Hamzehzadeh v. St. Charles Cnty.
| Decision Date | 25 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 4:20-CV-1868 PLC |
| Parties | OMID HAMZEHZADEH, Plaintiff, v. ST. CHARLES COUNTY, MISSOURI, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
OMID HAMZEHZADEH, Plaintiff,
v.
ST. CHARLES COUNTY, MISSOURI, et al., Defendants.
No. 4:20-CV-1868 PLC
United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
May 25, 2022
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PATRICIA L. COHEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Omid Hamzehzadeh, a police officer with the St. Charles County Police Department, alleges that: (1) Defendant St. Charles County (“County”) discriminated against him on the basis of race and national origin in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.010 et seq.; and (2) Defendants County, Police Chief David Todd, Captain Christopher Hunt, and Director of Administration Joann Leykam (collectively, “Defendants”) retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment right to freedom of association. Defendants seek summary judgment on both counts. [ECF No. 36] Plaintiff opposes the motion. [ECF No. 40] In addition, Plaintiff and Defendants move to strike exhibits. [ECF Nos. 46 and 51] For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denies as moot the parties' motions to strike.
I. Background
Plaintiff, a naturalized United States citizen who was born in Iran, has been employed as a police officer by the St. Charles County Police Department (“Department”) since April 2017. [ECF No. 38 at ¶¶ 1, 3] He joined the “Local 42 Police Union” in 2019. [ECF No. 39 at ¶ 17]
A. Denial of Special Assignments and Poor Performance Evaluation
In early 2018, Plaintiff applied for a special assignment to the St. Charles Regional SWAT Team and attended “SWAT school.” [ECF No. 38 at ¶ 18] At his deposition, Plaintiff testified that during SWAT school, the instructors belittled and harassed him, ordered him to run 200 laps and repeat exercises that other officers only had to do once, and required him to wear “goggles and a helmet [that] nobody else was wearing.” [ECF No. 39-1 at 84-89] Plaintiff also stated that he heard supervisory employees use “ethnic names and slurs.” [ECF No. 39-1 at 73-74] Plaintiff did not complete SWAT school. [ECF No. 38 at ¶ 19; ECF No. 39 at ¶ 33]
On the same day that Plaintiff was “kicked out of the SWAT school, ” his supervising captain informed Plaintiff he was denying Plaintiff's application for the Motor Unit. [ECF No. 39 at ¶ 35] Plaintiff also applied for and was denied: special assignments in the Traffic Unit in 2019 and 2020 and the Drug Task Force in 2019; and several instructor positions in 2019; a corporal position in 2021; and a sergeant position in 2021. [ECF Nos. 39 at ¶ 23, 39-1 at 256-63, 39-2 at 3]
In early December 2019, Plaintiff learned that he received a “below expectations” rating on his annual performance evaluation. [ECF Nos. 38 at ¶ 26, 38-11] In the evaluation, Plaintiff's supervisor Sergeant Drews noted instances of Plaintiff: “lack[ing] thorough investigations and documentations of those investigations, ” such as when he “sent a warrant application over after 1700 hours when no one was at the PA's office from an arrest the prior night”; “not listening to what other officer's [sic] are being dispatched to and failing to cover his zone partners”; “not assist[ing] with sharing call load with other zones who have been busier throughout shift” and “only answering radio calls if given to him.” [ECF No. 38-11 at 1-2] Sgt. Drews concluded that Plaintiff “has the qualities to make a good police officer if he applied himself, however his work ethic makes it seem as if he does not take his job serious[ly].” [Id. at 4]
Plaintiff asked Sgt. Drews to explain the performance evaluation because he was surprised by the “below expectations” rating. [ECF No. 38 at ¶ 30] Sgt. Drews sent Plaintiff an email with Plaintiff's performance log, which reflected a failure to back up other officers in June 2019 and a late warrant application in July 2019. [ECF No. 38-12 at 2] Sgt. Drews assured Plaintiff that “we as shift supervisors have your back” and “[n]ext year is a new year and will be lots of changes that we all are looking forward to.”[1] [Id.]
B. Allegations of Misconduct and Internal Affairs Investigation
On August 21, 2019, C.P., a twenty-year-old former County dispatcher, submitted a written complaint to the Department alleging that Plaintiff and County Police Officer Tom Tumbrink provided her alcohol and forced her to have sexual intercourse with them. [ECF Nos. 39 at ¶ 38, 39-7] Later that day, Capt. Hunt, then Commander of the Department's Bureau of Administrative Services, informed Plaintiff that there would be an Internal Affairs (IA) investigation and an independent criminal investigation into C.P.'s allegations. [ECF Nos. 38-6, 39 at ¶ 46] Chief Todd placed Plaintiff and Officer Tumbrink on administrative leave pending the IA investigation.[2][Id. at ¶ 47; ECF Nos. 39-5, 39-6 at 9]
As part of the IA investigation into C.P.'s allegations, a detective sergeant from the Wentzville Police Department administered a polygraph examination. [ECF Nos. 38 at ¶6, 39 at ¶¶ 52-53] Plaintiff submitted to the two-part polygraph examination on September 12 and 13, 2019. [Id.]
On October 2, 2019, Lieutenant Koester provided a memorandum to Chief Todd detailing the conclusions of the IA investigation. [ECF No. 39-7] Based on C.P.'s statements and the results of Plaintiff's polygraph examination, Lt. Koester found “there is enough [evidence] to SUSTAIN” the allegation that Plaintiff supplied alcohol to a person who was under the legal drinking age. [Id. at 6] However, in the absence “direct evidence or witnesses” to support C.P.'s allegations that Plaintiff had “non-consensual sex” with her, Lt. Koester determined that allegation was “NOT SUSTAINED.”[3] [Id.]
On October 16, 2019, Capt. Hunt presented Plaintiff a “Notice of Proposed Severe Disciplinary Action.” [ECF No. 38-7] In the notice, Capt. Hunt cited the “credible allegation, that was sustained following an IA investigation, that [Plaintiff] supplied alcohol to a person who was under the legal drinking age.” [Id. at 4] According to the notice, Plaintiff violated several Department policies by providing C.P. alcohol and demonstrating deception during the polygraph examination.[4] The notice informed Plaintiff that “the proposed discipline being considered is a one-day unpaid suspension” and Plaintiff had the right to request “a pre-disciplinary review … before a final decision is made on the proposed disciplinary action.” [ECF No. 38-7 at 2] Plaintiff
claims that, before he signed the acknowledgement form accompanying the Notice of Proposed Severe Disciplinary Action, Capt. Hunt refused his request to call a Local 42 representative.[5] [ECF No. 39 at ¶ 63]
Plaintiff appealed the proposed disciplinary action to Chief Todd. [ECF No. 39 at ¶ 67]On October 21, 2019, Chief Todd held a pre-disciplinary review meeting with Plaintiff, Capt. Hunt, and Local 42 representative David Reagan. [ECF Nos. 38-9 at 2, 39-1 at 185] Chief Todd upheld the one-day suspension. [ECF No. 39 at ¶ 67] Director Leykam subsequently reviewed the matter “to ensure that the procedural requirements were satisfied” and issued a memorandum approving Chief Todd's decision to impose a one-day suspension. [ECF Nos. 38-9 at 3, 49 at ¶ 67]
On December 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed an “Employee Grievance Procedure Form” against Capt. Hunt with the County's Human Resources Department. [ECF Nos. 39 at ¶¶ 68, 73; 39-8] In the grievance, Plaintiff alleged thirteen policy violations arising from Capt. Hunt's handling of the disciplinary process, including disciplinary threats, release of confidential information and Garrity statements and records, and refusal to allow union representation. [ECF Nos. 39 at ¶ 73; 39-8]
Plaintiff and a union representative met with Dir. Leykam to discuss his grievance. [ECF No. 39 at ¶¶ 74-75] At the meeting, Dir. Leykam admitted that she had not reviewed all of the evidence, including the St. Charles City Police Department report, and advised that she would
review the document and provide a decision. [ECF No. 39 at ¶ 75] Upon review of the “documents in this matter, ” as well as conversations with Plaintiff, Capt. Hunt, Lt. Koester, and the County's Prosecuting Attorney, Dir. Leykam issued a decision stating she “d[id] not find cause to order an investigation of Captain Hunt.” [ECF No. 39-8 at 8] Chief Todd issued a notice of severe discipline on January 2, 2020, informing Plaintiff he would receive a one-day unpaid suspension. [ECF Nos. 39 at ¶ 76; 39-10]
C. Procedural Background
Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Missouri Human Rights Commission (MHRC) alleging that the County “discriminated against [him] because of [his] color, national origin, and race.” [ECF No. 38-2] In the MHRA charge's narrative description, Plaintiff stated:
I have worked at the Saint Charles County Police Department since April 2017. I have noticed that the department treats persons of color less favorably than Caucasian. The [C]ounty attempts to show they are inclusive employer and have marketing materials that show minorities that work for them. However, their representations of inclusion do not apply to their applications of their policies. Caucasian police officers are routinely not reprimanded for violations of policies and laws and persons of color are reprimanded and even terminated for minor policy violations. Management turns a blind eye to the violations of Caucasian officers while they aggressively pursue reprimands and investigations against officers of color.
I am of Iranian national origin and darker complexion. Recently false allegations were made against me and a fellow officer who is Native American[.] We were both suspended without pay for 55 days. The allegations against us were found to be unsubstantiated by outside agencies. The time we lost was reinstated by the County after our union became involved....
To continue reading
Request your trial