Arnold v. The city of Columbus
| Decision Date | 31 March 2011 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:08-cv-0031 |
| Parties | Yolanda Arnold, Plaintiff, v. The City of Columbus, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
OPINION AND ORDER
This is an employment discrimination and retaliation case brought by an officer with the Columbus Division of Fire, and arising in large part out of a series of investigations that were conducted into allegations of wrongdoing within the Columbus Division of Fire's Fire Prevention Bureau. Plaintiff asserts that she was discriminated against on the basis of her race, retaliated against for complaining of discrimination, and subjected to a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"), and Ohio Revised Code § 4112.02. Plaintiff also asserts that she was retaliated against for engaging in speech protected by the First Amendment, and that Defendant violated her right to equal protection as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Finally, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant portrayed her in a false light, spoliated evidence, and destroyed public records in violation of Ohio law. Defendant moves for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims. Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 81. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendant's summary judgment motion.
Plaintiff, Yolanda Arnold, ("Plaintiff") is an African-American female who was employed as a Battalion Chief by the Columbus Division of Fire. Plaintiff brings this action against the City of Columbus ("Defendant" or the "City"), which operates the Columbus Division of Fire ("CDF").
The chain of command within the CDF, in descending order of seniority, is as follows: Assistant Chief ("AC"), Battalion Chief ("BC"), Captain ("Capt."), Lieutenant ("Lt."), Firefighters. Above the level of Assistant Chief are two positions, the Executive Officer ("XO"), second in command to the Fire Chief, and the Fire Chief, the highest ranking position in the CDF. The Safety Director for the City of Columbus ("Safety Director") is the administrative head for the CDF, as well as for the Division of Police and Support Services.
Plaintiff was first hired by the CDF as a firefighter on March 28, 1983, and was the first African-American female to be promoted to the rank of Lieutenant, Captain, and Battalion Chief. Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 4, 6, ECF No. 71. In September 2002, Plaintiff was assigned to the Fire Prevention Bureau ("FPB") as Battalion Chief. Pl.'s Corrected Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. ("memorandum in opposition" or "Pl.'s Mem. Opp'n") Page ID #5015, ECF No. 153. The FPB is one of five Bureaus of the CDF, and, in turn, is divided into three sections: Investigation (which includes Arson),Inspection (which includes Plans Review), and Community Relations. As Battalion Chief in the FPB, Plaintiff was responsible for the day-to-day operations of all sections of that Bureau. Pl.'s Mem. Opp'n Page ID #5012, 5015. She reported to an Assistant Chief, who had overall responsibility for the Bureau. Id. at Page ID #5012. Plaintiff first reported to AC Gregory Paxton ("Paxton"), the head of the FPB from October 2002 to May 2005, and then to AC Karry Ellis ("Ellis").
A. The events leading to Plaintiff's suit
Plaintiff's claims in this action arise primarily from three investigations the CDF initiated in 2004 and 2005 involving the FPB and, more specifically, the FPB's Inspection section. Three related cases are also currently before this Court, in which the plaintiff's, also members of the FPB, bring similar claims of race (or race association) discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, First and Fourth Amendment violations, and invasion of privacy, based largely on those investigations.2Most of the firefighters in the FPB Inspection section are African-American. Pl.'s Mem. Opp'n Page ID #5013. According to Plaintiff, the FPB Inspection section is the only department in the CDF that is staffed almost exclusively with African-American officers. Id.
The investigations at issue began in August 2004, and concern allegations that FPB inspectors missed scheduled building inspections. CDF and the Columbus Department of Development, Building Services ("Building Services") conduct building inspections in conjunction with each other. CDF's inspections are based on the FireCode and Building Services' inspections are based on the Building Code. Building Services schedules the inspections, and then notifies the FPB of the appointment times. According to Plaintiff, there is conflict between the two entities; or, as she puts it, "Building Services [has] a longstanding beef with the [FPB] inspectors." Pl.'s Mem. Opp'n Page ID #5028 n.12.
In August 2004, Paxton and Plaintiff received an email from a lieutenant in the FPB, Lt. Randal Daum, that "CDF [was] not being informed of all inspections" scheduled by Building Services. Id. at Page ID #5027; Email from R. Daum to Y. Arnold and G. Paxton dated Aug. 2, 2004, ECF No. 125-10. According to Paxton, he also was made aware in August 2004 of two specific instances of "missed inspections—one by Inspector Virgil Moore, and one by Inspector Melvin Hoston." Paxton Aff. ¶ 3, ECF No. 81-1. Paxton replied to Lt. Daum's concerns by stating that he would "be meeting with [Joe Busch, of Building Services] [that] week," and would "bring the issue up." Email from G Paxton to Y. Arnold and R. Daum dated Aug. 3, 2004, ECF No. 125-10. In their meeting, Busch informed Paxton that there were "considerably more than two missed inspections." Paxton Aff. 3, ECF No. 81-1. More specifically, when Paxton stated that he was aware of two missed inspections, Busch "started to laugh and said it was more like 42 missed inspections." CDP Informational Investigative Report, at Page ID #2988, ECF No. 125-27. According to Paxton, his discussion with Busch "also suggested the possibility" that the FPB inspectors were paid overtime for conducting inspections that they actually missed. Paxton Aff. ¶ 3, ECF No. 81-1. Paxton informed XO Richard Braun ("Braun") of what he had been told by Busch and of the potential problems in the FPB. From there,Braun directed the CDF's Professional Standards Unit ("PSU") to investigate and report on the allegations of missed inspections (the "PSU investigation"). Additionally, in late 2004, Safety Director Mitchell Brown ("Brown") directed the Columbus Division of Police ("CDP") to conduct an investigation regarding the related, possibly criminal allegations that FPB inspectors received overtime for inspections that were not performed (the "CDP investigation").
Plaintiff agrees that the allegations were made and the investigations commenced as described above. She states, however, that the allegations were "baseless," and contends that Paxton essentially seized upon them as a "chance to discredit the Plaintiff inspectors." Pl.'s Mem. Opp'n Page ID #5017, 5028. According to Plaintiff, Paxton acted with racial animus, wrongfully "'call[ing]' for the [investigations] without doing a single bit of initial investigation himself," as "he ought to have done in his role [as] head of FPB and as an AC." Id. at Page ID #5028. She alleges that this was part of a plan Paxton had "with Building Services to get the FPB inspectors' department gutted," that is, to remove the FPB from the business of doing inspections. Id. at Page ID #5017, 5028.
The PSU investigation concluded in February 2005, and in May 2005, XO Braun presented his findings. Braun concluded that "there appears to have been a failure in the procedure to assign and follow up on inspections." Pettus Aff. 4 and Ex. 1, ECF No. 81-4. He recommended that "a quarterly review of the current system should be made with any appropriate changes made," and that "[i]nspectors should be spot checked to make sure that inspections are being done." Id. The CDP investigation concluded in March 2005 and did not find evidence of criminalwrongdoing. The allegations of missed inspections drew considerable media coverage and negative attention to the CDF.
On May 4, 2005, Plaintiff sent a memorandum to Chief Pettus entitled "Disparate Treatment and Policy Violations," in which, inter alia, she complained of disparate treatment, particularly on the part of Paxton and with regard to the allegations of missed inspections, and of Paxton's excessive absences from the office. Pl.'s Mem. Opp'n Page ID #5017; Mem. from Y. Arnold to N. Pettus dated May 4, 2005, ECF No. 126-18. Pettus had also observed "considerable conflict and hostility between different employees of FPB." Pettus Aff. ¶ 3, ECF No. 81-4. In particular, according to Pettus, Paxton and Plaintiff "the two highest ranking officers in FPB, appeared to be in fairly regular conflict." Id.
After receiving Plaintiff's memorandum, Pettus requested further investigation into the problems in the FPB, including the allegations of discrimination by Plaintiff. According to Pettus, he requested a third investigation because "[i]n light of the ongoing conflict in the FPB, the alleged missed inspections, and [Plaintiff's] claims of discrimination, [he] concluded that the PSU investigation had lacked the necessary scope and depth to adequately assess the potential problems and deficiencies that appeared to exist in FPB." Id. at ¶ 4. He therefore asked Brown, his boss, "to consider further investigation to assess and address the problems in FPB." Id. The City then contracted with a third party, labor law attorney Pamela Krivda ("Krivda"), to conduct an investigation regarding the allegations of missed inspections, and the allegations of conflict within the FPB, including Plaintiff's allegations of race and gender discrimination (the "Krivda investigation"). According to Plaintiff, such an investigationby a third party was "unprecedented." Pl.'s Mem. Opp'n Page ID #5017. Krivda completed the report of her investigation in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial