Goodson v. Cnty. of Plumas
| Docket Number | 2:18-cv-03105-KJM-DB |
| Decision Date | 20 July 2023 |
| Parties | Tiffany Goodson, Plaintiff, v. County of Plumas, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
Tiffany Goodson, who used the last name Wagner at the time, worked as a correctional officer in Plumas County, California. In the summer of 2018, she reported that a supervising sergeant Brandon Compton, had sexually harassed her. Compton resigned but within two weeks, the County put Goodson on administrative leave. It began an investigation that culminated in her termination. In this lawsuit, Goodson pursues harassment and retaliation claims against the County and Compton. The case was tried without a jury in August 2022.
As set forth below in the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, Goodson proved at trial that both her former supervisor and the County are liable for creating a hostile work environment in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. She also proved the County is liable for terminating her employment based in part on a retaliatory motive, again in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. She is entitled to compensatory damages of $752,214 as well as equitable relief.
In cases tried without a jury, the Federal Rules require the trial court to “find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law separately.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a)(1). If the court does not state its findings and conclusions on the record at the close of evidence, it must prepare “an opinion or a memorandum of decision.” Id. The court's findings must be “explicit enough” to offer “a clear understanding” of its decision. Colchester v. Lazaro, 16 F.4th 712, 727 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1090 (9th Cir. 2002)).
District courts often present their factual findings in numbered lists, but Rule 52 does not require that format. Numbered factual findings can be “cumbersome” or even counterproductive, especially when the court must answer mixed questions of law and fact. Appleton Papers Inc. v. George A. Whiting Paper Co., No. 08-C-16, 2012 WL 2704920, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Wis. July 3, 2012), aff'd, 768 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2014). After reviewing the record and evidence presented at trial, the court has determined that a narrative presentation, supported by citations when necessary, will explain its findings and conclusions most clearly.
Goodson began working at the Plumas County Sheriff's Department in 2011. Joint Ex. 8 at 21. After a few months, she finished her training and started as a correctional officer in the local jail. Id. at 20. Working in the jail brought her pride and satisfaction. Trial Tr. 47. She planned to build a career in law enforcement. Trial Tr. 47, 55. The job gave her a feeling she was part of something bigger than herself. Trial Tr. 47. She helped start a self-improvement program for the jail's inmates, which her coworkers lightheartedly dubbed the “hug-a-thug” program. Trial Tr. 53, 123. She felt like she was helping inmates improve themselves. Trial Tr. 47-48, 53.
Goodson worked the graveyard shift. Tr. 55-56. This meant her workday typically started at 10:00 p.m. and ended at 8:00 a.m. the next morning. Trial Tr. 57-58. Only two other officers would be at the jail when she arrived at the beginning of a typical shift: one sergeant and one other correctional officer. Id. The sergeant's shift ended at midnight, leaving Goodson and the other officer alone in the facility until officers on the daytime shift arrived at 6:00 a.m. Id. In 2018, she was the officer in charge overnight when no sergeant was on duty. Trial Tr. 58.
Goodson's supervisors praised her work. Trial Tr. 48. She regularly met or exceeded their expectations for an officer in her position. See Joint Ex. 8 at 1-2, 5-6, 8, 10-16, 19-20. The jail commander praised her for going “above and beyond,” Trial Tr. 53; Joint Ex. 8 at 2, and she was assigned to train new officers, Trial Tr. 170. The County even offered her a promotion to sergeant, but she declined; the promotion would have come with a change in shifts, and the childcare arrangement she had with her parents depended on her working the graveyard shift. Trial Tr. 55-56.
Goodson also got along well with her coworkers. She felt like they were her family, and she thought of the jail as her home away from home. Trial Tr. 79, 155, 165, 169. She often greeted coworkers with an affectionate hug or kiss. Trial Tr. 162, 164, 299. They laughed and cried together, and she confided in them about problems in her personal life, including her marriage, her finances and her intimate relationships. See, e.g., Trial Tr. 167-68, 299, 679. Her coworkers helped her when money was tight. Trial Tr. 168-69.
The officers in the jail also teased one another and joked in an attempt to alleviate the jail's sometimes oppressive atmosphere. Unfortunately, their attempts at fostering an esprit de corps often devolved into juvenile, crude and even violent interactions. In one “game,” an officer would form a circle with a thumb and index finger and hold the circle against his or her lower body. Trial Tr. 595. That officer “won” the game by catching another looking at the finger circle. Id. If another officer managed to poke the first officer through the circle, the first officer lost. See id. The winner's reward? Free rein to punch the loser. See id. Officers gave one another “wet willies,” i.e., “when you take your finger in your mouth and get it wet with saliva and put it another person's ear.” Trial Tr. 582. Officers also slapped one another forcefully on the buttocks, men and women alike. They called these blows “body gloves,” because their goal was to strike the other person so hard that the impact left a handprint of irritated flesh in the shape of the Body Glove swimwear brand logo. Trial Tr. 576. Officers, men and women alike, sometimes flicked or hit one another in the chest, breasts and genitals. See, e.g., Trial Tr. 578-80, 584-85, 700.
When officers testified at trial about this crude roughhousing, one officer's name came up more than any other: Brandon Compton. See, e.g., Trial Tr. 178, 579-82, 671-72, 706, 782. Compton, a sergeant at the time, supervised the day shift beginning at 6:00 a.m. Trial Tr. 58-59. Because Goodson's shift ended at 8:00 a.m., her hours overlapped with Compton's morning hours during which time he was her supervisor. See id. Compton approved Goodson's schedule changes, assigned her tasks and signed her performance reviews. See Trial Tr. 59; Joint Ex. 8 at 1-2; Def. Ex. E at 4. Despite Compton's inappropriate behavior, Goodson had long considered him a friend. Trial Tr. 65, 299. She had attended the jail academy with him many years before, alongside another officer, Sergeant April Gott. Trial Tr. 161-62. Goodson often greeted Compton with a friendly hug or kiss, and they, like others in the jail, confided in one another about personal and family problems. Trial Tr. 299.
At trial, the parties devoted a great deal of time and effort to eliciting testimony about whether Goodson hit others in the groin or buttocks. It is difficult to draw any firm conclusions from these accounts, as many years have passed since Goodson worked in the jail, the officers' memories are inconsistent, and their accounts have changed over time.[1] What is clear is that Goodson was not offended or hurt by the inappropriate games Compton and other officers played in the jail, but she did not participate in many of them. See, e.g., Trial Tr. 177-79. No one testified, for example, that Goodson gave other officers wet willies or played the circle game. And on balance, the evidence does not show Goodson regularly struck others in the groin, breasts, buttocks or chest, if she ever did so at all.
In any event, the flurry of testimony about groping and butt slapping is a red herring. This case fundamentally is not about the other officers' juvenile and inappropriate misbehavior. Goodson filed no complaints about that behavior. Her complaints focused on far more serious misconduct, which began in the late Spring of 2018, when her once-friendly relationship with Compton suddenly changed. As she put it at trial, “he crossed boundaries that should have never been crossed.” Trial Tr. 78.
Specifically, on one workday in May, Goodson was talking with Compton and another officer, Lilianna Ah Wah, in the jail's sally port. Trial Tr. 66-67. Goodson had recently lost weight and was expressing a newfound sense of freedom. Id. She said she wanted to swim with sharks and go skydiving, and she asked Compton and Ah Wah if they would ever try something like that. Id. Both said no. Id. After Ah Wah left, Compton told Goodson there was one way he might be convinced to join her. Id. “What was that?” she asked. Id. “If you got on your knees and gave me a blow job,” he told her. Id. 714 ().
Sergeant Shawn Adams. Joint Ex. 16 at 55 (); Trial Tr. 781-82 (); Trial Tr. 792 (testifying he never saw Goodson hit Compton in the groin); Trial Tr. 795-96 ().
Officer Lilianna Ah Wah. Trial Tr. 896 (); Trial Tr. 899 (same); Joint Ex. 9 at 101-02 ().
Sergeant Amber Hermann. Joint Ex. 9 at 129 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial