Domestic Violence Survivors Support Grp., Inc. v. Crouch

• Decision Date: 07 October 2020
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-00452
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
• Parties: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS SUPPORT GROUP, INC., d/b/a DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COUNSELING CENTER, and ELIZABETH CRAWFORD, Plaintiffs, v. BILL E. CROUCH, in his official Capacity as Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources; PATRICIA BAILEY, individually and in her official capacity as Chairperson of the Family Protection Services Board, an entity of the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources; WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES; THE FAMILY PROTECTION SERVICES BOARD; and WEST VIRGINIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC., Defendants.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS SUPPORT GROUP, INC.,d/b/a DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COUNSELING CENTER,and ELIZABETH CRAWFORD, Plaintiffs, v. BILL E. CROUCH,

in his official Capacity as Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources;

PATRICIA BAILEY, individually and in her official capacity

as Chairperson of the Family Protection Services Board,

an entity of the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources;

WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES;

THE FAMILY PROTECTION SERVICES BOARD;

and WEST VIRGINIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-00452

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON

October 7, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending are three motions to dismiss: the motion by Patricia Bailey, filed May 15, 2018 (ECF No. 24); the motion by Bill E. Crouch, the Family Protection Services Board (the "Board"), and the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services ("DHHR"), filed May 15, 2018 (ECF No. 26); and the motion by the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Inc. (the "Coalition"), filed May 25, 2018 (ECF No. 31).

I. Background

Plaintiff Elizabeth Crawford is an African-American woman who founded and serves as the executive director of plaintiff Domestic Violence Survivors Support Group, Inc., a West Virginia non-profit corporation doing business as the Domestic Violence Counseling Center ("DVCC"). ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 1-2. DVCC provides counseling, education, and prevention services and seminars to domestic violence victims¹ and offenders, with an emphasis on providing services to the African-American community. See id. ¶¶ 3-4. DVCC also provides these services to victims of other crimes or traumatic events. See id.

DHHR is an executive department of the State of West Virginia. See Executive Reorganization Act, ch. 3, 1989 W. Va. Acts Extraordinary Sess. 1735, 1738. Defendant Bill E. Crouch, who is sued only in his official capacity, is currently the Secretary of DHHR. See ECF No. 1 at ¶ 5. The Board is a public body under the umbrella of DHHR that oversees the licensing of domestic violence programs in West Virginia. See W. Va. Code § 48-26-401(b); Men & Women Against Discrimination v. FamilyProt. Servs. Bd., 725 S.E.2d 756, 758 (W. Va. 2011). The Board is composed of seven board members: the Secretary of DHHR (Secretary Crouch) or his designee; the Chair of the Governor's Committee on Crime, Delinquency and Correction or his designee; and five members appointed by the Governor of West Virginia with the advice and consent of the Senate, one of whom must be a representative of the Coalition. See W. Va. Code § 48-26-301(b)-(c). Defendant Patricia Bailey, who is sued in her official and individual capacities, is currently the Chairperson of the Board. See ECF No. 1 ¶ 6

The Board is mandated to "[r]eceive and consider applications for licensure of domestic violence programs." W. Va. Code § 48-26-401(a)(2). The West Virginia Domestic Violence Act, W. Va. Code § 48-26-101 et seq., defines a "domestic violence program" as:

"a licensed program of a locally controlled nonprofit organization, established primarily for the purpose of providing advocacy services, comprising both a shelter component and an outreach component, to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking or human trafficking, and their children . . . .

Id. § 48-26-208. The Domestic Violence Act does not define the phrase "shelter component" in the above definition, but the Act defines the word "shelter" as "residential services offered by a licensed domestic violence program on a temporary basis, topersons who are victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking or human trafficking, and their children." Id. § 48-26-214. The Board interprets this definition of "shelter," when applying the "shelter component" requirement, to mean a "'physical' shelter." ECF No. 25 at 2; accord ECF No. 27 at 2-3.

On May 18, 2017, Ms. Crawford submitted a pre-application for DVCC to be licensed by the Board as a domestic violence program. See ECF No. 1 ¶ 8; see also W. Va. Code R. § 191-1-5 (2015) (setting forth licensure application process). In a letter dated July 18, 2017, the Board denied DVCC's pre-application for not satisfying the statutory requirement of having a "physical" "shelter component." See ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 11, 14; ECF No. 25 at 2-3. The plaintiffs allege that Ms. Bailey and the Board deliberately misconstrued the applicable state statute and relied on the term "shelter," rather than on the more ambiguous term "shelter component" to deny DVCC's pre-application. See ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 11-20. The plaintiffs assert that the statute does not require an actual, physical shelter to meet the "shelter component" requirement, see id. ¶¶ 15-19, and that DVCC has a "shelter component," as it refers "victims of domestic violence to licensed, existing shelters, whichroutinely accept the victims in a manner similar to hospitals accepting referrals from physicians," id. ¶ 19.²

The plaintiffs allege that denial of the pre-application was the result of racially-driven animosity and the Board's efforts to "achieve its objective of discriminating against DVCC and Ms. Crawford on the basis of race." Id. ¶ 14. DVCC had previously submitted four pre-applications in 1996, 2013, 2015, and 2016, all of which had been denied on the ground that DVCC lacked a physical shelter. See id. ¶¶ 13, 20, 23. In its 2017 pre-application, DVCC claimed that the Board's four prior denials were in fact due to racial discrimination. See id.

The Domestic Violence Act provides an appeal process for licensed domestic violence programs that are adversely affected by the Board's decision, but the statute is silent about a similar process for an entity that is not licensed or that is denied a pre-application. See ECF No. 1. ¶¶ 21-22; W. Va. Code § 48-26-408(e); see also W. Va. Code R. 191-1-5.6 (providing internal appeal process when an existing license is"downgraded or discontinued"). The plaintiffs allege that Ms. Bailey and her predecessor "smugly" informed Ms. Crawford of the lack of an appeal process for DVCC's situation. ECF No. 1 ¶ 22.

The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants disagree with DVCC's approach to treating the symptoms of domestic violence, a disagreement that encourages the defendants to discriminate against the plaintiffs. See id. ¶ 31. Inasmuch as DVCC was founded and is led by Ms. Crawford, an African-American woman, and focuses on serving the African-American community, which faces substantial domestic violence problems in Charleston, West Virginia, and nationwide, the plaintiffs assert that the refusal to license DVCC as a domestic violence program effectively discriminates against Ms. Crawford, DVCC, and the African-American community as a whole. See id. ¶¶ 24-32.

The plaintiffs allege that the Coalition,³ a non-profit organization that operates licensed domestic violence centers in West Virginia, see id. ¶ 7, "aided and abetted the other defendants in their discrimination of the plaintiffs," id. ¶ 34. The Coalition's members allegedly spread "rumors and innuendo" that DVCC is not a licensed domestic violence center, that Ms.Crawford is "somehow ill qualified," and thus that DVCC is an "unsafe, unfit organization" for victims of domestic violence. Id. ¶ 35. The Coalition's members are further alleged to have used their power "to lobby and persuade public officials to deny DVCC public funding and recognition." Id. ¶ 36; see id. ¶¶ 37-38. For instance, plaintiffs allege that one member used her status to depict DVCC as a "rogue organization" for treating both male and female victims of domestic violence, another member was "verbally and emotionally abusive toward" Ms. Crawford at a public event, and other members persuaded officials of the West Virginia Court of Claims to deny reimbursement to DVCC from the Crime Victims Fund for those victims who received counseling from DVCC. Id. ¶¶ 37-39. Members also allegedly engaged in the consistent exclusion of Ms. Crawford from participation in public events regarding domestic violence. See id. ¶¶ 40-41, 45. The plaintiffs further allege that Ms. Crawford became a target of the Coalition, in part, because she "rebuffed sexual advances" of a former Coalition co-coordinator. Id. ¶ 44.

Additionally, a former Coalition member allegedly told Ms. Crawford that "racism was present in the Coalition" and that the Coalition "would not tolerate an organization headed by an African-American professional being part of the Coalition orparticipating in activities involving domestic violence if it could help it." Id. ¶ 42. This "discriminatory exclusion because of Ms. Crawford's race" has allegedly continued to the present. Id.

The plaintiffs initiated this action on March 17, 2018, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343.⁴ The plaintiffs assert eight causes of action.

COUNT 1 alleges that all the defendants violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3) and "the common law" in violation of the rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Id. at 12. The count specifically alleges that Ms. Bailey individually and in her official capacity, the Board, and the Coalition conspired to racially discriminate against the plaintiffs, thus denying them equal protection of the law.⁵ See id. ¶¶ 48-52. The count also alleges that Secretary Crouch in his official capacity and DHHR acted negligently to allow this conspiracy and racialdiscrimination to occur. Id. ¶ 53. The plaintiffs seek an injunction ordering the defendants to cease their allegedly conspiratorial conduct against the plaintiffs and to administer the licensing process in a racially-neutral and objective manner. Id. at 12.

COUNT 2 alleges that all the defendants violated § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving the plaintiffs of a property interest in a domestic violence program license without due...