Evans v. Dart
| Decision Date | 29 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 18 C 6018 |
| Parties | DAVID EVANS III, et al.,, v. THOMAS J. DART, Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois; and COUNTY OF COOK, . |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Plaintiffs David Evans III, David Sheppard, Monta Servant, and Tabas Jackson are current or former correctional officers employed by the Cook County's Sheriff's Office (“CCSO”) in the Cook County Department of Corrections. Each plaintiff was involved in an incident with a detainee for which they were subjected to CCSO's disciplinary procedure. Plaintiffs later sued Thomas J. Dart as Sheriff of Cook County and Cook County, claiming that similarly situated white employees received more lenient punishments in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The Defendants move for summary judgment. (Dkt. 130). For the following reasons, the motion is granted. (Id.)
The Office of Professional Review (“OPR”) is tasked with investigating misconduct by employees within the Department of Corrections. (Dkt. 153 ¶¶ 5-6). An investigation typically begins when someone files a complaint register, at which point an investigator is appointed. (Id.) The investigator then interviews witnesses, gathers evidence, and makes factual findings and conclusions as to whether any policies have been violated. (Id.) The investigator also prepares a report, which supervisors within OPR review and approve. (Id. ¶ 6). The case then moves to the Command Channel Review (“CCR”), where a CCSO executive examines the investigation file and findings.[1] (Id. ¶ 8). The Undersheriff performs another review and provides her concurrence or rejection. (Id. ¶¶ 11-14). For suspensions greater than thirty days or termination recommendations, the CCSO must file a complaint before the Merit Board, a body established by state statute. (Id. ¶ 16). There, the case is assigned to a Merit Board member, who conducts a full evidentiary hearing. (Id. ¶¶ 17-18). After the hearing, the entire Merit Board reviews the record and issues a written decision, subject to review under the Administrative Review Law. (Id.) When the Department of Corrections seeks to dismiss a correctional officer, the person is entitled to a Loudermill hearing. (Id. ¶ 19).
Department policies prohibit race discrimination in any employment decision, including disciplinary decisions, and those who violate this guarantee are themselves subject to termination. (Id. ¶ 21). The department, though, never reviews the discipline in comparable cases to ensure disciplinary recommendations are free from discrimination, nor does any policy compel it do conduct such a review. (Id.)
David Evans III. Evans was a correctional officer assigned to Tier 3-West at Cermak Hospital. (Id. ¶ 30). On December 16, 2015, he was involved in an accident with a detainee who used the arm of his wheelchair to break the glass in the door of the cell. (Id. ¶ 37). Evans entered the cell with Lieutenant Matthew Koedyker. (Id.) When Evans tried to remove the other arm from the wheelchair, the detainee attempted to block him. (Id.) In response, Evans allegedly struck the individual on the head, causing him to fall to the floor. (Id. ¶ 38).
Two complaints were submitted against Evans: Koedyker reported the incident to the Superintendent, who filed a Complaint Register, and the detainee filed a separate Complaint Register. (Id. ¶¶ 40-41). The OPR opened an investigation. (Id. ¶ 41). Evans claimed that he acted in self-defense-the detainee, he said, attempted to use a wheelchair arm as a weapon and struck at him with “closed handed strikes.” (Id. ¶ 43). Koedyker told a different story: he believed Evans used excessive force. (Id. ¶ 42). OPR attempted to interview Evans without success. (Id. ¶ 44). In the end, the office concluded that Evans used excessive force and that Evans's official report was inaccurate. (Id. ¶ 45). Undersheriff Zelda Whittler reviewed and approved the findings and recommended Evans's employment be terminated. (Id. ¶ 46). The Merit Board examined the video evidence and listened to Koedyker testify but ultimately ordered Evans be reinstated to his position. (Id. ¶¶ 48-49).
Tabas Jackson. On January 24, 2016, Jackson, also a correctional officer, allegedly exchanged words with a detainee, Anthony Asare, who was seated with his hands cuffed behind his back. (Id. ¶¶ 51-52). Jackson then grasped Asare by the throat. (Id. ¶ 52). Upon seeing the throat-hold, Correctional Officer William Carnes grabbed Jackson's harm to pull it off, while a different detainee, Eddy Redmond, attempted to place his body between Jackson and Asare. (Id.) Jackson then released his grip on Asare only to grab Redmond's throat instead. (Id.)
Asare filed a Complaint Register against Jackson for choking him and Redmond. (Id. ¶ 53). After reviewing surveillance video of the incident, Superintendent Salmon Martinez also filed a Complaint Register. (Id.) OPR investigated the incident. (Id. ¶ 54). In a sworn interview, Jackson denied every choking Asare and Redmond; instead, he claimed that he only placed his hands on them to hold them down after they became agitated. (Id. ¶¶ 56-58). OPR concluded that Jackson used excessive force; two other corrections officers along with Jackson failed to document or notify their superiors of the incident; and Jackson made a false report and false statements in his official report. (Id. ¶ 61). Undersheriff Whittler agreed with the findings and determined that Jackson's employment should be terminated. (Id. ¶ 62). The Merit Board, after a trial, ordered his termination. (Id. ¶¶ 64-65).
Monta Servant. Servant was assigned to a housing unit for “acute psyche” detainees. (Id. ¶ 66). On April 2, 2015, Servant allegedly placed a detainee in a “chokehold” by grabbing him from behind, placing his arm around the person's neck, and pulling the detainee backward by the neck. (Id. ¶¶ 68-69). Servant used this technique to walk the detainee down the hallway into an isolation cell. (Id.) The Sheriff Office's Orders, however, prohibit chokeholds except “as a last resort ... to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the officer or another person.” (Id. ¶ 71). The detainee here was not engaging in aggressive behavior, so the use of a chokehold, if proven, was unwarranted. (Id.)
On May 15, 2015, the Use of Force Review unit recommended supplemental training for Servant. (Id. ¶ 72) As a result, OPR opened an investigation. (Id. ¶ 73). Servant denied, in his sworn interview, ever using the maneuver. (Id. ¶ 74). OPR found that this characterization was inaccurate and that the use of a chokehold was unjustified. (Id. ¶¶ 75-76). The disciplinary board recommended that Servant's employment be terminated, and Undersheriff Whittler agreed. (Id. ¶ 77). The Merit Board sided with Servant though-over the dissent of one member-and Servant was allowed to return to work. (Id. ¶ 78).
Delphine Bridges. A detainee reported that Bridges took his property bag, ordered him handcuffed, and hit him with her keys several times. (Id. ¶¶ 79-81). The video testimony purportedly showed the detainee had a visibly swollen eye with red marks below the socket, and he was at some point taken for medical attention and treated for swelling and a corneal abrasion. (Id. ¶¶ 82-83).
The detainee submitted a Complaint Register against Bridges, and OPR began investigating the allegations. (Id. ¶¶ 84-85) Bridges acknowledged interacting with the detainee but denied causing him or his property any harm. (Id. ¶ 86). Nonetheless, OPR believed there was enough evidence to sustain the misconduct allegations. (Id. ¶¶ 87-90) Surveillance video revealed Bridges slapping the property bag out of the detainee's hand, and although the video moved away from the scene after that point, four other detainees corroborated the account in addition to the medical records. (Id. ¶ 87). Thus, it concluded Bridges used impermissible force, never reported the incident, made false statements, and neglected to help the detainee receive medical care. (Id. ¶¶ 89-90). Undersheriff Whittler recommended that her employment be terminated, and the Merit Board agreed. (Id. ¶¶ 90, 99)
Plaintiffs sued Thomas J. Dart in his official capacity as Cook County Sheriff and Cook County, bringing disparate treatment and disparate impact claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Counts I & II); equal protection and due process claims under § 1983 (Counts III & IV); a § 1981 claim against Sheriff Dart (Count V); and indemnification from Cook County (Count VI). (See generally Dkt. 1). The defendants moved to dismiss all counts for failure to state a claim. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). This Court granted the motion for Counts I, II, and IV but denied it for Counts III (equal protection), V (§ 1981), and VI (indemnification). (Dkt. 113 at 9). On Count III, plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that the defendants did not ensure consistency in disciplinary outcomes, resulting in discrimination against non-Caucasian officers because similarly situated Caucasian officers received more lenient sanctions. (Id. at 5-6). And because the complaint stated an equal-protection claim, plaintiffs' § 1981 and indemnification claims survived, (id. at 7-9). The defendants now move for summary judgment on the remaining three counts. (Dkt. 130).
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The Court construes all facts in favor of the nonmoving party and does not “weigh conflicting evidence, resolve swearing...
To continue reading
Request your trial