Butler v. Crittenden Cnty.
| Decision Date | 29 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:10CV00161 JLH,3:10CV00161 JLH |
| Parties | TABBY BUTLER PLAINTIFF v. CRITTENDEN COUNTY, ARKANSAS; R.E. BUSBY, individually, and in his official capacity as Crittenden County Sheriff; W.A. WREN, individually, and in his official capacity as Chief Enforcement Officer, Crittenden County Sheriff's Department; RODNEY STRONG, individually, and in his official capacity as Supervisor, Crittenden County Sheriff's Department DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
Tabby Butler is a former employee of the Crittenden County Jail who was suspended and later discharged. Butler now asserts race discrimination claims for unlawful suspension and unlawful discharge; sex discrimination claims for unlawful suspension, unlawful discharge, and harassment; retaliation claims for violations of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment; claims for other violations of her procedural and substantive due process rights; and claims alleging a civil conspiracy to commit race and sex discrimination. She brings these claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.1 Butler also alleges a state-law claim pursuant to the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993, a state-law claim for the tort of outrage, and a state-law claim for discharge in violation of public policy.
The defendants have moved for summary judgment, arguing both that Butler's claims are barred because she did not file suit within ninety days of receiving a right-to-sue letter, as required by Title VII, and that Butler's claims fail on the merits as a matter of law. In response to the limitations issue, Butler explains that she did not base her Complaint on Title VII violations but, instead, on 42 U.S.C. § 1981, § 1983, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. She also contends that she has presented evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact on each of her claims.
For the following reasons, the defendants' motion for summary judgment will be granted.
On December 18, 2000, Butler began working as a deputy jailer in the Crittenden County jail. In August of 2008, Rodney Strong became one of her supervisors. Butler testified in her deposition that Strong began harassing her "by asking her on dates, offering her money, questioning her about her personal life, offering to pay for her lunch, and inviting her to his home for dinner." Butler rejected Strong's advances. She told him that she was not interested, to leave her alone, to quit asking her out, and that she did not like him. All told, Strong asked her out about thirty to forty times. Butler also testified that Strong never touched her in any inappropriate manner.
Butler attaches a part of the jail's log book in which, on September 30, 2008, she documented that Strong and another officer visited a hospital where a juvenile inmate was being treated. A few months earlier, another jailer had filed an "Unusual or Special Incident Report" in which he recounted that the juvenile's mother had called and stated that the juvenile had run off, that Strong had come over to her house to do some work, and that Strong noticed the juvenile there but told the mother to let her come back later that night. On October 1, 2008, Strong suspended Butler for threedays without pay for insubordination, unsatisfactory behavior, and "writing statements that are detrimental about [her] supervisor in the pod log book[.]" The defendants offer testimony that Butler was suspended because she failed to follow orders to write only necessary information in the log books and, instead, made references to "God and Jesus and things about the kids' personal home life and things about the staff as far as saying people were against her."
Theresa Bonner, the Chief Jailer, testified that, when she called Butler to inform her of the suspension on October 1, 2008, Butler complained that Strong had acted in an inappropriate manner towards her. Bonner testified that she asked Butler to submit a written complaint when she returned to work from suspension.2 Bonner testified that when she finished her telephone call with Butler, she informed Zane Boyd, a jail administrator, about Butler's complaints and intent to submit a letter.
Although there is some ambiguity regarding the temporal sequence of events, it appears that, on October 7, 2008, Butler brought a letter dated October 6 to Bonner and Boyd stating in substance:
Rodney Strong has been making sexual advances toward me for approximately 3 months. He has asked me out on dates, offered money, questioned my personal/dating life, asked to touch my hair, offered to pay for my lunch, and invited me to his home for dinner. I have continually turned down these advances, because I am not interested in him. All of Mr. Strong's inappropriate and unwanted advances have made me uncomfortable in the work environment.
Bonner testified that she called Butler into her office and talked with her in Boyd's presence. According to Bonner, Butler stated that Strong had told her that her hair was pretty, asked if he could touch it, and asked if he could buy her lunch or dinner. Butler told Bonner and Boyd that she did not like Strong's comments.
Bonner testified that she and Boyd then spoke to Strong about Butler's complaint.3 Strong told Bonner and Boyd that Butler was insubordinate. He denied that he intended to harass Butler, explaining that he was merely complimenting her and other employees when he referred to their hair. Bonner testified that she and Boyd talked with other staff members who worked with Butler. These staff members confirmed that Strong complimented Butler's hair and offered to buy her lunch but stated that Strong regularly complimented the hairstyles of female subordinates, as well as the cologne of male subordinates, and that Strong regularly offered to buy lunch for his subordinates. Other jail employees testified that Strong would compliment staff members and offer to buy them lunch. See Docs. #34-4, #34-6, #34-7, #34-8. Bonner testified that she and Boyd told Strong to make sure that he did not say anything to Butler that did not concern jail business and to refrain from offering to buy her lunch or complimenting her. Bonner testified that Strong agreed to do so. Strong was not removed as a supervisor over Butler.
Butler admits that Strong ceased his advances towards her after the conduct was reported to Bonner and Boyd. Nevertheless, on the morning of November 17, 2008, Butler gave her October 6th letter to Sheriff Busby. Shortly thereafter, Bonner called her into Boyd's office. Butler testified that she explained that she had given Busby the letter because Strong was still her supervisor and she felt that Bonner and Body had not done anything to remedy the situation. Butler testified that Bonner and Boyd indicated that they thought they had resolved the matter and asked her if Strong was still bothering her. Butler admitted that he had stopped bothering her. Nonetheless, she informed Bonnerand Boyd that she was not comfortable having him as a supervisor and that she did not consider the matter resolved while Strong remained her supervisor. After this interview, Strong was moved to an another part of the jail.
It is undisputed that, on December 19, 2008, Butler engaged in a verbal altercation with a female coworker. During Bonner's discussion with Butler regarding the incident, Butler said that she knew that several other jail employees "did not like her and were out to destroy her." Bonner explained to Butler that Butler might have trouble getting along with other employees because of her tendency to respond to others with harsh words. Butler retorted that she "doesn't fool with devilish people."
Bonner wrote a memorandum dated March 11, 2008, stating that Butler was tardy a total of nine times from February of 2008 until the date of the memorandum—a period of about five weeks. Bonner talked with Butler at some point during 2008 and informed her that if she continued to be tardy, then she would be terminated. Butler was tardy on December 25 and 26. Bonner testified that, altogether, Butler was tardy at least sixty times in 2008. On December 29, 2008, Sharon Beasley, a female supervisor, suspended Butler for continually being tardy.
Bonner testified that, in addition to Butler's tardiness, Butler failed to respect the chain of command, was disrespectful to her superiors, accused others of being evil, and claimed the jail was full of evil spirits. Bonner testified that other employees reported that Butler made threats against them and cursed at them. Bonner testified that Boyd told her that Butler should be terminated because of the issue with tardiness and her unsatisfactory behavior. Butler denies this testimony and alleges that Bonner's explanations are merely a pretext for discrimination. Butler was terminatedon December 30, 2008. Bonner testified that she, Boyd, and Beasley made the decision to terminate Butler.
Butler filed an EEOC claim for sexual harassment and retaliation on January 5, 2009. The EEOC issued a right to sue to Butler on or about September 25, 2009. Butler commenced this action on July 22, 2010. Butler seeks compensatory and punitive damages in her complaint.
A court should enter summary judgment if the evidence demonstrates that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). The moving party bears the initial responsibility of demonstrating the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). If the moving party meets this burden, the nonmoving party must respond by coming forward with specific facts establishing a genuine...
To continue reading
Request your trial