Gabeau v. Starnes

• Decision Date: 03 August 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 18-cv-2114-SMY
• Parties: COURTNEY GABEAU, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM STARNES, in both his Individual and Official Capacity, FAYETTE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, and FAYETTE COUNTY, ILLINOIS , Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois

COURTNEY GABEAU, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM STARNES, in both his Individual and Official Capacity,FAYETTE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, and FAYETTE COUNTY, ILLINOIS , Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-2114-SMY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

August 3, 2020

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YANDLE, District Judge:

Plaintiff Courtney Gabeau filed the instant lawsuit against Defendants William Starnes, Fayette County Circuit Court, and Fayette County, Illinois, asserting violations of Title VII, the Illinois Human Rights Act ("IHRA"), and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants move for summary judgment (Doc. 75), which Gabeau opposes (Doc. 76). For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED.

Factual Background

Construed in the light most favorable to Gabeau, the evidence and reasonable inferences establish the following facts relevant to the pending summary judgment motions: Courtney Gabeau was hired as the deputy felony clerk in the Fayette County Circuit Clerk's Office in August 2015 (Doc. 75-1, p. 35, p. 41). Her job duties included creating files, filing motions, updating all criminal records in the Judicial Information Management Services ("JIMS") and attending the criminal court calls. Id. at pp. 35-36. Defendant William Starnes was appointed Fayette County Public Defender in September 2016 and began work in that position on November 1, 2016. (Doc. 75-5, p. 16). Gabeau was transferred to the public defender's office on December 1, 2016, where she worked as Starnes' secretary. Id.

Gabeau alleges she was sexually harassed by Starnes on four occasions; December 13, 2016, January 4, 2017, February 6, 2017, and February 15, 2017. She kept a running ledger of the comments titled "Inappropriate comments made by William B. Starnes to his secretary" and made an entry after each comment. She used her work computer but kept the document on a flash drive so that it would not be found on the hard drive (Doc. 75-1, pp. 134-137, 140-141). Gabeau's father advised her to keep the ledger until the situation reached a point where she needed to report the comments. Id. at pp. 136-137, 142-143, 152.

Gabeau made the following entry to the ledger on December 13, 2016 (Comment #1):

"On my desktop background for my work computer, I have a picture of my boyfriend and I at his dad's house for Thanksgiving. William was standing behind me waiting for his coffee to brew and he said, 'It looks like you're taking it from behind,' referencing the background picture. My response was 'no, that is definitely not what it looks like or it that what's happening.'" (Doc. 75-8; Doc. 75-1, p. 138).

According to Gabeau, after her response, Starnes "looked like a deer in headlights" and walked away. Id. He never made another comment about the photo. Id. For the next three weeks, Starnes and Gabeau had normal and civil work-related conversations without inappropriate comments or incidents. Id., pp. 143-144.

The following entry was made on January 4, 2017 (Comment #2):

"William Starnes has come in from the courtroom into our office. On the case file, I have wrote "FAWC/PH", which stands for first appearance with counsel/preliminary hearing. This acronym is used in the Circuit Clerk's office and also in the Judge's docket entries. William looked at me from the doorway and said, 'we need to find a different saying because this sounds like fuck, and I didn't know if that was an invitation or not.' My responsewas 'no that was not and that was inappropriate.'" (Doc. 75-8; Doc. 75-1, p. 145).

Starnes never brought up this topic again and he and Gabeau had professional work-related conversations until the next incident occurred on February 6, 2017 (Doc. 75-1, pp. 154-155) (Comment #3):

"William Starnes and I were discussing a client and his place of employment at PETCO in St. Elmo, Illinois. I explained to William that my boyfriend's father was employed at PETCO until he broke his back and further explained that he tore his abdominal wall. The doctors repaired his abdomen and the joke in the family is that we refer to his stomach as an alien. After I finished my explanation, William Starnes made the comment, 'I can't imagine having sex with that,' and my response was, 'um, no, that was inappropriate, and I don't want to know that!'" (Doc. 75-8, Doc. 75-1, pp. 155-156).

Nine days later (February 15, 2017), Gabeau made the following entry (Comment #4):

"William Starnes at 8:25 a.m. closed our office door and said, 'I need to ask you a question.' I proceeded to answer, 'Okay, what's up?' William leaned over the chair and asked me, 'Do you have a thing going on with Judge Sheafor?' My response was, 'No, I do not! Judge Sheafor always says hi, how are you, ever since I have worked here, which was two years. From being in the courtroom every day for six months with Judge Sheafor, we always converse with one another. But no there is nothing going on between him and I.' William's response was 'I did not figure there was, but I wanted to ask, beings that this is [Judge Sheafor's] third time in the last eight days coming to our office to say hi.' I just stared at him with no response" (Doc. 75-8; Doc. 75-1, pp. 169-170).

The February 15, 2017 incident was the "straw that broke the camel's back" and Gabeau reported the incidents to Circuit Clerk Kathy Emerick. (Doc. 75-1, p. 172). Emerick called Victim Witness Coordinator Kira Palmer and County Clerk Vicki Conder (Doc. 75-3, pp. 108-109; Doc. 75-4, pp. 54-55; Doc. 75-9, p. 44; Doc. 75-12, p. 15). Gabeau gave a copy of her ledger to Conder (Doc. 75-1, pp. 188-89), and Conder contacted Sheriff Chris Smith and gave him the ledger (Doc. 75-9, pp. 46-47).

Sheriff Smith, Chief Deputy Larry Halleman, Joshua Morrison, and Judge M. Don Sheafor met, reviewed the allegations, and discussed what to do (Doc. 75-2, ¶¶ 50-52). They then met with Gabeau to interview her about the incidents (Doc. 75-1, pp. 194-196). Gabeau told the group that Starnes did not touch her and stated that if he had, "this would have been an entirely different conversation and ...I would have kicked him in the balls." (Doc. 75-1, p. 191). The group discussed Starnes' comments, confirmed no touching had occurred and agreed to send Gabeau home with pay while they investigated (Doc. 75-1, pp. 198-201; Doc. 75-6, pp. 67-68, 79-80, Doc. 75-2, ¶54).

The next day, Judge Sheafor interviewed Gabeau while Halleman took notes (Doc. 75-2, ¶¶ 55-65). After the interview, Judge Sheafor asked Emerick and Conder if there were openings in any county offices, but neither had openings (Doc. 75-2, ¶¶ 65-69). Judge Sheafor asked Conder if she could put Gabeau to work on a temporary basis while the investigation was pending and reiterated that it would not be a permanent position; Conder agreed (Doc. 75-2, ¶¶ 70-71; Doc. 75-9, p. 61). Judge Sheafor told Gabeau to report to work in the County Clerk's office on Monday (Doc. 75-2, ¶ 72). Gabeau knew the placement in the Clerk's office was temporary (Doc. 75-1, pp. 88-89; Doc. 75-3, p. 40; Doc. 75-7, pp. 31-32). Her pay remained the same (Doc. 75-1, pp. 80-83).

The investigation was referred to Chief Judge Kimberly Koester's Office because Judge Sheafor, the resident judge, was named in the allegations (Doc. 75-7, p. 24). Judge Koester reviewed the sexual harassment policies from the County and Illinois Supreme Court to prepare for her investigation. (Doc. 75-3, pp. 19-20). She spoke to Morrison, Smith and Judge Sheafor and interviewed Gabeau, Starnes, Emerick and Pearson (Doc. 75-3, pp. 47-48; Doc. 75-7, pp. 42-43). Judge Koester testified that the comments, as a whole, could have been construed asinappropriate and falling under paragraph 5 of the County's Policy against Discrimination, Harassment and Sexual Misconduct, which states:

Each employee must exercise his or her own good judgment to avoid engaging in conduct that may be perceived by others as sexual harassment or harassment based on any status protected by law. The following are illustrations of action that Fayette County deems inappropriate and in violation of our policy: ... (5) Verbal conduct such as making or using derogatory comments, epithets, slurs, sexually explicit jokes, derogatory or suggestive comments about a person's body or dress.

(Doc. 75-3, pp. 15, 48-49; Doc. 75-7, pp. 33-34, pp. 51-52). After she completed the investigation, Judge Koester told Starnes that his discipline would be (1) a written reprimand to be placed in his file, and (2) the completion of a job sensitivity training within 90 days, and that she would consider the matter closed upon completion of his training (Doc. 75-3, p. 71; Doc. 75-7, pp. 49-51).

There was no other office space available in the courthouse for Gabeau (Doc. 75-7, p. 55) and there were no other positions available in the County (Doc. 75-1, pp. 59-62; Doc. 75-3, pp. 87-88; Doc. 75-2, ¶¶ 66-69). Gabeau told Judge Koester that she did not want Starnes walking behind her because that is when he saw her computer screen (Doc. 75-7, p. 55). Judge Koester decided that the coffee maker would be moved from behind Gabeau's desk to avoid Starnes having to walk behind her to get coffee, and Starnes was required to leave the door to the hallway open at all times (Doc. 75-7, p. 52).

Judge Koester informed the judges in the Fourth Judicial Circuit of the outcome of the investigation and the steps taken (Doc. 75-3, p. 65). She then shared the results of her investigation with Gabeau and told her she could return to the Public Defender's office (Doc. 75-1, pp. 84-85; Doc. 75-3, p. 67; Doc. 75-7, pp. 52-53). Gabeau did not feel comfortable or safe working with Starnes and she resigned two days later. (Doc. 75-1, pp. 59-60; Doc. 75-24).

Discussion

Summary judgment is proper only if the moving party can demonstrate that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The moving party is entitled to summary judgment where the non-moving...