Caro v. City of Dallas, CIV. A. 3:96-CV-3113-G.
| Citation | 17 F.Supp.2d 618 |
| Decision Date | 20 August 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV. A. 3:96-CV-3113-G.,CIV. A. 3:96-CV-3113-G. |
| Parties | Sandra CARO, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF DALLAS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Donya Cannon Witherspoon, Law Office of Donya Witherspoon, Dallas, TX, for Sandra Caro.
Ann S. Austin, Sangeeta Sharma Kuruppillai, Prema Anjali Velu, Marlene M. Menard, Dallas City Attorney's Office, Dallas, TX, for City of Dallas Texas.
Prema Anjali Velu, Marlene M. Menard, Dallas City Attorney's Office, Dallas, TX, for Bennie NMN Click, Ed Spencer, Randall Jones.
Before the court is the motion for summary judgment of the defendants City of Dallas ("City"), Bennie Click ("Click"), Ed Spencer ("Spencer"), and Randall Jones ("Jones," collectively with the City, Click, and Spencer, "defendants"). For the following reasons, the defendants' motion is granted with respect to the plaintiff's federal claims. The remaining claim — which is based exclusively on state law — is dismissed without prejudice.
This case involves allegations of discrimination in employment, deprivation of civil rights, and violations of state law. The plaintiff Sandra Caro ("Caro") seeks relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, through 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and the Texas Whistleblower Act, Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 554.002 (Vernon Supp.1996). See generally Plaintiff's Original Complaint ¶¶ 50-63.
The following facts are not in dispute. Caro, an African-American female, joined the Dallas Police Department ("DPD") in September of 1982. Affidavit of Sandra Caro ("Caro Affidavit") at 1, attached as Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Her Response to the Defendants' City of Dallas, Bennie Click, Ed Spencer and Randall Jones Motion for Summary Judgment ("Plaintiff's Brief"). Caro initially served as a patrol officer and was promoted to the rank of sergeant in September of 1989. Id. In April of 1991, Caro became the supervisory sergeant in the DPD's Community Services Division (now known as the Community Policing Support Unit ("CPSU" or "Unit")). Id.; Oral Deposition of Sandra Caro ("Caro Deposition") at 37, attached to Affidavit of Sangeeta S. Kuruppillai, attached as Exhibit 7 to Defendants City of Dallas, Bennie Click, Ed Spencer and Randall Jones' Motion for Summary Judgment ("Defendants' Motion"). As supervisory sergeant, Caro performed a variety of administrative and managerial tasks within the Unit and supervised the CPSU in the Unit commander's absence. See Caro Affidavit at 1-2.
In June of 1992, Raul Rios ("Rios"), an Hispanic male, joined Caro in the CPSU. Id. at 2. Rios, also a sergeant, shared supervisory responsibilities with Caro. Id. In late 1993, Spencer, a Caucasian male, began as manager of the CPSU. Affidavit of Edwin B. Spencer, Jr. ("Spencer Affidavit") at 2, attached as Exhibit 10 to Defendants' Motion. Shortly thereafter, Jones, a Caucasian male, assumed the position of CPSU commander. See id.; Affidavit of Randall Jones ("Jones Affidavit") at 1, attached as Exhibit 14 to Defendants' Motion. Click charged Spencer and Jones with the task of improving the Unit's productivity. Affidavit of Bennie R. Click ("Click Affidavit") at 2, attached as Exhibit 8 to Defendants' Motion. In carrying out these orders, Spencer and Jones instituted numerous, and often unpopular, new work policies in the CPSU. Id.; see also Jones Affidavit at 2-3. Caro and Rios, the supervisory sergeants, reported to Jones, a lieutenant. Click Affidavit at 2. Jones reported directly to Spencer. Id.
Caro and Jones clashed almost immediately. Caro Affidavit at 2. Caro claims that Jones exhibited a bias against the female employees of the CPSU and tolerated sexist attitudes among others in the Unit. Id. Specifically, Caro alleges that Jones made offensive remarks, undermined her authority, gave her demeaning job assignments, failed to recommend her for awards, and required her to remain after-hours to complete work. See id. at 2-5. Jones claims that Caro was argumentative and insubordinate. Jones Affidavit at 2-3. Rios was caught in the middle. See id. at 2; Caro Affidavit at 2-3.
Spencer became aware of the conflict between Caro, Rios, and Jones in early 1994. Spencer Affidavit at 3. Spencer attempted to resolve the situation informally, but was unsuccessful. Id. On August 1, 1994, Caro filed a formal grievance, claiming sex and race discrimination by Jones. See generally Memorandum (Aug. 1, 1994), attached as Exhibit 1 to Defendants' Motion. As required by DPD procedures, Spencer met with Caro shortly thereafter to discuss her grievance. Caro Affidavit at 6; see also Memorandum (Aug. 9, 1994), attached as Exhibit 10 to Plaintiff's Response. Spencer, unable to grant the relief requested by Caro at that meeting, then forwarded Caro's grievance to the DPD's Grievance Committee for review. Spencer Affidavit at 3; see also Caro Affidavit at 6.
The friction between Caro and Jones continued into the fall of 1994. See Caro Affidavit at 6-7; Jones Affidavit at 3-6. On September 13, 1994, the Grievance Committee recommended a formal Internal Affairs Division ("IAD") investigation into Caro's complaint. Spencer Affidavit at 4. Sergeant Tammy Pamplin-Hughes, an African-American female, was assigned to conduct the investigation. Id.
While the IAD conducted its investigation, DPD management continued efforts to resolve the conflict informally. See id. at 5. In early October of 1994, Click, the DPD Chief of Police, held a meeting to discuss the charges with Spencer, Caro, and Margaret Chandler ("Chandler"), another CPSU employee who had complained about Jones. Id. at 5; Caro Affidavit at 8. In mid-October, Spencer met again with Caro, Rios, and Jones in the hope of resolving the conflict. Spencer Affidavit at 5. Finally, in November of 1994, Spencer suggested that the CPSU management meet with the DPD psychologist to discuss their problems. Id. All of these attempts at reconciliation were unavailing. Id.
The IAD completed its initial investigation in late October of 1994. See generally Memorandum from Tammy Pamplin-Hughes (Oct. 28, 1994) ("Investigation Report"), attached to Affidavit of Lori Mauldin, attached as Exhibit 4 to Defendants' Motion. The IAD determined that the investigation "ha[d] not developed any evidence to prove that Lieutenant Jones discriminated against Sergeant Caro ... on the basis of [her] race or sex." Id. at 704. But the IAD also found that "[Jones'] actions could have been perceived as belittling or demeaning," id., and that Jones could have handled some of the incidents better, id. at 705. The report concluded by finding that "the Unit has many problems that are due to differences in personalities, management styles, and change." Id.
The IAD forwarded the written investigation report to Click on October 28, 1994. See id. at 674. Per DPD procedures, the investigation report then circulated through the chain of command, providing an opportunity for comment and additional investigation. See Affidavit of Reginald S. Kay ("Kay Affidavit") at 2, attached as Exhibit 9 to Defendants' Motion. Spencer received the investigation report on October 31, 1994. Spencer Affidavit at 4.
In mid-November of 1994, a local television station contacted Caro and other female officers concerning allegations of sex discrimination within the DPD. Caro Affidavit at 8. Caro granted an interview in which she spoke to the station about her grievance against Jones. Id. Shortly thereafter, Reginald S. Kay ("Kay"), a lieutenant in the IAD, contacted Caro and instructed her not to speak with the media.1 Id.; Kay Affidavit at 2. Caro indicated that she would speak to reporters if contacted, but she was not contacted and gave no further interviews. See Caro Affidavit at 8.
In late November of 1994, Spencer recommended transferring Caro, Jones, and Rios from the Unit. Spencer Affidavit at 6-7. Click concurred with the recommendation. Click Affidavit at 3. Following a review of the DPD's needs and the officers' skills, Caro was transferred to the Communications Department, Jones was transferred to the Central Division, and Rios was transferred to the Intoxilizer Unit. Spencer Affidavit at 7. Each officer was assigned to the evening shift. Id. A male sergeant named Phelps, an African-American, replaced Caro in the CPSU. Caro Deposition at 288-89.
On November 30, 1994, Caro filed another grievance with the DPD, claiming that Spencer transferred her in retaliation for speaking to the media. See Caro Affidavit at 9. In late August of 1996, the City's Civil Service Board ("Board") met to hear Caro's grievances. Id. at 10. The Board concluded that no race or sex discrimination had occurred, but it encouraged the DPD to give Caro priority consideration for future assignments out of concern for the "disproportionate consequences" she had suffered. Letter from David Truly (Sept. 3, 1996) at 1, attached as Exhibit 22 to Plaintiff's Brief.
While her internal grievances were pending, Caro filed a formal charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). See Charge of Discrimination ("Charge") at 1, attached as Exhibit 5 to Defendants' Motion. Caro's EEOC charge alleged that Jones discriminated against her because of her race and sex and that Spencer transferred her in retaliation for filing grievances. Id. Caro received a notice of right to sue on her claims in September of 1996 and instituted the present suit roughly two months thereafter. See generally Plaintiff's Original Complaint ("Complaint"). The defendants filed the instant motion on October 3, 1997. See Defendants' Motion at 1. Caro has responded, the defendants have replied, and the motion is now ripe for decision.
Summary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pfeil v. Intecom Telecommunications
...to employers and defendants in their official capacities. Huckabay v. Moore, 142 F.3d 233, 241 (5th Cir.1998); Caro v. City of Dallas, 17 F.Supp.2d 618, 624 (N.D.Tex.1998). "A supervisor is considered an `employer' under [T]itle VII if he wields the employer's traditional rights, such as hi......
-
Webster v. Bass Enterprises Production Co.
...22. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 80, 118 S.Ct. 998, 140 L.Ed.2d 201 (1998). 23. Caro v. City of Dallas, 17 F.Supp.2d 618, 628 (N.D.Tex.1998). 24. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 778, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (quoting B. LINDEMANN AND D. ......
-
Maddin v. Gte of Florida, Inc.
...Co., 990 F.2d 333 (7th Cir.1993); Fiscus v. Triumph Group Operations, Inc., 24 F.Supp.2d 1229 (D.Kansas 1998); Caro v. City of Dallas, 17 F.Supp.2d 618 (N.D.Tex. 1998). Moreover, even if the conduct Maddin alleged were sufficient to state a prima facie case under Title VII, the affirmative ......
-
Webster v. Bass Enterprises Production Co., Civil Action 3:00-CV-2109-M (N.D. Tex. 2/13/2002)
...actionable sexual harassment). 22. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 80 (1998). 23. Caro v. City of Dallas, 17 F. Supp.2d 618, 628 (N.D. Tex. 1998). 24. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 778 (1998) (quoting B. LINDEMANN AND D. KADUE, SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN EMP......
-
Sexual harassment & discrimination digest
...Police Department, despite questions of material fact, holding that conduct was merely insulting or demeaning. Caro v. City of Dallas , 17 F. Supp. 2d 618 (N.D. Texas 1998). See digital access for the full case summary. Seventh Circuit inds minor incidents of sexual joking, several of whic......