Carpenter v. Univ. of Ky.
| Decision Date | 20 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2012-CA-000994-MR,NO. 2012-CA-001429-MR,2012-CA-000994-MR,2012-CA-001429-MR |
| Parties | BOBBYE CARPENTER APPELLANT v. UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY; JOSEPH MONROE; KENNETH CLEVIDENCE; AND ALEXANDRA SILVER MCCONNELL APPELLEES AND LISA SCHUCK; LAURA MARCO; TUIA CHILTON; GINA WILSON; AND LORI CREECH APPELLANTS v. UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY; JOSEPH MONROE; KENNETH CLEVIDENCE; AND ALEXANDRA SILVER MCCONNELL APPELLEES |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT
The Appellants bring these consolidated appeals from orders of the Fayette Circuit Court on matters relating to their gender-discrimination and retaliation claims against the University of Kentucky (the University), Joseph Monroe, Kenneth Clevidence, and Alexandra Silver McConnell. Bobbye Carpenter appeals from a directed verdict dismissing her claims. Lisa Blankenship (now Lisa Schuck), Laura Marco, Tuia Chilton, Gina Wilson, and Lori Creech appeal from a summary judgment order dismissing their claims. In addition, all of the Appellants appeal from the trial court's denial of their motion for joinder and order requiring separate trials for each of their cases.
We conclude that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on certain claims raised by Chilton and Marco. We also find that the trial court erred by denying their motion for joinder and precluding a joint trial on the remaining claims. For this reason, we conclude that Carpenter is also entitled to a new trial where her claims may be considered in context with the remaining Appellants. Finally, the trial court erred in finding that the remaining Appellants could not assert individual retaliation claims against Monroe and Clevidence. Hence, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings and a new trial in accord with this opinion.
The Appellants are all women who were employed by the University Police Department (UKPD) between 2003 and 2007. Of the Appellants, only Bobbye Carpenter remained employed by the UKPD at the time of trial. The UKPD was generally under the supervision of Kenneth Clevidence, who served as Director of Public Safety until July 2007. The Appellants' allegations of gender discrimination arose during a period which the UKPD admits was a "difficult transition" in its leadership.
In 2003, Rebecca Langston retired as the UKPD Chief of Police in 2003. After Langston left, Captain Stephanie Bastin oversaw Operations and Carpenter oversaw Administration. In July 2003, Fred Otto was hired as the Chief of Police, but he left shortly thereafter based on inadequate performance. After Otto left, Kevin Franklin served as "Acting Chief" from July 2005 through March 2006.
During this period, there was an ongoing search for a new chief. Franklin, Bastin and Major Joseph Monroe were each contending for the position. In May 2005, Tuia Chilton and Lisa Shuck met with University President Lee Todd to discuss concerns they had about the UKPD. In particular, they wished to discuss rumors that Clevidence planned to hire Monroe as the new chief. They told President Todd that Monroe engaged in inappropriate behaviors such as taking officers whom he supervised to strip clubs, and that he showed favoritism to these officers.
In February 2006, MacDonald Vick was hired as Chief of Police. However, his tenure ended in July after it was discovered that he had been untruthful about the resolution of certain matters involving sexual harassment and discrimination complaints from his past. After Vick left, Monroe served as "Acting Chief." Clevidence supervised Monroe until Clevidence retired in July of 2007. Each of the captains over patrol, administration and hospital security reported directly to Monroe.
In July 2006, the University's Human Resources Department interviewed employees of the UKPD. The interviews were conducted by the Human Resources Department and were coordinated at the UKPD by Alexandra Silver McConnell, an administrative staff assistant. Prior to beginning the interview process, President Todd consulted with Carol Jordan, who at that time oversaw the University's Center for the Study of Violence Against Women. Jordan and her staff assisted in preparing a questionnaire for the interviews. Officially, the purpose of the interviews was to gather feedback from UKPD staff regarding the type of individual who would be most successful in the role of Police Chief. However, Jordan also included questions dealing with gender equity and fairness in the UKPD. The results of a number of surveys raised concerns about disparate treatment of female officers and a general "fraternity house state of mind" in the UKPD.
In March 2007, the Appellants and several other persons tendered a report of gender discriminatory practices to Terry Allen of the University's EqualEmployment Opportunity (EEO) Office. Allen conducted an investigation based on these complaints. On June 27, 2007, Allen wrote a letter to the Appellants' counsel stating that he found no violations of the University's EEO policy and that his investigation did not support pursuing charges of gender discrimination. However, he did make recommendations on operational improvements, greater employee satisfaction, and equity and fairness.
Sometime in late 2006, Stephanie Bastin filed a separate action alleging gender discrimination against the University and the UKPD. During a deposition in that action, Bastin mentioned the results of a polygraph examination which was administered to McConnell when she was initially hired. McConnell states that Monroe told her about that testimony, although Monroe denies this. In response, McConnell retained an attorney, who sent a letter to the Appellants' counsel (who was also representing Bastin), warning against any further discussion or dissemination of this information.
Thereafter, the Appellants filed a motion to intervene in the Bastin case. After that motion was denied, they brought the present action in October of 2007. We will address their individual claims of discrimination separately in this opinion. Generally, they assert claims of gender discrimination; retaliation in violation of KRS1 344.280; reprisal and retaliation in violation of the Kentucky Whistleblower Act, KRS 61.102; aiding and abetting discrimination and retaliation by Clevidence; retaliation by Monroe against Schuck; aiding and abetting unlawfulemployment practices by Monroe in causing Schuck's termination; and aiding and abetting retaliation by McConnell.
The University and the individual defendants filed motions for summary judgment. which the trial court denied. They also filed motions seeking separate trials. which the trial court initially denied but subsequently granted. The claims raised by Bobbye Carpenter were the first to go to trial. Prior to that trial. the court ruled that the other plaintiffs could testify regarding "disparate treatment which resulted from decisions by the same supervisors or decision makers and during the same time frame that Carpenter claims she was subjected to disparate treatment." However, the court excluded any unrelated evidence of other allegations of disparate treatment or discrimination.
At trial, Carpenter presented the following evidence: Carpenter started work at the UKPD in 1975. By 2003, she had risen to the rank of Captain. After the retirement of Chief Langston, Carpenter alleges that Clevidence began to marginalize her by significantly reducing her responsibilities. Although many of these duties were restored during Chief Vick's brief tenure, she states that Monroe repeatedly expressed opposition to giving her a leadership position within the department, even for short periods of time. She also alleges that Monroe began completing her evaluations in 2004 and unfairly downgraded her ratings for the years 2004-2007. Carpenter also states that she was moved from organizational planning and placed on patrol duties.
As noted above, Carpenter testified that she contacted University President Todd in 2005 to object to Monroe's candidacy for Chief. She also participated in the 2006 interviews conducted by the Human Resources Department. At that time, Carpenter raised raised issues about a male-dominated and discriminatory atmosphere within the UKPD.
The trial court limited Carpenter's testimony regarding specific instances of allegedly discriminatory conduct directed at other female officers. The trial court permitted Chilton, Creech and Schuck to testify regarding the claims against McConnell, and the fact that they had filed discrimination complaints against the University. However, the trial court did not allow them to testify regarding specific instances of discrimination directed at them.
Following the close of proof in Carpenter's case, the trial court granted a motion for directed verdict for the Appellees. The court found that Carpenter had failed to offer sufficient evidence upon which reasonable jurors could conclude that Carpenter was subjected to adverse or disparate treatment on account of her gender, that she was subjected to reprisal or retaliation for making a claim of discriminatory treatment, or that any of the Appellees had conspired to aide or abet such retaliation.
Thereafter, the Appellees moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims. The court concluded that the evidence supporting the retaliation claims by the other Appellants would be substantially similar to the evidence presented by Carpenter. The court also examined the evidence supporting each ofthe Appellants' claims of discriminatory or disparate treatment. The trial court concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the Appellees were entitled to judgment on these claims as a matter of law. Consequently, the trial court granted the Appellees' motion for...
To continue reading
Request your trial