24
25
26
27
28
10
Defendant attributes these beliefs to Ms. Trout; however, the petition attributes these
fears to those encouraging her to seek an injunction.
11
Defendant characterizes Plaintiff’s calls to Ms. Hause as “harassing.” See Def.’s SOF
(Doc. 54) at ¶ 23. Plaintiff objects to this characterization. See Pl.’s SSOF (Doc. 60) at 3 &
Middleton Decl. 4/25/2017 (Exh. “1”) at ¶ 92. For purposes of this motion, it is only relevant
that Plaintiff called Ms. Hause on more than one occasion, which is undisputed.
- 21 -
1
2
conversation. Id. During Ms. Hause’s subsequent telephone conversation with Plaintiff,
Plaintiff would not reveal how she had obtained Ms. Hause’s identification information.
3
4
5
Id. Additionally, one of the statements by Plaintiff was difficult for investigators to
discern, and was interpreted as a possible threat towards Ms. Trout. Id.
6
3. The End of Plaintiff’s Relationship with Lt. Greene
7
8
In November 2012, Plaintiff finally ended her relationship with Lt. Greene. Pl.’s
9
SSOF (Doc. 60), Middleton Decl. 4/25/2017 (Exh. “1”) at ¶ 74. Plaintiff asserts that after
10
November 2012, she found any communication from Lt. Greene to be offensive and
11
12
intimidating. Id., Exh. “1” at ¶ 80. Plaintiff alleges that Lt. Greene continued to contact
13
her in 2013, with text messages including asking whether she was married or gotten any
14
more tattoos; saying Happy Valentine’s Day; and wishing her a Happy Mother’s Day.
15
Id., Exh. “1” at ¶ 82. Plaintiff further alleges that in February or March 2013, Lt. Greene
16
17
18
19
text messaged her lyrics from a song apparently relevant to their relationship, as well as a
message later in March 2013 about hearing a song at the gym which made him sad. Id.,
Exh. “1” at ¶¶ 83, 89. In June 2013, Plaintiff sought an Order of Protection against Lt.
20
21
Greene, which was granted. Pl.’s SSOF (Doc. 60), Exh. “1” at ¶ 91.
22
H.
23
The police computer network used to obtain the identification of Ms. Trout and
24
25
TPD Computer Policy
Ms. Hause was to be used for official police business only, and was not to be used for
26
personal reasons. Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), TPD Info. Sec. Agreement (Exh. “G”) at Bates
27
No. 471COT0051. TPD provided its Information Security Agreement to Plaintiff shortly
28
after she was hired, and which she signed acknowledging her receipt and understanding
- 22 -
1
2
that access to the police information and data networks was for official use only and that
access for unauthorized purposes was prohibited. Id. Plaintiff also acknowledged that
3
4
5
she knew a violation of these policies subjected her to criminal prosecution under
applicable state and federal law and discipline up to and including termination. Id.
6
I.
OIA Investigations into Plaintiff’s Actions
7
On November 15, 2012, OIA opened an administrative investigation into
8
9
Plaintiff’s misuse of confidential police computer information. See Def.’s SOF (Doc.
10
54), OIA Case No. 12-0508, TPD Investigation Rpt. (Exh. “F”). On November 25, 2012,
11
12
OIA opened a criminal investigation of Plaintiff’s misuse of confidential computer
13
information. See Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), OIA Case No. 12-0532, TPD Investigation (Exh.
14
“H”).
15
On November 28, 2012, during the monitored telephone conversation between
16
17
18
19
Ms. Hause and Plaintiff, the decision was made to make immediate contact with Plaintiff
regarding the ongoing investigation. Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), Exh. “F” at Bates No.
471COT2063. OIA officers contacted Plaintiff through her mother and ordered her to
20
21
meet them at her mother’s home. Id., Exh. “F” at Bates No. 471COT2064. When
22
Plaintiff arrived at her mother’s home, “she pulled sharply into her mother’s driveway,
23
quickly turned her car off, and exited her vehicle.” Id. Plaintiff then removed her
24
25
daughter from the back seat. Id. The officers smelled intoxicants on Plaintiff’s person.
26
Id. The officers then accompanied Plaintiff to her residence to retrieve her credentials
27
and weapon. Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), Exh. “F” at Bates No. 471COT2064. While at
28
Plaintiff’s home, the reporting officer indicated that she appeared unsteady on her feet.
- 23 -
1
2
Id. OIA requested Oro Valley Police assistance to perform a DUI investigation of
Plaintiff. Id. The Oro Valley Police did not pursue criminal DUI charges. Id.
3
4
5
6
On November 29, 2012, Plaintiff was placed on imposed administrative leave with
pay. Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), City of Tucson Personnel Action Request (Exh. “G”) at
Bates No. 471COT0006. Plaintiff did not report any physical or verbal abuse by Lt.
7
8
Greene to TPD or otherwise inform her supervisors, TPD management, the City’s Office
9
of Equal Opportunity or any other City department or division about any physical verbal
10
abuse by Greene other than her statements as a witness/subject in the investigation of the
11
12
December 2009 altercation until after she had been placed on administrative leave.
13
Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), Middleton Depo. 12/15/2016 (Exh. “B”) at 106:8–109:18, 116:5–
14
23, 118:3–119:5. Plaintiff does not have any personal knowledge of anything that Lt.
15
Greene did to influence her employment after she was placed on administrative leave.
16
17
18
19
Id., Exh. “B” at 76:1–9. Plaintiff alleges that Lt. Greene continued to text her while she
was on leave, but still employed with TPD. Pl.’s SSOF (Doc. 60), Middleton Decl.
4/25/2017 (Exh. “1”) at ¶¶ 79–86. Plaintiff further asserts that these messages were
20
21
unwelcome. See id.
22
On February 4, 2013, Plaintiff’s attorney Noah J. Van Amburg wrote a letter to
23
TPD Chief Villasenor regarding Plaintiff’s pending investigation and administrative
24
25
action. Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), OIA Case No. 13-0113, Investigation Summ. Rpt. (Exh.
26
“I”) at Bates Nos. 471COT0648–471COT0650. Mr. Van Amburg asked TPD to consider
27
Lt. Greene’s conduct towards Plaintiff as mitigating factors in her pending misuse of
28
confidential information investigation. Id. Mr. Van Amburg further alleged that Lt.
- 24 -
1
2
Greene monitored Plaintiff’s daily work activities, confronted her about working with
other males, appeared at crime scenes where she was working without a reason to be
3
4
5
there, had previously threatened to use his position in TPD to get Plaintiff fired and
forced her to conceal physical abuse perpetrated by him. Id.
6
OIA opened an investigation based upon the allegations in Mr. Van Amburg’s
7
8
February 2013 letter. Id., Exh. “I” at Bates No. 471COT0647. OIA interviewed Plaintiff
9
and Detective Pierre De La Ossa as part of its investigation. Id. There was no indication
10
that Lt. Greene was ever questioned or interviewed. See id. OIA concluded that there
11
12
13
14
15
were no violations of TPD policies. Id. On March 4, 2013, OIA closed its investigation.
Id.
J.
Plaintiff’s Criminal Case and Resignation
On March 28, 2013, OIA provided information from the criminal investigation to
16
17
18
19
the Pima County Attorney’s Office. Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), OIA Case No. 12-0532, TPD
Investigation (Exh. “H”) at Bates No. 471COT0703. On May 31, 2013, Plaintiff was
indicted by a Pima County Grand Jury on three (3) felony charges of computer tampering
20
21
22
23
24
25
in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2316(A). Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), Arizona Superior Court,
Pima County, Case No. CR20132259-001, Direct Indictment (Exh. “J”).
On June 13, 2013, Plaintiff resigned from TPD effective immediately. Def.’s SOF
(Doc. 54), TPD Personnel Rpt. (Exh. “J”) at Bates No. 471COT1841. Prior to her
26
resignation, Plaintiff was aware of her May 31, 2013 indictment. Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54),
27
Middleton Depo. 12/15/2016 (Exh. “B”) at 91:17–92:13. On June 14, 2013, Plaintiff was
28
arraigned on the three (3) felony charges. See Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), Arizona Superior
- 25 -
1
Court, Pima County, Case No. CR20132259-001, Minute Entry 6/7/2013 at Bates No.
2
471COT1521–471COT1522.12
On August 6, 2013, pursuant to a plea agreement,
3
4
5
6
Plaintiff pled guilty to two (2) counts of computer tampering which were classified as
class six undesignated offenses. See Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), Arizona Superior Court, Pima
County, Case No. CR20132259-001, Minute Entry 8/6/2013 (Exh. “J”) at Bates No.
7
8
9
10
471COT1523. On December 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed a charge with the Arizona Civil
Rights Division (“ACRD”) that the City had violated Title VII. Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54),
Charge of Discrimination (Exh. “J”) at Bates Nos. 471COT1483–471COT1484.
11
12
K.
Other Individuals Investigated Regarding Misuse of Police Computers
13
Since 2006, OIA has received complaints and investigate thirteen (13) cases,
14
including Plaintiff’s, involving charges that a TPD employee misused confidential police
15
computer data for non-law enforcement reasons. Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), Ramirez Decl.
16
17
18
19
(Exh. “N”) at ¶ 4. Of the thirteen (13) cases, seven (7) involved male, and six (6)
involved female, employees. Id., Exh. “N” at ¶¶ 5–6. Eight (8) of the employees were
terminated or resigned, including five (5) males and three (3) females. Id. Four of the
20
21
22
employees were prosecuted by the Pima County Attorney’s Office, including two (2)
males and two (2) females. Id.
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
This Minute Entry only reflects a continuance of Plaintiff’s arraignment until June 14,
2013. A review of the state court docket, however, indicates that Plaintiff’s initial appearance
proceeded on June 14, 2013. “The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to
reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial
jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot
reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). The docket sheet of the Arizona Superior
Court, Pima County, is proper material for judicial notice. See Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest
Service, 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 n. 3 (taking judicial notice of the docket from a proceeding before
another tribunal).
- 26 -
1
2
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
3
4
5
6
Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the facts in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255,
106 S.Ct. 2505, 2513, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986), “there is no genuine issue as to any
7
8
material fact and [] the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.
9
R. Civ. P. 56(c). A fact is “material” if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the
10
governing law,” and a dispute is “genuine” if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury
11
12
could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at
13
2510. Thus, factual disputes that have no bearing on the outcome of a suit are irrelevant
14
to the consideration of a motion for summary judgment. Id. In order to withstand a
15
motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must show “specific facts showing
16
17
18
19
that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106
S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Moreover, a “mere scintilla of evidence” does
not preclude the entry of summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. at
20
21
2512. The United States Supreme Court also recognized that “[w]hen opposing parties
22
tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no
23
reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for
24
25
26
purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372,
380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 1776, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007).
27
28
- 27 -
1
2
III.
ANALYSIS
At oral argument, Plaintiff conceded that her claims for quid pro quo sexual
3
4
5
6
harassment, disparate treatment, and retaliation are barred by the statute of limitations.
As such, the only claims currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s hostile work
environment and constructive discharge claims.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
A.
Sexual Harassment—Hostile Work Environment
1. Hostile Work Environment—In General
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that:
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to
discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms,
conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for
employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any
individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his
status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion,
sex, or national origin.
19
20
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). “Sexual harassment falls into two major categories: hostile work
21
environment and quid pro quo.” Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 923 (9th
22
Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). “A hostile work environment claim involves a workplace
23
atmosphere so discriminatory and abusive that it unreasonably interferes with the job
24
25
performance of those harassed.” Id. A quid pro quo claim occurs “where a supervisor
26
demands sexual favors in return for a job benefit.” Id.
27
28
- 28 -
1
2
To establish “a prima facie case of hostile work environment, a person must show
that: (1) she was subjected to verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, (2) this
3
4
5
6
conduct was unwelcome, and (3) the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter
the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.”
Craig v. M & O Agencies, Inc., 496 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007) (quotations and
7
8
citations omitted). Further, Plaintiff must show that her “workplace [was] permeated
9
with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult . . . that is sufficiently severe or
10
pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create and abusive
11
12
working environment.” Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S.Ct. 367,
13
370, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993) (quotations and citations omitted). The conduct must create
14
an objectively hostile or abusive work environment, and the victim must subjectively
15
perceive the environment to be abusive in order to implicate Title VII. Id. at 21–22, 114
16
17
18
19
S.Ct. at 370.
“Objective hostility is determined by examining the totality of the
circumstances and whether a reasonable person with the same characteristics as the
victim would perceive the workplace as hostile.” Craig, 496 F.3d at 1055 (citations
20
21
omitted). Subjective hostility requires a showing that the employee “perceived her work
22
environment to be hostile, and that a reasonable person in her position would perceive it
23
to be so.” Dominguez-Curry v. Nevada Transp. Dept., 424 F.3d 1027, 1034 (9th Cir.
24
25
2005) (citations omitted).
26
The Ninth Circuit recognizes that “an employer may be held liable for sexual
27
harassment on the part of a private individual . . . where the employer either ratifies or
28
acquiesces in the harassment by not taking immediate and/or corrective actions when it
- 29 -
1
2
knew or should have known of the conduct.” Folkerson v. Circus Circus Enterprises,
Inc., 107 F.3d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Little v. Windermere Relocation, Inc.,
3
4
5
6
301 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2002). Moreover, “when no tangible employment action is taken,
. . . the employer may raise an affirmative defense to liability, subject to proof by a
preponderance of the evidence[.]” Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129,
7
8
137, 124 S.Ct. 2342, 2349 (2004). “The defense comprises two necessary elements: (a)
9
that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually
10
harassing behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take
11
12
13
14
15
advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to
avoid harm otherwise.” Id. (citations omitted); see also Craig, 496 F.3d at 1055.
2. Statute of Limitations
On December 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed a charge that the City violated Title VII
16
17
18
19
with the Arizona Civil Rights Division. Def.’s SOF (Doc. 54), Exh. “J” at Bates No.
471COT1483–471COT1484. “Section 2000e-5(e)(1) requires that a Title VII plaintiff
file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) either 180
20
21
or 300 days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.” National R.R.
22
Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 104–05, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 2068 (2002) (internal
23
quotations omitted). Based upon the filing date of December 20, 2013, the limitations
24
25
period began the 300 days prior on February 24, 2013. See id.
26
Plaintiff correctly points out that unlike discrete acts, hostile environment claims
27
by “their very nature involve[] repeated conduct.” Id. at 115, 122 S.Ct. at 2073 (citations
28
omitted). As such, “[t]he ‘unlawful employment practice’ . . . cannot be said to occur on
- 30 -
1
2
any particular day.” Id. Hostile environment claims “occur[] over a series of days or
perhaps years and, in direct contrast to discrete acts, a single act of harassment may not
3
4
5
6
be actionable on its own.” Id. (citations omitted). Accordingly, “[p]rovided that an act
contributing to the claim occurs within the filing period, the entire time period of the
hostile environment may be considered by a court for the purposes of determining
7
8
liability.” National R.R. Passenger Corp., 536 U.S. at 117, 122 S.Ct. at 2074.
9
Here, Plaintiff has alleged an ongoing pattern of harassment by Lt. Greene. It is
10
undisputed, however, that Plaintiff was placed on administrative leave in November
11
12
2012. Even accepting that Plaintiff has established the first two criteria of a prima facie
13
case for hostile work environment—she was subjected to verbal or physical conduct of a
14
sexual nature, and this conduct was unwelcome—once she is on leave any contact from
15
Lt. Greene cannot alter the conditions of her employment and create an abusive working
16
17
18
19
environment. As such, any harassment suffered by Plaintiff after February 2013 cannot
be an act contributing to her claim. The Court is constrained by the law, and therefore
must grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s hostile work
20
21
environment claim.
22
B.
23
“The constructive-discharge doctrine contemplates a situation in which an
24
25
Constructive Discharge
employer discriminates against an employee to the point such that [her] ‘working
26
conditions become so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee’s position
27
would have felt compelled to resign.’”
28
Green v. Brennan, 136 S.Ct. 1769 (2016)
(quoting Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129, 141, 124 S.Ct. 2342, 2351,
- 31 -
1
2
159 L.Ed.2d 204 (2004)). To establish a claim for constructive discharge “[a] plaintiff
must prove first that [s]he was discriminated against by [her] employer to the point where
3
4
5
6
a reasonable person in [her] position would have felt compelled to resign[,] . . . [b]ut
[s]he must also show that [s]he actually resigned. Green, 136 S.Ct. at 1777 (citations
omitted).
7
In this case, Plaintiff was placed on leave in November 2012 pending an Internal
8
9
Affairs investigation and subsequent criminal charges for abusing the TPD computer
10
system. While the facts Plaintiff alleges regarding Lt. Greene might support a denial of
11
12
summary judgment prior to November 2012, once she is investigated and indicted no
13
reasonable person could find that her resignation was because of discrimination. A
14
criminal indictment is fatal to a career in law enforcement. Moreover, the investigation
15
and indictment did not arise from the discrimination of any member of TPD, but from
16
17
18
19
Plaintiff’s own choices. Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment as to
constructive discharge.
IV.
CONCLUSION
20
For the reasons discussed, supra, Defendant City of Tucson’s Motion for
21
22
Summary Judgment (Doc. 53) should be granted.
23
24
25
26
27
V.
RECOMMENDATION
The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Judge enter an order
GRANTING Defendant City of Tucson’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 53).
28
- 32 -
1
2
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '636(b) and Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, any party may serve and file written objections within fourteen (14) days after
3
4
5
6
being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to
another party=s objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). No replies shall be filed unless leave is granted from the District
7
8
9
10
Judge. If objections are filed, the parties should use the following case number: CV-150185-TUC-JGZ.
Failure to file timely objections to any factual or legal determination of the
11
12
13
Magistrate Judge may result in waiver of the right of review.
Dated this 17th day of July, 2017.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 33 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?