Campbell v. State Third Judicial Dist. Dep't of Corr.

• Decision Date: 22 November 2011
• Docket Number: No. C09-4087-MWB,C09-4087-MWB
• Parties: DEBORAH CAMPBELL, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF IOWA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STEVE SCHOLL, in his official capacity; and, LINN HALL, in his individual capacity. Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

DEBORAH CAMPBELL, Plaintiff,

v. STATE OF IOWA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEPARTMENT OFCORRECTIONS, STEVE SCHOLL, inhis official capacity; and, LINN HALL,in his individual capacity. Defendants.

No. C09-4087-MWB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA WESTERN DIVISION

Date: November 22, 2011

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ........................................................... 3

A. Procedural Background ........................................................... 3

B. Factual Background ........................................................... 5

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ........................................................... 30

A. Summary Judgment Standards ........................................................... 30

B. Effect of Settled Grievances ........................................................... 36

C. Eleventh Amendment Immunity ........................................................... 40

D. Title VII Sexual Discrimination Claims ........................................................... 42

1. Elements of disparate treatment claim ........................................................... 43

2. Campbell's prima facie case ........................................................... 44

3. Defendants' legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason ............................. 45

4. Pretext ........................................................... 46

E. Retaliation ........................................................... 491. Campbell's prima facie case ........................................................... 50

2. Defendants' legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason ................................... 51

3. Pretext ........................................................... 51

F. First Amendment Retaliatory Discharge ............................................... 53

1. Prima facie case of retaliation ........................................................... 54

2. Qualified immunity ........................................................... 57

a. A violation of a constitutional right ........................................................... 58

b. Clearly established right at the time ........................................................... 59

G. Age Discrimination Claim ........................................................... 61

1. The circumstantial evidence paradigm ........................................ 63

2. Analysis—plaintiff's showing of pretext ....................................... 65

III. CONCLUSION ........................................................... 66

A former female Community Program Monitor of a state district correctional services agency alleges that she was subjected to sex and age discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Iowa Civil Rights Act, IOWA CODE CH. 216. She also alleges she was retaliated against for voicing her opposition to changes to a domestic batters program that placed the victims' safety at issue, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and Iowa's whistleblower statute, IOWA CODE § 70A.28(2), and Iowa public policy. Against this panoply of claims, the defendants—the state district correctional services agency and itscurrent and former directors—have moved for summary judgment on all of the plaintiff's claims. Thus, I must determine which, if any, of the plaintiff's claims should go to a jury.

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

On November 23, 2009, plaintiff Deborah Campbell filed a Complaint against her former employer, defendant the Third Judicial District Department of Correctional Services ("Third Judicial District") and the Third Judicial District's Director, Linn Hall, alleging the following causes of action: (1) claims of sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Counts I and II); (2) a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, contending that defendants violated her right to freedom of speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments by retaliating against her for objecting to the inclusion of victim information in reports which would be disclosed to domestic violence perpetrators; (3) pendent state law claims under the Iowa Civil Rights Act ("ICRA") for sex and age discrimination, and retaliation, IOWA CODE CH. 216 (Count IV); (4) a pendent state law claim that she was wrongfully terminated in violation of Iowa's whistleblower statute, IOWA CODE § 70A.28(2) (Count V); and (5) a pendent state common law claim that she was wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy (Count VI).¹

On August 1, 2011, defendants filed their Motion For Summary Judgment. First, defendants claim that a settlement of grievances filed on Campbell's behalf bars anysubsequent claims arising from the conduct at issue in those grievances. Second, defendants contend that Eleventh Amendment immunity bars prosecution of Campbell's state law claims against the Third Judicial District as well as her claims against Scholl in his official capacity for monetary damages. Third, defendants seek summary judgment on Campbell's sex discrimination claims on the ground that Campbell is unable to produce circumstantial evidence which could reasonably support an inference of sex discrimination. Fourth, defendants argue Campbell's Title VII retaliation claim fails because she has not presented sufficient evidence of the causal connection between her protected activity and defendants' adverse actions. Fifth, defendants seek summary judgment on Campbell's First/Fourteenth Amendment relation claim on the ground that Campbell was not speaking as a citizen when she voiced her concerns over the inclusion of victim information, so her speech was not protected by the First Amendment. Alternatively, defendants argue Hall is entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages on Campbell's First/Fourteenth Amendment claim. Finally, defendants seek summary judgment on Campbell's ICRA age discrimination claim against Scholl in his official capacity for injunctive relief because Campbell has not presented sufficient evidence supporting an inference of age discrimination and rebutting defendants' asserted legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for her firing. On September 6, 2011, Campbell resisted defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute regarding all of her federal claims. Campbell concedes that the Eleventh Amendment bars her state claims against the Third Judicial District in federal court. On September 26, 2011, defendants filed their reply brief in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment.

B. Factual Background

I will set forth sufficient facts, both undisputed and disputed, to put in context the parties' arguments concerning the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Unless otherwise indicated, the facts recited here are undisputed, at least for purposes of summary judgment. Additional factual allegations and the extent to which they are or are not disputed or material will be discussed, if necessary, in my legal analysis.

Plaintiff Deborah Campbell is a former employee of the Third Judicial District Department of Correctional Services ("Third Judicial District"). Defendant Linn Hall was the Third Judicial District's Director while Campbell was employed there. She was originally hired by Family Services in 1994 as a grant coordinator for the Batterers' Educational Program ("BEP"). In 1998, this position was picked up by the Third Judicial District. Although her duties remained the same, her title was changed to Community Program Monitor. As the Community Program Monitor, Campbell coordinated the Third Judicial District's BEP. The Third Judicial District's BEP is state-accredited by the Iowa Department of Corrections. Campbell's supervisor at the Third Judicial District was Jeff Page until he retired in 2006. Campbell received superior work evaluations from Page. Hall had no complaints about Campbell's work performance prior to 2006. He signed off on her excellent performance reviews from Page.

The Third Judicial District utilizes a program know as the "Duluth Model" for its BEP. The Duluth Model was adopted statewide by the State of Iowa to deal with domestic abuse. The Duluth Model is based on community participation in order to hold perpetrator's accountable and to ensure victim and community safety. The Duluth Model has been incorporated into the BEP standards adopted by the Iowa Department of Corrections. Hall relied upon Campbell, based on her experience in the field of domesticviolence, to set up the Duluth Model in the Third Judicial District. Campbell described her duties as follows:

There was no typical day but I can tell you the duties. The main duty was to connect everyone in the community together on the issue of domestic violence. And so everybody would be saying the same thing, so it was going to the judges that were apologizing to batterers for ordering them to do the program, to get them to stop doing that, to hold the County Attorney responsible for not dropping cases, to talk to victims services to make sure the police were dealing with them respectfully, to having a community coalition that all the different systems would come and meet at.

Part of it was being on other different systems to continue education with other groups. Part of it was to hold a [sic] educational piece for the community every year. To monitor the Court orders for the batterers's program and in working with all of those systems.

Campbell Dep. at 16-17, Plaintiff's App. at 40-41.

Campbell's job duties also involved extensive work with the courts, such as advising the courts to hold batterers accountable through contempt actions. She did not have her own secretary or staff but interacted with probation officers due to the required sharing of...