Campbell v. Hamilton County, Ohio

• Citation: 78 F.Supp.2d 713
• Decision Date: 17 December 1999
• Docket Number: No. C-1-98-516.,C-1-98-516.
• Parties: Thomas CAMPBELL, Plaintiff, v. HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

78 F.Supp.2d 713

Thomas CAMPBELL, Plaintiff, v. HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO, et al., Defendants.

No. C-1-98-516.

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division.

December 17, 1999.

Donald Bernard Hordes, Schwartz, Manes & Ruby, Cincinnati, OH, for Plaintiff.

John Joseph Arnold, Kathleen Mary Elfers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Atty's, Cincinnati, OH, Jeffrey Hartranft, Asst. Atty. General, General Workers' Compensation Section, Columbus, OH, for Defendants.

ORDER

SPIEGEL, Senior District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on a Motion by Defendants Andrew H. Hitz and Timothy A. Shannon to Dismiss (doc. 17); a Motion by Defendant State of Ohio for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (doc. 19); Memoranda in Opposition by Plaintiff Thomas Campbell (docs. 20 & 21); a Reply by Defendants Hitz and Shannon (doc. 22); a Reply by Defendant State of Ohio (doc. 23); a Motion by Defendant State of Ohio for Summary Judgment (doc. 25); a Motion by Defendant Hamilton County, Ohio, for Summary Judgment (doc. 26); Memoranda in Opposition by Plaintiff (docs. 28 & 29); a Reply by Defendant State of Ohio (doc. 31); a Reply by Defendant Hamilton County, Ohio (doc. 32); and Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Response to Defendant's Citation of a Recent Case (doc. 36).

The Court held a hearing in this matter on October 26, 1999.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Thomas Campbell, a former probation enforcement officer for the Hamilton County Municipal Court, brings this action to allege that Defendants Andrew H. Hitz, Timothy A. Shannon, Hamilton County, Ohio, and the State of Ohio deprived him of his substantive due process rights,¹ violated his First Amendment rights, and unlawfully discriminated against him (docs. 1 & 10). Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants Hitz, Shannon, and Hamilton County deny Plaintiff's allegations (see docs. 3, 16 & 18), asserting that they acted properly in relation to Plaintiff's 1997 resignation from the Hamilton County Municipal Court Probation Department (hereinafter, the "Probation Department"). In addition, Defendant State of Ohio contends that the Eleventh Amendment bars Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against the State, and Defendant State of Ohio argues that the State generally cannot be held liable for the employment decisions of a municipal court's probation department.

The following facts, except where noted, are not in dispute. The Hamilton County, Ohio, Municipal Court employed Plaintiff from 1995 until 1997 as a probation enforcement officer. Probation enforcement officers are unclassified civil service employees who are appointed to serve the judges of the Hamilton County Municipal Court "until further order of the Court" (County App., Ex. A-1, Walton Aff.). At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Hitz was the Chief Probation Officer with the Hamilton County Probation Department and Defendant Shannon was an Assistant Chief. In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sued Defendants Hitz and Shannon in both their personal and official capacities (doc. 10).

The incident underlying this action involves a conversation Plaintiff allegedly carried on in March of 1997 with a female probationer, Michelle Back, prior to her scheduled court appearance before Hamilton County Municipal Court Judge William J. Mallory, Jr. (hereinafter, "Judge Mallory"). According to Defendants, an internal investigation by the Probation Department resulted in the gathering of enough evidence to support the allegation that Plaintiff said to Ms. Back, "Whatever you do, don't dress up in court, Mallory strokes² pretty, white women" (County App., Ex. C-1, Shannon Aff.). Defendants aver that Plaintiff admitted during the investigation that he told Ms. Back that "Judge Mallory will stroke you", but Plaintiff denied that he inserted any racial or gender descriptions (Id., Ex. C-5, Campbell Interview).

Plaintiff, who is Caucasian, continues to deny that his comments involved any racial or gender descriptions; in fact, he contends that other probation enforcement officers actually commented about how Ms. Back should physically appear in court before Judge Mallory. In his deposition, Plaintiff alleges that Probation Officer Wiley Ross, who is African-American, as well as Sheriff's Deputy Richard Morman and Probation Officer Jeffrey Seaman, who are Caucasian, took part in the alleged conversation with Ms. Back (Campbell Dep. at 46-50). During the Probation Department's own internal investigation into the incident, Deputy Morman testified that Officer Ross told Ms. Back that she should not "get too dressed up" (County App., Ex. C-8, Morman Interview). Officer Seaman, however, stated during his interview that he did not hear the conversation (Id., Ex. C-6, Seaman Interview).

The internal investigation of Plaintiff also focused on the testimony of Officer Ross and Ms. Back. Ms. Back, who precipitated the investigation by reporting the alleged statement to Probation Officer Robyn L. Bastin, signed an affidavit in which she attested that Plaintiff made the alleged statement. Officer Ross testified that, although he could not remember the exact wording of the comment, he "did remember [Plaintiff] saying something about Mallory strokes pretty white women" (Id., Ex. C-7, Ross Interview). According to Defendants, these statements appeared to contradict the taped testimony of Plaintiff and Deputy Morman. Further complicating the investigation was Defendant Shannon's understanding that Officer Seaman and Deputy Morman were "close personal friends" of Plaintiff, and that the relationship between Officer Ross and Plaintiff was, in contrast, acrimonious (see doc. 26; County App., Shannon Aff.).

Defendants aver that, because of the conflicting testimony and relationships within the Probation Department, Defendant Shannon decided to offer polygraph examinations to those principally involved in the investigation (Shannon Dep. at 74-77, 79). On April 18, 1997, both Plaintiff and Ms. Back voluntarily underwent polygraph examinations administered by Cincinnati Police Specialist Royce Winters. According to Officer Winters, "[t]here were significant physiological disturbances indicative of deception in [Plaintiff's] polygraph records (County App., Ex. C-11). On the other hand, Officer Winters found that `[t]here were no significant physiological disturbances indicative of deception in [Ms. Back's] polygraph records.'" (Id., Ex. C-12). Plaintiff strongly disputes the findings of Officer Winters, asserting that the polygraph exams indicated (1) that Ms. Back lied about whether Plaintiff made the alleged statement and, conversely, (2) that Plaintiff told the truth about whether he made the alleged statement (see docs. 28 & 29; Winters Dep., Plaintiff's Ex. 19).

Nonetheless, during the pretest interview process for the polygraph exam, Ms. Back revealed that she had engaged in a sexual relationship with Officer Ross at some point prior to the polygraph exam (Shannon Dep. at 86). Despite this revelation, Officer Ross did not undergo a polygraph exam about the statement Plaintiff allegedly made regarding Judge Mallory. Plaintiff draws the Court's attention to Defendant Shannon's explanation as to why he did not require Officer Ross to undergo the exam.

Quite frankly, my reticence with Mr. Ross struck to the fact that there was some fairly significant tension between the department and Mr. Ross at that point in time, arising from a previous disciplinary action involving Mr. Campbell. And Mr. Ross had made it relatively clear in questions — or not questions, but statements off the taped record, before and after the tape began running, that if this situation began to even look like retaliation by the department against him as a result of his complaints against Campbell, that we would be up to our eyeballs in litigation. So, it did not seem wise at that point to point a finger of suspicion at Mr. Ross unless and until I had a very pointed finger to use.

(Shannon Dep. at 80; see also Reed Dep. at 71).

The complaint against Plaintiff mentioned by Defendant Shannon in his deposition had been filed by Officer Ross in March of 1997. In his complaint, Officer Ross asserted that Plaintiff had painted the projectile portion of a .38 caliber bullet black and placed it on Officer Ross's desk. Officer Ross alleged that Plaintiff had said he looked like a bullet, and Officer Ross alleged that Plaintiff had also called him "Buckwheat" and "Skillet." As a result of Officer Ross's complaint, Plaintiff received a two-day suspension, a warning about the Municipal Court's "zero tolerance for violation of public or employee rights", and notice that a second violation within a year could result in suspension or termination of employment (see County App., Ex. C-2). Defendant Shannon testified that he did not want to further exacerbate the racial tension in the Probation Department by requiring Officer Ross to undergo a polygraph exam regarding Plaintiff and Plaintiff's alleged statement about Judge Mallory (Shannon Dep. at 96-97).

Plaintiff counters that racial tension was already a problem in the Probation Department. For instance, Plaintiff claims that Gary Boyle, an African-American probation enforcement officer who held a supervisory role, "received lesser discipline for making racially inflammatory remarks towards one of his subordinates, in the presence of others" (County App., Ex. D, Inter. No. 4). Apparently, Officer Boyle became embroiled in a racially-charged conversation with a Caucasian probation enforcement officer immediately following the verdict in the O.J. Simpson murder trial in October of 1995 (Hitz Dep. at 111-113). Defendants aver that both Officer Boyle and the other probation enforcement officer underwent counseling following the conversation (Walton Aff. ¶ 29). According to Defendant Hitz, "there was an agreement between the two parties involved...