Brown v. City of Cincinnati

• Decision Date: 15 July 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:18-cv-412
• Parties: TAMERA BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CINCINNATI, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

TAMERA BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CINCINNATI, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-412

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

July 15, 2020

McFarland, J.

Litkovitz, M.J.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiffs Tamera Brown and Joy Ludgatis, City of Cincinnati police officers, bring this action against defendants City of Cincinnati, John Cranley, Danita Pettis, Patrick Duhaney, Harry Black, Eliot Isaac, and the Sentinel Police Association alleging claims of race and sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a), 2000e-3, and state law, as well as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1983. (Doc. 23).¹ This matter is before the Court on defendant Pettis's (in her individual capacity) motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 37) and plaintiffs' response in opposition (Doc. 43). This matter is also before the Court on defendants City of Cincinnati, Cranley, Black, Duhaney, Isaac, and Pettis's (in her official capacity) motion for judgment on the pleadings (collectively "the City defendants") (Doc. 38), plaintiffs' response in opposition (Doc. 45), and the City defendants' reply memorandum (Doc. 47).

I. Factual Allegations

The second amended complaint alleges the following facts. Plaintiff Tamera Brown is a white female police officer who has been employed by the City of Cincinnati for over 15 years. (Second Amended Complaint, Doc. 23 at ¶ 1). Plaintiff Joy Ludgatis is also a white female police officer and has been employed as a Police Specialist by the City of Cincinnati for over 27 years. (Id. at ¶ 2). Plaintiffs were directly supervised by defendant Danita Pettis, an African American female Police Lieutenant, who controlled discipline, work assignments, employee reviews and evaluations, and general working conditions. (Id. at ¶ 16). In addition to Pettis, defendants Cranley, Duhaney, Black, and Isaac also had control over discipline, work assignments, employee reviews and evaluations, and general working conditions. (Id. at ¶ 17).

A. 2017 Internal Complaints and Subsequent Investigation

On November 26, 2017, plaintiff Brown filed an internal complaint against Pettis with Captain Martin Mack and defendant Chief Isaac. (Id. at ¶ 40; Brown Internal Complaint, Doc. 23 at 42-43²). Plaintiff Brown's complaint referenced an incident ten days earlier on November 16, 2017, where Pettis did not release third shift officers in roll call to render assistance to white second shift officers involved in an incident where shots were fired ("shots-fired" incident). (Id. at ¶ 41). Plaintiff Brown wrote to Mack and Chief Isaac that she was "personally disturbed" by Pettis's "lack of action." (Doc. 23 at 42). Plaintiff Brown's internal complaint also referenced a later incident during roll call on November 24, 2017 where Pettis's "behavior was so hostile, demeaning, and unprofessional." (Doc. 23 at ¶ 42). According to Brown, Pettis addressed third shift officers during roll call and informed them that she did not care about their opinions and did not care what they had to say. (Doc. 23 at 42). Pettis also commented in plaintiff Ludgatis's absence that Ludgatis had no right to question her command decisions. (Id.). Pettis went on a "tirade" about the shots-fired incident and stated that no shots were fired at the second shift officers on November 16, 2017, contrary to Brown's belief. (Id.). Plaintiff Brown also wrote that she personally confided in Lt. Christopher Ruehmer about how Pettis handled the shots-fired incident, and he in turn alerted command staff, which sparked an investigation. (Id.). Plaintiff Brown wrote that she feared retaliatory actions from Pettis and requested to be removed from Pettis's supervision. (Id. at 43). That same day, on November 26, 2017, Sergeant Dan Hils visited District 4 during third shift roll call and advised officers present of their right to file complaints against Pettis for her "unprofessional, abusive, demeaning, and hostile conduct." (Doc. 23 at ¶ 43).

Thereafter, on November 28, 2017, plaintiff Ludgatis also filed an internal complaint, alleging that she was "subjected to humiliating, demeaning, and unprofessional verbal abuse by Pettis." (Doc. 23 at ¶ 44). Plaintiff Ludgatis wrote to Isaac and Mack that Pettis subjected her to a "hostile verbal assault" on November 22, 2017, after Pettis wrongly assumed that Ludgatis, not Brown, complained to command staff about the handling of the shots-fired incident. (Doc. 23 at 45). Ludgatis also wrote that she was the subject of "humiliating, demeaning, and unprofessional verbal abuse" by Pettis on November 22, 2017. Pettis specifically made comments on that day "belittling [Ludgatis's] contributions" as a desk officer and insinuating that she would not risk her personal safety for her fellow officers. (Id.). Ludgatis also described the same incident as Brown where Pettis made unprofessional comments in her absence during third shift roll call on November 24, 2017. (Id.).

On December 5, 2017, Executive Assistant Chief David Bailey informed Chief Isaac that the Internal Investigations Section (IIS) commenced an investigation due to internal complaints filed by Pettis³, Ludgatis, and Brown. (Doc. 23 at 48). Bailey described the purpose of the investigation as follows:

The incident stems from a decision made by Lieutenant Pettis relative to a firearm discharge situation at 1234 Myrtle Avenue on the evening on November 16, 2017. Based on the information received to date by CPD Administration, that decision received significant and vocalized dissent from several third shift officers. In particular, Police Officers Joy Ludgatis and Tamera Brown expressed extreme dissatisfaction with Lt. Pettis's decision and made numerous negative remarks about Lt. Pettis to other CPD staff on that topic.

On the evening of November 22, 2017, Lt. Pettis, in apparent reaction to those comments, made negative and discrediting comments about Officer Ludgatis in the third shift roll call while in the presence of other shift members and supervisors. Lt. Pettis allegedly conducted a similar roll call again on the evening of November 24, 2017, admonishing those critical of her leadership and decision making.

On November 26, the Fraternal Order of Police President Sergeant Dan Hils intervened and attended the District Four Third Shift roll call to address the incident. During his visit, Sergeant Hils made numerous negative comments about Lieutenant Pettis in personal and professional contexts, and he allegedly urged the shift to continue to question and oppose her leadership. Although the Internal investigation is only in its preliminary stages, the conduct exhibited by CPD personnel Pettis, Hils, Ludgatis, and Brown is deeply disappointing from a management perspective. First of all, as members of a highly regarded police agency, our members should epitomize conflict resolution and problem-solving abilities. Secondly, the conduct involves members at almost each rank of the third shift at District Four, which if allowed to continue, will undoubtedly adversely impact the third shift if not the entire district operation.

Due to the negative district-wide impact from this very unfortunate chain of events, it is clear that the potential negative consequences of this current confrontational environment must be minimized and any future incidents of this nature must be prevented. In the meantime, District Four must have the opportunity to recover and resume operations at peak efficiency. This can only occur if the three principal parties are transferred out of District Four and separated. It is therefore my recommendation that Lieutenant Danita Pettis, and Police Officers Joy Ludgatis and Tamera Brown be transferred to new assignments immediately, even while the remainder of the Internal investigation proceeds. At the conclusion of the IIS investigation, additional administrative actions may be warranted.

(Doc. 23 at 48-49). Plaintiffs were both transferred to other districts and shifts later in December 2017. (Doc. 23 at ¶ 48).⁴ According to plaintiffs, a report later generated as a result of the requested investigation found that "Pettis engaged in various misconduct, but the City failed to impose meaningful discipline or otherwise address the continuing racial tensions and hostile environment created by Pettis." (Id. at ¶ 50).⁵ Investigation documents attached to the second amended complaint show that Ludgatis and Brown were exonerated for allegedly pressuring others to sign complaints against Pettis. (Doc. 23 at 105-08). Pettis was exonerated from allegations made by Brown related to the shots-fired incident but received minor discipline for being discourteous at roll call and incidents related to the investigation. (Id. at 108-113).

B. Charges of Discrimination

In March 2018, plaintiffs filed charges of discrimination with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission ("OCRC"), alleging a hostile work environment based on race and sex, as well as retaliation. (Doc. 23 at 38-41). Plaintiff Brown's charge of discrimination alleges the following factual allegations:

I. I am Caucasian. I have been subjected to a hostile work environment by my supervisor, Lieutenant Danita Pettis, African American. On November 26, 2017, I filed a formal complaint. On November 28, 2017, LT Pettis filed a complaint against me. On December 16, 2017, I was transferred.

II. Management was aware of Lieutenant Pettis behavior toward Caucasian female Officers. Management transferred me only after Lieutenant Pettis filed an erroneous complaint against me.

(Doc. 23 at 38). Plaintiff Ludgatis's charge of discrimination alleges the following factual allegations:

I. On November 22, 2017, and November 24, 2017, I was verbally attacked and subjected to discriminatory treatment by Lt. Danita Pettis (Female) (African American) in the presence of coworkers because of my sex (Female) and race (Caucasian). During my employment, Lt. Danita

...