Guy v. City of Phoenix, CIV-83-2240 PHX. WPC.

• Decision Date: 05 May 1987
• Docket Number: No. CIV-83-2240 PHX. WPC.,CIV-83-2240 PHX. WPC.
• Parties: Calvin L. GUY, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF PHOENIX, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Arizona

668 F. Supp. 1342

Calvin L. GUY, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF PHOENIX, et al., Defendants.

No. CIV-83-2240 PHX. WPC.

United States District Court, D. Arizona.

May 5, 1987.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Donald Harris, Phoenix, Ariz., and Fred Pain, Jr., Scottsdale, Ariz., for plaintiff.

Richard S. Cohen, Lewis & Roca, Phoenix, Ariz., for defendants.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT

COPPLE, District Judge.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. This proceeding involves an action alleging discriminatory conduct in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1983, intentional infliction of emotional distress and conspiracy.

2. This action was originally filed on October 13, 1983 in the Arizona Superior Court, and defendants removed it to this Court on the basis that it involved federal statutes, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1983. This Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

3. The plaintiff, Calvin Guy, is a black former police officer for the City of Phoenix Police Department.

4. The defendants are (1) the employer, the City of Phoenix, a municipal corporation; (2) seven supervisors for the City of Phoenix Police Department—Capts. Ralph Eckert and G.J. Kurtenbach, Lts. Jerry Mulleneaux and Tim Black, and Sgts. Richard P. Elsby, Carl Richardson and Phil Garrigan; and (3) five of the plaintiff's former co-workers, Charles Glisson, John Vredenburg, Ron Bevins, Ron Enos and Jay Thomson; and the various defendants' spouses.

5. Prior to the trial of this matter, Guy voluntarily dismissed his claims against another of his fellow co-workers in the Phoenix Police Department, Clark Carlson.

6. Guy was employed in the Phoenix Police Department from December 5, 1966 until September 30, 1983, when he obtained an accidental disability retirement based upon degenerative disc problems. His last assignment prior to his retirement was as a burglary detective in the South Mountain Police Station Precinct. He worked there from July 1979 until his retirement in 1983. Until 1980 plaintiff had a brilliant career with the department. He was American Legion Officer of the Year once and received numerous awards and commendations.

7. The burglary detail consisted of approximately ten to fifteen detectives who worked together with other personnel in a room at the South Mountain Precinct.

8. During all times relevant to this lawsuit, there were approximately 230 sworn and non-sworn employees at the South Mountain Precinct under the command of a Captain.

9. The precinct is manned 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. There are three eight-hour shifts which are staggered so that there is overlap between the shifts.

10. While the detectives, including the plaintiff, all had desks in the same room, the plaintiff's sergeants, the lieutenants, and captains had individual offices outside that room; the captain's office generally was located in a separate building on that property.

11. From the time that Calvin Guy transferred into the burglary detail until January 3, 1982, his immediate supervisor was Sgt. Richard Elsby.

12. On January 4, 1982, defendant Sgt. Richardson was assigned to the burglary detail where he served until January 13, 1985. From January 4, 1982 until March 22, 1982, Richardson was Guy's immediate supervisor.

13. On January 20, 1981, defendant Phil Garrigan was assigned to the South Mountain Precinct as a patrol sergeant. He was assigned as a second sergeant to the burglary detail on March 22, 1982 and was Guy's immediate supervisor for the remainder of time that Guy served at the South Mountain Precinct.

14. Defendant Capt. Ralph Eckert served as captain at the South Mountain Precinct, including the burglary detail, from May 5, 1980 through October 19, 1981.

15. Defendant Capt. G. Kurtenbach served as captain at South Mountain Precinct, including the burglary detail, from October 26, 1981 for the remainder of time that Guy served at the South Mountain Precinct.

16. Defendant Jerry Mulleneaux served as lieutenant of the burglary detail at the South Mountain Precinct from October 17, 1980 to December 6, 1981.

17. Defendant Timothy Black was assigned as a lieutenant at the South Mountain Precinct on December 21, 1981. He served as lieutenant of the burglary detail from August 9, 1982 for the remainder of time that Guy served at the South Mountain Precinct.

18. Defendant Ron Bevins, a co-worker, served as a detective in the burglary detail from July 9, 1979 through September 4, 1983.

19. Defendant Ron Enos, a co-worker, served as a detective in the burglary detail from July 9, 1979 through September 6, 1982.

20. Defendant Charles Glissen, a co-worker, served as a detective in the burglary detail from July 9, 1979 through February 28, 1982.

21. Defendant J. Thomson, a co-worker, served as a detective in the burglary detail from March 31, 1980 through April 11, 1982.

22. Defendant John Vrendenburg, a co-worker, served as a detective in the burglary detail from August 9, 1982 through September 4, 1983.

23. This lawsuit does not constitute the first time that plaintiff has made claims of racial discrimination in connection with his employment. In the mid-1970's, at a time when he was a member of the Arizona National Guard, Guy also lodged a racial discrimination charge against the Guard for, among other items, a failure to be considered for selection for a flight leader position harassment by his sergeant, "prejudiced and biased" investigations, and other conduct by the Guard.

24. On July 16, 1979, the Office of Human Resources of the Army and Air Force National Guard Bureau concluded that Guy's allegations of racial discrimination had not been substantiated. Shortly thereafter, Guy resigned from the Guard.

25. During 1978-1979, at the same time that the National Guard investigation was ongoing, the plaintiff sought counselling at the South Phoenix Community Mental Health Center due to great stress. The medical records from that period identify Guy as being generally unable to cope with daily environmental pressures, subject to delusional thinking, lapses of memory, and in need of long-term counselling. Guy was also described as someone who felt persecuted and generally taken advantage of, who had become depressed and withdrawn, and who had developed ideas of persecution about his experiences with the National Guard.

26. The medical testimony at trial confirmed that the general condition of this paranoid personality disorder, and Guy's physical complaints of nausea, inability to sleep, headaches, delusions, loss of memory, and so forth, have essentially remained unchanged since 1978-79 27. Guy transferred to the South Mountain Precinct in late July 1979, within one week of the National Guard's decision adverse to him.

28. Six months after his transfer to the South Mountain Precinct, Guy was involved in an on-duty accident with defendant Ron Enos on January 11, 1980.

29. After the 1980 accident, Guy frequently began to call in sick and regularly take sick leave. This continued, and in fact increased substantially in 1982 and up to the time of Guy's retirement in 1983.

30. Periodically after his accident Guy applied for temporary compensation benefits with the State Compensation Fund. He would then return to work, after being released for full duty status as a police officer.

31. About that same time, a number of pranks and practical jokes occurred in the burglary detail office. These included such things as the making of plastic name labels which were placed on the officers' chairs; entering of false log entries in the burglary detail's copy of the "Exceptional Incident Log Book"; tampering with the detectives' chairs so they would tip over when the unsuspecting detective sat in it; paging detectives with phony telephone calls; and other similar behavior.

32. Guy claims that these numerous instances of pranks were a concerted effort to discriminate against him on the basis of his race. Testimony by Guy himself, the co-worker defendants and other neutral witnesses at trial establishes, however, that virtually all workers in the burglary detail were subject to these same and similar pranks and practical jokes. Moreover, pranks of this nature occur in other precincts to officers of all races.

33. Further, the evidence at trial did not establish that any of Guy's supervisors were invovled in the pranks or joking or that they had any knowledge that the overwhelming majority of these pranks were occurring. Guy's own testimony established that whenever he did complain to his supervisors about the joking, action was taken to stop the horseplay. Thus, for example, when Guy complained to Sgt. Elsby about the label makers tags, Sgt. Elsby immediately addressed the squad and had the labelmaker locked up and signed out. After Elsby left and some pranks continued, defendant Sgt. Richardson, upon seeing same, put a final stop to it.

34. Guy specifically considered a few of these pranks and jokes to be "racial" in nature. For example, he claims he was identified on a party list as the individual who would bring "watermelons and pork rinds and stuff." The testimony of numerous officers indicated, however, that these pranks did not even occur.

35. Furthermore, even to the extent that these events may have occurred, they were isolated and sporadic. Most were not malicious, intentional racial descrimination, many were. Further, at no time prior to filing his discrimination claim with the city EEO on January 21, 1983, did Guy ever complain to any of his supervisors or anyone else that any pranks or other jokes constituted racial harassment or racial discrimination.

36. The officers at the South Mountain Precinct, when dealing with black suspects, would sometimes call them "nigger." Guy, his co-worker defendants and all neutral witnesses also testified, however, that no one had ever used that term in addressing Guy or other black officers. The testimony showed that such language, when used, was...