Ezell v. Wells

• Decision Date: 10 July 2015
• Docket Number: NO. 2:15-CV-00083-J,2:15-CV-00083-J
• Parties: LILA KELLI EZELL and MARTIN SANCHEZ, Plaintiffs, v. BURNIE WELLS, individually and in his official capacity; JUDGE HAROLD KEETER, individually and in his official capacity; SWISHER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; and SWISHER COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

LILA KELLI EZELL and MARTIN SANCHEZ, Plaintiffs,
v.
BURNIE WELLS, individually and in his official capacity; JUDGE HAROLD KEETER,
individually and in his official capacity; SWISHER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT;
and SWISHER COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendants.

NO. 2:15-CV-00083-J

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION

July 10, 2015

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Swisher County, Texas ("the County") and a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Harold Keeter ("Judge Keeter"). Plaintiffs Lila Kelli Ezell ("Ezell") and Martin Sanchez ("Sanchez") filed responses on May 27, 2015. Defendants did not file a reply. Defendants' Motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

This case arises from incidents of alleged sexual harassment and retaliation in the Swisher County Sheriff's Department, which caused two Department employees—Lila Ezell and Martin Sanchez—to resign from their positions with the County. Ezell and Sanchez filed their Original Complaint in this Court on March 12, 2015. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, informing the Court that Sanchez was voluntarily dismissing all of the claims alleged on his behalf in the Original Complaint. Defendants Keeter

Page 2

and Swisher County responded with Motions to Dismiss filed on April 6, 2015. However, the Plaintiffs later filed a First Amended Complaint on April 27, 2015, re-asserting Sanchez's claims. In their First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs make the following allegations:

Lila Ezell began working for the Swisher County Sheriff's Department as a Deputy on October 1, 2013. She was recruited to join the Department by Swisher County Sheriff Burnie Wells ("Sheriff Wells") in order to establish a K-9 program. Wells had recently been appointed to the position of County Sheriff by Swisher County Judge Harold Keeter, after the County's previous sheriff had "depart[ed]." At around the same time, both Sheriff Wells and Swisher County were named as defendants in a federal civil rights and employment discrimination lawsuit filed by Cassie Pointer, a Sheriff's Department employee. Shortly after Ezell was hired, Plaintiffs allege that Wells ordered Ezell to befriend and "conduct surveillance" on Cassie Pointer in order to gather evidence that Wells could then use as a pretext for terminating Pointer—presumably in retaliation for Pointer's lawsuit. Plaintiffs allege that Wells also ordered Ezell to perform surveillance on Sheriff's Department employees Mandy Dempsey and Plaintiff Martin Sanchez, because Wells believed both were sympathetic to Pointer and would serve as witnesses in Pointer's lawsuit against Wells and the County.

Ezell states that after she verbally refused to engage in this surveillance, Wells became increasingly hostile towards her and threatened to fire or demote her if she reported Wells' attempts to retaliate against Pointer, Dempsey, and Sanchez. Ezell alleges that Wells yelled at her, directed vulgar language at her, invaded her personal space, and continually pressured her to help him retaliate against Pointer, Dempsey, and Sanchez for their participation in Pointer's lawsuit. Wells terminated Ezell's plans to develop a K-9 program—the primary reason Ezell had come to work for Swisher County—and issued a "negative counseling memo" criticizing Ezell

Page 3

for being confrontational, defensive, and insubordinate. Ezell also alleges that Wells created a hostile work environment for herself and other employees—including Sanchez—by yelling at employees, invading employees' personal space, spitting on employees, addressing employees in a threatening and hostile manner, and using profanity. Ezell alleges that Wells harassed her, as well as the Department's other female employees, by addressing them as "honey" and "darling" and by putting his arms around them and touching their shoulders.

Martin Sanchez began working for the Swisher County Sheriff's Department on April 23, 2010. Sanchez alleges that after he submitted a positive letter of reference for Cassie Pointer and indicated a willingness to testify on Pointer's behalf, Sheriff Wells retaliated against him and subjected him to a hostile work environment. Specifically, Sanchez alleges that Wells prohibited Sanchez from speaking with County employees outside of the Sheriff's Department, yelled and directed vulgar language at Sanchez, rummaged through Sanchez's desk when he was out of the office, and refused Sanchez's requests for scheduling accommodations and additional resources for the Department. Sanchez also alleges that Sheriff Wells threatened to fire or demote him if he reported Wells' harassment and retaliation.

Plaintiffs allege that Judge Keeter was aware that Sheriff Wells lacked the necessary law enforcement qualifications and training to serve as Swisher County's Sheriff, yet nevertheless appointed Wells because he was a personal friend. Keeter was aware that Wells was harassing the Plaintiffs, but took no remedial steps to protect them or other employees from Wells' hostile behavior. Plaintiffs allege that Keeter conspired with Wells to violate their constitutional rights by subjecting Plaintiffs to a hostile work environment and by using intimidation and threats to deter the Plaintiffs from reporting Defendants' alleged misconduct.

Page 4

Sanchez alleges that after Keeter learned of his efforts to assist Cassie Pointer in her lawsuit against the County, Keeter retaliated against Sanchez by acting in a "demeaning, and spiteful manner," by refusing Sanchez's personnel and resource requests, and by subjecting Sanchez to "impossible working conditions and hours." Finally, Plaintiffs allege more generally that Keeter imposed a hostile work environment on them, both directly and indirectly, by facilitating Wells' sexual harassment of female employees.

Plaintiffs allege that Swisher County had several policies, practices, or customs that allowed its employees and agents to "act with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of individuals," including Swisher County's female employees. These policies include (1) a policy of tolerating employee misconduct; (2) a policy of encouraging misconduct by failing to adequately supervise, discipline, or train employees; and (3) a policy of retaliating against employees who report harassment. Plaintiffs also allege that the County failed to enact or enforce policies that would prevent unlawful discrimination and retaliation. Plaintiffs further allege that Keeter and Wells were final policymakers for Swisher County, and were acting under color of state law when they engaged in the alleged harassment and retaliation.

Both Ezell and Sanchez eventually submitted letters of resignation to Sheriff Wells. Plaintiffs allege that Wells responded by terminating them on the spot and filing Form F-5 "Separation of Licensee" reports with the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, insinuating that Ezell and Sanchez were terminated because of their misconduct, performance problems, insubordination, and untruthfulness. Plaintiffs allege that their resignation was tantamount to a constructive termination because they were motivated to resign by the Defendants' constant harassment and creation of a hostile work environment.

Page 5

Ezell and Sanchez each submitted a "Charge of Employment Discrimination" to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Texas Human Rights Commission. Ezell received a "Notice of Right to Sue" letter on December 15, 2014. Sanchez received a "Notice of Right to Sue" letter on December 18, 2014. Plaintiffs filed their Original Complaint in this Court on March 12, 2015, and their Amended Complaint on April 27, 2015. In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs assert the following causes of action: (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Wells and Keeter in their individual and official capacities for alleged First and Fourteenth Amendment violations; (2) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Swisher County for alleged First and Fourteenth Amendment violations; (3) conspiracy claims against Wells and Keeter; (4) 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (Title VII) claims against Swisher County for unlawful retaliation; and (5) Tex. Gov't Code § 554.002 (Texas Whistleblower Act) claims against Swisher County.

STANDARD FOR MOTIONS TO DISMISS

A motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, is to be evaluated on the pleadings alone. See Jackson v. Procunier, 789 F.2d 307, 309 (5th Cir. 1986). A plaintiff's claim for relief must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the pleading standard of Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it does require more than mere labels and conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Formulaic recitations of the elements of a cause of action will not suffice. See id.

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). When making this inquiry, a court must construe the

Page 6

complaint liberally, in favor of the...