Caruso v. City of Cocoa, Florida
| Decision Date | 01 May 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 600CV1631ORL22JGG.,600CV1631ORL22JGG. |
| Citation | 260 F.Supp.2d 1191 |
| Parties | Anthony CARUSO and Robert Caruso, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF COCOA, FLORIDA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Thomas H. Yardley, Law Office of Thomas H. Yardley, Cocoa, FL, for Anthony Caruso, Robert Caruso, plaintiffs.
Michael J. Roper, Bell, Leeper & Roper, P.A., Orlando, FL, for City of Cocoa, Florida, defendant.
This cause comes before the Court for consideration of the Defendant's, the City of Cocoa, Florida, Motion for Summary Judgment on the Claim of Anthony Caruso (Doc. No. 26), filed on September 20, 2002, to which the Plaintiff, Anthony Caruso, responded (Doc. No. 46) on October 21, 2002; and the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on the Claim of Robert Caruso (Doc. No. 29), filed on September 20, 2002, to which the Plaintiff, Robert Caruso responded (Doc. No. 47) on October 21, 2002. Having reviewed the motions and memoranda, this Court GRANTS the Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment (Docs. No. 26 and 29) on the claims of Anthony and Robert Caruso.
The Plaintiff, Robert Caruso, is a first generation Italian American employed by the City of Cocoa, Florida as a police officer.1 The Co-Plaintiff, Anthony Caruso, is a second generation Italian American, and at all relevant times herein, was employed by the City of Cocoa, Florida as a police officer.2 The Defendant, the City of Cocoa, Florida (hereinafter referred to as "the Police Department" or "the City" or "the City of Cocoa" or "the Defendant"), is a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of Florida.3
On January 22, 1996, the Plaintiff, Robert Caruso (hereinafter referred to as "Robert", "Robert Caruso", or "Plaintiff), commenced employment with the Police Department as an Interim Professional Compliance Officer.4 Shortly thereafter, Robert was assigned to the position of Professional Compliance Officer.5 In that office, Robert was responsible for conducting internal affairs investigations, overseeing the Police Department's training program, and recruiting employees for the Police Department.6
On November 26, 1997, the Chief of the Police Department, David Crawford (hereinafter referred to as "Chief Crawford"), changed the title of Robert's job from Professional Compliance Officer to Inspector.7 This change was in title only, and did not affect Robert's pay structure or benefits.8
On March 7, 1996, Robert's nephew9, Anthony Caruso (hereinafter referred to as "Anthony", "Anthony Caruso", or "Plaintiff), commenced employment with the Defendant as a police officer.10 Because of marital problems with his estranged wife located in Ohio, however, Anthony voluntarily resigned his employment on August 15, 1998.11 Shortly thereafter, Anthony submitted a request to rescind his resignation to the Police Department.12 That request was granted, and Anthony was allowed to return to his employment in the same position, at the same rate of pay and rank as he had previously held.13
In the meantime, on or about December 19, 1996, Robert began having a sexual relationship with Theresa Hankins (hereinafter referred to as "Mrs. Hankins" or "Theresa Hankins"), the wife of fellow police officer, John Hankins (hereinafter reffered to as "Officer Hankins").14 It is undisputed that when this extramarital relationship commenced, Robert and Officer Hankins were working together in the same unit.15 In fact, Robert was serving as the commander of the Police Department's SWAT Team, on which Officer Hankins was a member.16 In addition, at the time of the affair, Robert was married to Dora Caruso.17
In the sixteen months following thenfirst sexual encounter, Robert and Mrs. Hankins surreptitiously met at hotel rooms over much of Florida's east coast.18 At some point, however, their relationship became too complicated, and Mrs. Hankins decided to terminate their love affair.19
Notwithstanding Mrs. Hankins intentions, Robert continued to pursue their relationship.20 On one occasion, he appeared at Mrs. Hankins parents' house and repeatedly asked her to give him "a minute," but Mrs. Hankins refused to honor his request.21 Dissatisfied, Robert allegedly followed Mrs. Hankins in his city owned vehicle through the streets of Cocoa and Rockledge, Florida.22 In an affidavit, Mrs. Hankins describes the incident as follows:
We were traveling pretty fast (about 65 miles/hour) with [Robert] traveling right beside me, screaming out his passenger window for me to talk to him—stop being stupid. I stopped [at] the payphone ...to call 911 [and] Cocoa dispatch answered [and] started asking where it [the chase] started, etc ... [and] then I saw [Robert] coming toward me, so I hung up [and] jumped in my car. I went east on 520 where [Robert] was stopped [and] he got out of his car in the middle of 520, saying "Please talk to me." I turned right ... with [Robert] beside me again screaming at me to give him a minute. I ignored him [and] he kept yelling at me. I went straight ... [and] he turned left ... I knew he was going to use a side street to meet me ... so I went to ... call 911. An officer ... met me there and ... followed me home.23
On April 29, 1998, the Police Department received a complaint from Mrs. Hankins regarding Robert's behavior.24 Therein, Mrs. Hankins alleged that Robert improperly used Department property to facilitate an extramarital adulterous affair with the spouse of a subordinate while on duty or while subject to duty.25 In addition, Mrs. Hankins alleged that at the end of the affair, Robert utilized Department property to pursue her against her will.26 These allegations were supported by a personal journal given to the Police Department, in which Mrs. Hankins kept detailed notes describing her love affair with Robert.27 As a result, an internal affairs investigation was commenced, and Robert was placed on paid administrative leave on May 2,1998.28
Shortly after Mrs. Hankins submitted her complaint, Chief Crawford assigned Captain Mark Klayman (hereinafter referred to as "Captain Klayman") of the Cocoa City Police Department to investigate her allegations.29 During his investigation, Captain Klayman met with Mrs. Hankins on several occasions to discuss the state of affairs.30 On their first meeting, Mrs. Hankins related that she and Robert had an extramarital relationship, and that she wanted to end it.31 On their second meeting, Mrs. Hankins provided Captain Klayman with a taped statement of the events giving rise to her complaint.32
Because of the unsettling allegations giving rise to Mrs. Hankins' complaint, Captain Klayman advised Mrs. Hankins to avoid any contact with Robert.33 In fact, on several instances, Captain Klayman allegedly warned Mrs. Hankins that she would be arrested if she contacted Robert.34
It is important to note that at the time of the internal investigation, Mrs. Hankins
was separated from her husband, and living in an apartment in Rockledge, Florida.35 For this reason, Captain Klayman briefed the Rockledge police department about Mrs. Hankins' complaint.36 Thereafter, Mrs. Hankins claims that Captain Klayman began calling her "everyday."37
Notwithstanding Captain Klayman's admonitions, Robert made an unannounced visit to the residence of Mrs. Hankins on May 10, 1998.38 When he arrived, Mrs. Hankins was visiting with Bart Caesar (hereinafter referred to as "Mr. Caesar"), a friend with whom she had recently been dating.39 Because Mrs. Hankins wanted to have a private discussion with Robert, Mrs. Hankins feigned leaving for her mother's house.40 Mr. Caesar departed, and Robert and Mrs. Hankins returned to her apartment to discuss their relationship.41
Upon entering the apartment, Mrs. Hankins called the Cocoa City Police Department in order to notify Captain Klayman "that [Robert] was there ... that he was invited there and that we were just discussing things." 42 The Police Department informed Mrs. Hankins that Captain Klayman was unavailable.43 In response Mrs. Hankins requested Captain Klayman's pager number, but the dispatcher refused to disclose it.44
Approximately five minutes later, Captain Klayman called Mrs. Hankins at her residence.45 Mrs. Hankins then reported that "she invited [Robert] in" and that "she is fine."46 Captain Klayman replied by stating that "I thought I told you to stay away from him, [and] that this can do nothing but cause you trouble."47 He then allegedly started yelling at her.48 At some point during their conversation, however, the phone line became disconnected,49 although this point is now in dispute. According to the Plaintiffs, Captain Klayman maliciously hung up the phone in order to create a scene and sabotage Robert's career with the Police Department.50
In any event, the disconnected phone line allegedly worried Captain Klayman and prompted him to call Rockledge law enforcement officials to investigate the situation.51 In response, the Rockledge police department dispatched officers who surrounded Mrs. Hankins' apartment.52 Two police officers parked their cars in front of the apartment and stood behind their vehicles with their guns drawn.53 In
the back, an additional two officers were positioned with a shotgun.54
To alleviate the tense circumstance, Mrs. Hankins went outside to inform the officers that everything was all right.55 When she exited the apartment, one of the officers (hereinafter referred to as "the responding officer") requested permission to enter Mrs. Hankins' residence to ensure that everything was safe and secure.56 Mrs. Hankins consented, and as a result, she and the responding officer proceeded into her apartment.57 The responding officer then searched the apartment, and engaged in a brief conversation with Robert.58 Mrs. Hankins estimates that the responding officer remained in the apartment for approximately five minutes before they both departed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Horne v. Russell County Com'n
...The County Defendants also cite to Caruso v. City of Cocoa, Fla., 260 F.Supp.2d 1191, 1220 (M.D.Fla.2003). The dispositive factor in the Caruso court's analysis, however, was not merely that the plaintiffs did not hear comments directly, but that they had to "ferret out information." Id. Th......
-
Williams v. Ruskin Co.
...conduct is not sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to create a hostile work environment."); Caruso v. City of Cocoa, Fla., 260 F. Supp. 2d 1191, 1221-22 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (finding that offensive comments made outside of plaintiff's presence were not severe (citing Hudson v. Norfolk S. Ry.......