Brickles v. Village of Phillipsburg, Ohio
| Decision Date | 10 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:18-cv-193 |
| Citation | 524 F.Supp.3d 775 |
| Parties | Tina BRICKLES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VILLAGE OF PHILLIPSBURG, OHIO, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
Douglas Dustin Brannon, Brannon & Associates, Bradley Dean Anderson, Rion, Rion & Rion, L.P.A., Inc., Dayton, OH, for Plaintiffs.
Mohammad Salman Shah, Gallagher Sharp LLP, Columbus, OH, for Defendant Justin W. Sanderson.
Justin W. Sanderson, Grafton, OH, Pro Se.
ENTRY AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS VILLAGE OF PHILLIPSBURG, OHIO AND MARK WYSONG'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pending before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 60) (the "Motion"), filed by Defendants Village of Phillipsburg, Ohio (the "Village") and Mark Wysong ("Wysong"). Defendant Justin W. Sanderson ("Sanderson") is not a party to the Motion, and claims arising under both federal and state law remain pending against Sanderson in this action. (See Docs. 15, 36.) In the Motion, the Village and Wysong move for an order granting summary judgment and dismissing with prejudice the remaining claims against them: the Sixth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Twenty-First, and Twenty-Fifth Claims for Relief.1 (Id. ; see also Doc. 36 ().) Plaintiffs Tina Brickles, Roger Brickles, and Kelsey Walker (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion (Doc. 64) (the "Opposition"). The Village and Wysong filed a Reply in support of the Motion. (Doc. 65.) The Motion is fully briefed and ripe for review. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
This case stems from the horrific actions that Sanderson allegedly took against Tina Brickles and Kelsey Walker while he was on duty as a police officer for the Village. At the time of the incidents in May and June of 2017, the Village had approximately four or five police officers, all of whom worked part-time (which typically meant one day a week) and all of whom also had full-time employment outside of their work as police officers for the Village. The Village has a population of approximately 575 residents, and its police department is housed in a single room within the Village's municipal building. Sanderson was working by himself at the time of the incidents.
At least for purposes of this Motion, it is undisputed that Sanderson raped Kelsey Walker in the Village municipal building after he pulled her over for speeding and that Sanderson sexually assaulted Tina Brickles both in her own home and in the Village municipal building after Sanderson detained her for a warrant. Sanderson is now serving a 43-year prison sentence after being found guilty in state court of several criminal charges (including rape, sexual battery, and kidnapping), some of which relate to allegations in the Complaint in this matter. (See Docs. 6, 8, 9, 12, 13.) Sanderson's (alleged) acts describe a nightmarish situation for Ms. Brickles and Ms. Walker, and such acts are reprehensible and abhorrent. However, the Motion presently before the Court concerns only the potential liability of the Village and/or Wysong for inadequate screening under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (" Section 1983"), for discriminatory practices in public accommodation under Ohio Revised Code ("O.R.C.") § 4112.02(G), and for loss of consortium.
From approximately 2007 to 2013, Sanderson was employed at the Montgomery County Juvenile Detention Center. He became a control room operator there, but was disciplined on multiple occasions for various misconduct, including accessing pornographic websites while on duty (for which he was suspended), allowing a male to enter the female housing unit in violation of facility policies, and leaving his post on multiple occasions for extended periods of time.
In or around March of 2014, Sanderson enrolled at the Dayton Police Academy. At the academy, Sanderson was involved in misconduct, including asking a female recruit and another male recruit if they were "making love" during a training exercise. Sanderson failed to meet the academy's attendance requirements and was not allowed to become an officer for the Dayton Police Department. However, he was eligible to serve as a police officer, having completed the necessary requirements.
In or around October of 2014, the Grandview Medical Center Police Department hired Sanderson as a police officer. The department had conducted a pre-employment investigation of Sanderson. While an officer with the Grandview Medical Center Police Department, Sanderson was accused of, and investigated for, misconduct, including taking a photograph of his erect penis and exhibiting the photograph to female nursing staff members and making contact with a known prostitute. According to a letter he received from the security director, Sanderson's employment was suspended under the hospital's conduct and discipline policy for violating the health network's conduct and discipline policy and harassment free workplace policy. While still under investigation, and within three months of being hired, Sanderson resigned his position.
In or around June of 2015, Sanderson was hired as a security officer at G4S Secure Solutions USA ("G4S"). He applied for a job there and was interviewed by Wysong, a senior area supervisor with G4S at the time. Wysong did not contact any of Sanderson's listed prior employers, nor did anyone from G4S's Dayton office. However, G4S did create a "Background Screening Report," which showed that G4S had contacted Sanderson's prior employers and personal references and that Sanderson had cleared a separate criminal background check with G4S (as well as a drug test). In terms of bad conduct, the G4S "Background Screening Report" merely indicated some traffic violations. The background check performed by G4S was not for a law enforcement position. Sanderson worked for G4S as a certified protection officer at the Dayton Metro Library, a position that did not involve carrying a firearm, handcuffs, or a taser.
In or around October of 2015, Sanderson submitted an application for a position with the Village. He did so based on a conversation in which Wysong had mentioned to Sanderson that he could apply for a police officer position with the Village in order to maintain his officer certification. In addition to working full-time for G4S (which he did during all times relevant to this lawsuit), Wysong is the Village's police chief and has held that position since 1996. Sanderson had told Wysong about having gone through the Dayton Police Academy but being unable to be hired by the Dayton Police Department because he failed to meet attendance requirements. Wysong was also aware Sanderson had recently been promoted by G4S and that Sanderson was married and had children.
When asked "who is it that is in charge of, basically, screening, interviewing, hiring an officer for the village," Wysong testified that he is. (Doc. 60-1 at PAGEID # 597.) The Village's normal hiring process consisted of several steps. Once Wysong received an application for employment, he would review it and determine whether to schedule an interview with the applicant. If an interview was scheduled, then he would meet with the applicant at the Village municipal building. During the interview, Wysong would find out the applicant's interests and why the applicant applied for the position. After the interview, if he decided that he wanted to offer the applicant an "opportunity," then Wysong would initiate a "background process" that included sending out employment and personal reference forms as well as conducting a criminal background check and driver's license screening of the applicant. (Id. at PAGEID # 598-99.) If appropriate, after completion of the background process, Wysong would introduce the applicant at the next Village council meeting and make a recommendation to the mayor to bring the applicant onto the department for the standard one-year probationary period. This was the custom and practice that Wysong followed as Chief of the Village's police department.
However, Wysong admitted that he did not completely follow that process when it came to Sanderson. Specifically, Wysong did not send out the standard employment verification forms or personal reference forms that would go to prior employers, but he otherwise followed the process. He did not speak to anyone that Sanderson had worked for before, nor did he speak to any personal references of Sanderson or anyone that Sanderson knew. He also did not do anything, himself, to investigate Sanderson's conduct at past employers. And, Wysong, alone, had conducted Sanderson's interview for the position.
Prior to Sanderson's hiring by the Village, Wysong had reviewed Sanderson's personal file with G4S, which included the G4S "Background Screening Report" (referenced above) that had been generated approximately five months earlier. Also, the personal references listed in Sanderson's application for employment with the Village were the same as the personal references previously contacted by G4S per the "Background Screening Report." Additionally, Wysong had submitted a criminal background check and driver's license screening for Sanderson, which showed only traffic infractions.
On his application, Sanderson (1) claimed to have left the Grandview Medical Center Police Department "to become a deputy and wanted less hours," (2) indicated that he had completed his training at the Dayton Police Academy but was not hired—despite the academy generally only allowing recruits that it plans to hire for the Dayton Police Department to enroll; and (3) falsely answered "NO" to the question "Have you ever been asked (or given the opportunity to resign) from any employment position," despite what had occurred with the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial