Haley v. Pierce Cnty. Wash.
| Decision Date | 13 February 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 41948-3-II,41948-3-II |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Jason Haley, Appellant, v. PIERCE COUNTY WASHINGTON, Respondent, JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants. |
Hunt, J. — Pierce County Jail Corrections Officer Jason Haley appeals the superior court's order granting summary judgment to Pierce County1 on his race discrimination and retaliation claims, which he brought under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD)2 because the County failed to promote him to deputy sheriff in 2007. Haley claims that the County is liable to him for race discrimination and retaliation for repeatedly disqualifying him fromconsideration for promotion during his background investigation and for failing him after his original oral board in 2007.3 Haley argues that the superior court erred in dismissing his claims on summary judgment because he produced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for each of his claims and to demonstrate that the County's proffered reasons for denying him a promotion during these stages were pretexts for race discrimination and retaliation.
Holding that genuine issues of material fact exist about whether the County's actions involving Haley's background investigation and original 2007 oral board were pretextual, we reverse the superior court's summary judgment dismissal of Haley's race discrimination and retaliation claims and remand for trial.4
Because this case involves a grant of summary judgment, we recount the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, here Jason Haley. In July 2006, the Pierce County Sheriff's Department hired Haley, an African American male, to work as a corrections officer in the jail; Haley had previously served 12 years as a Navy supervisor and training officer. When the County first hired Haley, it told him that his hairstyle—braids on top of his head—was "fine." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 20. But a few days into his employment, his hairstyle became a "majorissue":5 Other employees commented that the County was "hiring thugs now" and gravitated away from him; and Haley could feel tension whenever he entered the room. CP at 24. When the County asked him to remove his braids because "the inmates were reacting to his hairstyle," Haley immediately complied. CP at 59. He did not, however, report his co-workers' derogatory comments at that time because he did not want to lose his job.
According to his jail supervisors, Haley's performance as a corrections officer was satisfactory or "above average." CP at 718. They described him as being a "conscientious officer"; someone you could "count on"; having a "military bearing" and a clean appearance; communicating in a "nice, level manner"; and writing reports that were "on the edge of excellence."6 They also noted that Haley had a very high level of "integrity,"7 which they had never questioned.
After completing his probation period as a corrections officer in May or June 2007, Haley applied for promotion to deputy sheriff. He passed the physical agility test and the video and written exams. He was then placed on the register of eligible applicants for deputy sheriff (Deputy Sheriff Promotion Register).
Shortly after Haley was placed on the register of eligible deputy sheriff applicants, the County's Background Unit received a telephone call from a county corrections facility employee stating that Haley had been "falsifying" his inmate "welfare checks" during his shifts at the countyjail. CP at 32-33. Inmate "welfare checks" require correctional officers to check on the inmates at least once every hour and to record each time the officer performs a welfare check. CP at 740. Rather than actually entering the open-dorm cell, however, Haley had been looking in on the inmates through a window and then recording that he had completed his welfare checks.
Background Unit supervisor Sergeant David Perry, who had openly mocked African Americans for complaining about race discrimination in the County's hiring process two years earlier, investigated Haley's allegedly falsified inmate welfare checks. Perry and two other members from the Background Unit held a telephone conference with Sergeant David Schultz, one of Haley's jail supervisors. According to Perry, Schultz stated that (1) Haley's improper performance of the inmate welfare checks was a potentially "terminable offense"; (2) he (Schultz) believed Haley should have been written up; and (3) he (Schultz) disagreed with his supervisor Lieutenant Charla James-Hutchinson's assessment that the incident was merely a "training issue." CP at 751.
Perry did not confirm Schultz's statements with his higher-ranked jail supervisor, James-Hutchinson, who also served as Haley's supervisor. Instead, based solely on Schultz's unconfirmed report, Perry's Background Unit "disqualified" Haley from further consideration for promotion to deputy sheriff.8 CP at 613. The Background Unit emailed Haley about his deputy sheriff disqualification and told him that there were "significant concerns" about his jobperformance at the jail, without specifying what they were. CP at 2.
Haley collected copies of his jail performance evaluations. Finding no reference to any job performance concerns, he attempted to contact the Background Unit several times, by email and by phone; but he received no response. After this first disqualification by the Background Unit, Haley filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint with the County's human resources department, alleging race discrimination.
Eventually, Haley spoke to Perry by phone about the inmate welfare checks allegation. CP at 666-67. Perry became "upset" during this conversation: He yelled at Haley, accused him of calling another sergeant a "liar," and, just before hanging up, said that he (Perry) was "gonna have somebody's *ss." CP at 667. According to Perry, at the end of this conversation, he put Haley's disqualification "on hold" until the Background Unit could investigate further. CP at 751. This "hold" apparently had the effect of nullifying, or "remov[ing,]" Haley's first disqualification. CP at 613.
Meanwhile, the jail conducted its own investigation and determined that (1) Haley's improper inmate welfare checks were the result of a minor "glitch" in his field training program, (2) Haley "had done the welfare check[s] with the training that he had been given," (3) "it was not his fault that [the welfare checks] did not occur absolutely correctly," and (4) the welfare checks incident "was not an issue that should be taken up in [the deputy sheriff promotion] process." CP at 712 (emphasis added), 714. According to Perry, Schultz then "changed his [story]" and began presenting Haley's improper inmate welfare checks as a minor incident. CP at 751.
The Background Unit learned about these jail investigation findings exonerating Haley, including that Haley's failure to perform the welfare checks properly was not "serious," as originally believed. CP at 97. Despite this exoneration, the Background Unit conducted additional research on Haley. According to Perry, however, the Background Unit normally would not undertake such research "until later," after an applicant had passed his "pre-oral" board interview, which had not yet occurred for Haley. CP at 752. The record contains no explanation for the Background Unit's unusual focus on Haley.
This additional research revealed other performance-related issues in Haley's file that allegedly concerned the County's Background Unit: (1) Haley's initial, month-long field-training program had been extended after he missed half of it because of a leg injury and had temporarily failed to respond to training in a few areas (which he later remedied to receive a "Success" rating);9 (2) he had once forgotten to bring his gun to work; and (3) he had been counseled about misusing sick-leave. Based on this additional information, the Background Unit, under Perry's supervision, again "disqualified" Haley from further consideration for promotion to deputy sheriff. CP at 752.
This second disqualification occurred less than three weeks after Haley filed his EEO racial discrimination complaint.10 The record suggests that Perry may have known about Haley's EEO discrimination complaint before the County Background Unit disqualified him this secondtime: Perry knew about Haley's race discrimination complaint by "approximately September, 2007"; Haley was informed about his second disqualification "on or about September 11, 2007." CP at 613. Again, this disqualification occurred without the Background Unit's first speaking to Haley's jail supervisor, James-Hutchinson, about Haley's jail performance evaluations. And Haley was eventually notified in writing that his name was being removed "for cause" from the Deputy Sheriff Promotion Register. CP at 613.
James-Hutchinson believed that Haley's race was a "factor" in the County Background Unit's repeatedly disqualifying him during his background investigation. CP at 732. According to James-Hutchinson, Haley had no significant negative information in his jail performance evaluations. CP at 718. James-Hutchinson and most supervisors did not consider an officer's leaving his gun at home to be a serious performance issue unless it became a "repeat offense," which, in Haley's case, it apparently was not; nor had this one-time incident precipitated adverse employment consequences for Caucasian officers, who instead were nevertheless promoted.11 CP at 722. Similarly, Caucasian corrections officers had misused sick leave time; yet they, too, had been promoted to deputy sheriff.
Haley appealed his removal from the Deputy Sherriff Promotion...
To continue reading
Request your trial