Clayton v. Savannah Chatham Metro. Police Dep't, CASE NO. CV415-93

• Decision Date: 05 February 2020
• Docket Number: CASE NO. CV415-93
• Parties: ALEXANDRIA M. CLAYTON, Plaintiff, v. SAVANNAH CHATHAM METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER RANDY VEAL, individually and in his official capacity; CPT. DEVON ADAMS, individually and in his official capacity; SANTANA WILLIS, Patrol Officer, individually and in his official capacity; BETH ROBINSON, Human Resource Director, individually and in her official capacity; SYLVIA PERRY, Employee Relations Coordinator, individually and in her official capacity; STEPHANIE CUTTER, individually and in her official capacity; CHIEF WILLIE LOVETT, individually and in his official capacity; CHATHAM COUNTY, GEORGIA; and CITY OF SAVANNAH, by and through the Mayor and Aldermen; Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

ALEXANDRIA M. CLAYTON, Plaintiff, v. SAVANNAH CHATHAM METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT;

OFFICER RANDY VEAL, individually and in his official capacity;

CPT. DEVON ADAMS, individually and in his official capacity;

SANTANA WILLIS, Patrol Officer, individually and in his official capacity;

BETH ROBINSON, Human Resource Director,

individually and in her official capacity; SYLVIA PERRY,

Employee Relations Coordinator, individually and in her official capacity;

STEPHANIE CUTTER, individually and in her official capacity;

CHIEF WILLIE LOVETT, individually and in his official capacity;

CHATHAM COUNTY, GEORGIA; and CITY OF SAVANNAH,

by and through the Mayor and Aldermen; Defendants.

CASE NO. CV415-93

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

FILED: February 6, 2020

February 5, 2020

ORDER

Before the Court are Defendants Randy Veal, Clarence Few, Matthew Lopresti, Torrence Garvin, Michael Wilkins, Cleveland Lovett, Julie Tolbert, Nicole Kohles, Keith Richardson, Christopher Hewett, Devon Adams, Ben Heron, Santana Willis, Tambra Shoop, Nikeya Nelson, Beth Robinson, Sylvia Perry, and Stephanie Cutter's ("Individual Defendants") Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 26)¹ and Defendant the Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah's (the "City") Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 30). For the following reasons, the Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 26) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and the City's Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 30) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

In her third amended complaint, Plaintiff Alexandria M. Clayton claims she faced sexual harassment and racial discrimination in her workplace and was later terminated in retaliation for complaining about the harassment.² In June 2011, Plaintiff was hired by Defendant Savannah Chatham Metropolitan Police Department as a Law Enforcement Officer/Peace Officer.(Doc. 25 at ¶ 27.) Plaintiff claims that from November 2011 until her retaliatory discharge, she was subject to sexual harassment from her co-workers, was forced to work in a sexually hostile work environment, and was treated differently than Caucasian employees. (Id. at ¶ 29.) Within weeks of being hired, Plaintiff claims that she was sexually harassed by Defendant Veal when he made numerous comments to Plaintiff including telling Plaintiff that she was "fine," "good looking" and making sexually suggestive and explicit comments about her body. (Id. at ¶ 30.) These comments span from November 2011 to February 2012. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that she reported this conduct to Clarence Few and Cedric Phillips and was told to ignore the comments and conduct by Defendant Veal and that Defendant Veal was just joking around. (Id. at ¶ 31-33.) Plaintiff also told Phillips that the environment was so bad that she had requested to be transferred to another precinct and that she did not feel comfortable or safe at work. (Id. at ¶ 34.) In response, Phillips allegedly told Plaintiff to "go with the flow" and learn not to complain about every little thing. (Id.)

In January 2012, Plaintiff was training with Defendant Willis and alleges that he was mean and degrading to her and harassed her on an accident scene by making her reposition the patrol car four times and unjustly criticized the way she handled the accident. (Id. at ¶ 35.) Plaintiff alleges that she again complained to Few about Defendant Veal in January 2012 and no remedial action wastaken. (Id. at ¶ 37.) In February 2012, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Willis made degrading comments to Plaintiff including a question about why she had "dead people make up" on and told Plaintiff that she could not come to work looking better than other women. (Id. at ¶ 38.) Also in February 2012, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Veal yelled and cursed at Plaintiff and Plaintiff immediately contacted Few who told her to "stick to her guns" and handle the situation herself. (Id. at ¶ 39.) Plaintiff informed Few that she was going to make an official complaint about Defendant Veal. (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges other harassing conduct by Defendants who have now been dismissed. (Doc. 25 at ¶ 40-41.) Plaintiff complained of this conduct and Michael Wilkins told Plaintiff that her complaint was being forwarded to the Human Resources Department. (Id. at ¶ 41.)

On March 2, 2012, Plaintiff alleges that she was told to report to the Internal Affairs Office and that Sergeant Cleveland Lovett and Lieutenant Andre Oliver interviewed her. (Id. at ¶ 42.) Plaintiff claims that Oliver told her that her work environment was not hostile, and it was just a conduct issue on Defendant Veal's part. (Id.) Later that month, Plaintiff received an e-mail from Wilkins instructing her to report to Major Julie Tolbert's office regarding her transfer request. (Id. at ¶ 43.) Plaintiff claims that Tolbert was angry and aggressive with Plaintiff and became more so when Plaintiff explained the sexual harassment andnumerous complaints she had made. (Id.) After Plaintiff stated that she could not continue to work in the environment and would otherwise quit her job, Tolbert agreed to place Plaintiff elsewhere. (Id.)

Plaintiff was transferred to Precinct Three, however, Plaintiff claims that within a few months of transfer, she began to experience retaliation. (Id. at ¶ 44-45.) Plaintiff alleges that she was told by Sergeant Kohles that she took too long completing an accident report and that she was denied her lunch break by Star Corporal Richardson despite all other officers being permitted to take their lunch break. (Id. at ¶ 45.) Plaintiff alleges that she continued to experience harassment and retaliation from July 18, 2012 through July 26, 2012 and suffered severe headaches due to the stress. (Id. at ¶ 46.) Plaintiff alleges that in August 2012, Community Resource Officer Nikeya Nelson challenged her to a fight, which Plaintiff reported, and that no remedial action was taken against Officer Nelson. (Id. at ¶ 47.)

Plaintiff alleges that her treatment was also due to her race as an African American in that she observed that Defendant Veal did not speak to Caucasian officers or other non African-American officers in the same way he spoke to her. (Id. at ¶ 48-49.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant Willis and other officers did not treat non African-American females in the same manner thatthey treated Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 50.) In October 2012, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Adams called Plaintiff into his office and was angry at Plaintiff and told her to let Sergeant Garvin complete his investigation. (Id. at ¶ 51.) Thereafter, Captain Ben Heron updated Plaintiff on her sexual harassment complaints and informed her that Defendant Willis, Defendant Veal, Sergeant Few, and herself had all been found guilty of misconduct. (Doc. 25 at ¶ 52.) Plaintiff contends that she did not know she was being investigated and that the finding of misconduct on her part is retaliatory treatment for making the complaints. (Id.) Plaintiff was told in November 2012 that disciplinary action was forthcoming. (Id. at ¶ 53.)

Plaintiff alleges that she filed a complaint with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on November 19, 2012 alleging race and sex discrimination/harassment along with retaliation. (Id. at ¶ 55.) On December 7, 2012, Plaintiff alleges that she wrote a memo regarding Sergeant Garvin's hostile treatment of Plaintiff regarding a vehicle and Plaintiff's inadvertent disposal of some evidence. (Id. at ¶ 57.) Plaintiff visited Internal Affairs and reported the incident to Sergeant Tambra Shoop. (Id.) On December 28, 2012, Plaintiff received a reprimand from Sergeant Garvin and Defendant Adams regarding the incident with Officer Nelson. (Id. at ¶ 58.) Plaintiff alleges that on January 23, 2012, Patrol Training Officer Sergio Ahuyon"ground his buttocks and ran his fingers up the plaintiff's right thigh" and that she reported this incident to Internal Affairs and Employee Relations Coordinator Sylvia Perry in Human Resources. (Id. at ¶ 59.) Plaintiffs claims that she went to Internal Affairs on February 1, 2013 to file a complaint against Sergeant Garvin and Defendant Adams and that Sergeant Shoop treated her in a hostile manner. (Id. at ¶ 60.) Plaintiff claims that Defendant W. Lovett was notified every time Plaintiff made a complaint. (Id.)

Plaintiff took vacation from February 9, 2013 until February 20, 2013 and alleges that, when she returned from vacation, she was taken to the Internal Affairs Office where she was notified that Defendant W. Lovett had placed her on administrative leave with pay. (Doc. 25 at ¶ 61.) Plaintiff also claims that she learned that she was under surveillance by the Internal Affairs office. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that she sent additional information to Mr. Torres, the EEOC investigator, on April 3, 2013 about the continued retaliatory treatment.³ (Id. at ¶ 62.) Plaintiff claims that she was informed on June 12, 2013 that Defendant W. Lovett was "going to trump up felony charges against her any day." (Id. at ¶ 63.)Plaintiff claims she was placed on administrative leave with pay on June 19, 2013 and then terminated on June 26, 2013. (Id. at ¶ 64.) The termination was upheld on July 8, 2013 by Defendant Cutter after a hearing with input given by Defendant Robinson, Defendant Adams, and Defendant Perry. (Id. at ¶ 64.) Plaintiff claims in her third amended complaint that she was told that she was suspended due to a violation of City/Department policies and was told by Defendant Cutter that her termination was upheld because she failed to follow administrative leave guidelines. (Id. at ¶ 65.) On July 10, 2013, Plaintiff filed an EEOC charge alleging that she was terminated in retaliation. (Id. at ¶ 67.)

On April 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed her complaint in this Court. (Doc. 1.) On April 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed her first amended complaint....