Hewitt v. Stephens
| Docket Number | Civil Action 2:22-cv-00388 |
| Decision Date | 12 July 2023 |
| Parties | TASHA HEWITT, Plaintiff, v. STEVE STEPHENS, ROB SIMS, THE WOOD COUNTY OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF, THE WOOD COUNTY COMMISSION, and PAT LEFEBURE, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
Pending before the court are two motions to dismiss the complaint one filed by defendant Steve Stephens on November 8, 2022 (ECF No. 13), and the other filed by the four remaining defendants, Rob Sims, Wood County Office of the Sheriff (“WCOS”), Wood County Commission (“WCC”), and Pat Lefebure (collectively “the Wood County defendants”), on November 8 2022 (ECF No. 15).
For the purposes of these motions to dismiss, the court recites the relevant facts as alleged by the plaintiff in her complaint. Compl., ECF No. 1. The plaintiff, Tasha Hewitt,[1]began working for defendant WCOS as a deputy in 2018, where she was recruited, interviewed, and hired by defendant Stephens in his role at that time as Sheriff of Wood County, West Virginia. Id. at ¶¶ 13-14. Subsequent thereto, plaintiff lodged allegations against the WCC, WCOS, and Stephens of harassment, discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and other unspecified charges, which were settled by a confidential agreement on or about June 4, 2020 (“the June 4 Settlement”). Id. at ¶ 16.
The plaintiff brings this civil action for events occurring subsequent to the June 4 Settlement. Generally, the plaintiff alleges that, following the settlement, defendants WCC and WCOS “failed to ever, or timely or effectively, implement any training or other measures to curtail the conduct of Defendant Stephens.” Id. at ¶ 17.
Plaintiff alleges that defendant Stephens' discriminatory behavior recommenced in September of 2020, at which point she was called into the office of defendants Stephens and Sims. Id. at ¶ 18. At the time, Sims was the Chief Deputy Sheriff of Wood County. See Mem. Supp. Wood Cnty. Defs.' Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 16 at 11. Once in the office, she was allegedly told she was fat and ordered to buy new clothes for herself or have a certain Sergeant Allen buy them for her.[2]Compl. at ¶¶ 18, 20. At the time, the plaintiff was pregnant. Id. at ¶ 19. She “reported this incident to Defendant Lefebure as an officer of Defendant [WCC].” Id. at ¶ 21. She alleges that neither Lefebure nor WCC conducted any investigation into her allegations against Stephens or WCOS. Id. at ¶ 22.
The next alleged incident took place six months later in March 2021. Id. at ¶ 24. At that time, plaintiff had returned from maternity leave and sought a shift exchange to accommodate her childcare needs. Id. This request would have necessitated a male deputy with less seniority to also change shifts. Id. at ¶¶ 25-27. Plaintiff does not allege that she was ever denied this shift exchange but alleges that it was only “reluctantly granted” after she voiced her belief that she was receiving assertedly “disparate treatment based on her gender,” apparently in comparison to the less-senior male deputy. Id. at ¶ 28. Plaintiff makes no allegation as to the involvement of any specific defendant in this incident. See id. at ¶¶ 24-28.
Four months later, in July 2021, defendant Stephens allegedly called into his office Sergeant Cross, a deputy. Id. at ¶ 29. Stephens accused Cross of engaging in a sexual relationship with the plaintiff and purported to have proof of the same. Id. Stephens asserted that GPS trackers on WCOS cruisers showed Cross as having parked his cruiser at the plaintiff's home. Id. at ¶ 30. The plaintiff asserts this fails to account for information “readily available” to Stephens that Cross and plaintiff are neighbors and were “merely at their separate but adjacent homes at the same time” and “not engaged in any sort of sexual relationship.” Id. at ¶ 31. Regardless, the allegation of a sexual relationship led to rumor and gossip at the WCOS office and harkened back to defendant Stephens' alleged frequent and repeated references to plaintiff as a “whore” at an unspecified past time. Id. at ¶ 32. On or about July 15, 2021, plaintiff's counsel notified counsel for WCC about this incident. Id. at ¶ 33.
Plaintiff makes a number of convoluted allegations regarding events occurring “shortly []after” July 15, 2021. Id. at ¶¶ 34-43. She first alleges defendant Sims met with two other sergeants, one of whom demanded measures be taken to address the assertedly hostile work environment created by defendant Stephens. Id. at ¶¶ 34-35. In response to that meeting, plaintiff alleges that defendant Stephens advised all deputies by email that “spreading comments” would result in discipline. Id. at ¶ 36.
Next, plaintiff alleges that, at some point, defendant Sims “interrogat[ed]” three other deputies about the plaintiff, and those three deputies then recounted their encounters with Sims to the plaintiff. Id. at ¶ 37. Subsequently, and “simultaneous[]” to other actions taking place “shortly []after” July 15, 2021, those three deputies were then called in to speak with Sergeant Cross, who allegedly sought to intimidate the deputies into retracting accounts they had previously given to plaintiff about their discussions with defendant Sims. Id. at ¶¶ 37-38.
Plaintiff further alleges that, at an unspecified time, a deputy who is not a defendant to this suit, Sergeant Shriver, made a statement that was dismissive of the importance of childcare. Id. at ¶ 39. Plaintiff alleges that she reported these comments to a Lieutenant Allen, and that Shriver has allegedly retaliated against her for making such a report. Id. at ¶¶ 40-41. She also avers that defendant Stephens was made aware of Shriver's comment at an unspecified time and by an unspecified individual. Id. at ¶ 42. She avers that no known responsive action was taken by defendants Stephens, WCOS, or WCC. Id. at ¶ 43.
On August 2, 2021, plaintiff alleges that she was called to defendant Lefebure's office for a meeting wherein she was told that she was being placed on the department's “Giglio list.”[3] Id. at ¶¶ 44, 46. As she was arriving at Lefebure's office, plaintiff observed Stephens departing it. Id. at ¶ 45. Plaintiff alleges that she has received no written notice for her placement on the list, nor any written statement of reasons therefor, although Lefebure orally disclosed that it was related to information provided by her in a 2012 family court proceeding. Id. at ¶ 47. Hewitt alleges that there is “no evidence of false testimony having been provided by” her at those proceedings, although it is not clear from the pleadings whether she disclaims having actually provided false testimony. Id. at ¶ 48. Hewitt also alleges that the family court proceeding is sealed but that she had disclosed such information to defendant WCOS in 2018 while applying for a position with the department. Id. at ¶¶ 48-49. She further alleges that defendant Stephens had “full knowledge” of the 2012 family court matters beginning in 2018 and that it was provided to Lefebure in August 2021 by him, by someone at his direction, or by someone on his behalf in retaliation for plaintiff's sexual harassment complaints against Stephens.[4] Id. at ¶¶ 50-51. Plaintiff alleges that Lefebure has not acknowledged his source for this information or when it came to his attention. Id. at ¶ 52.
Defendant Stephens resigned from his position as Sheriff of Wood County effective December 1, 2021. EEOC Charge, ECF No. 14-1 at 2.
On January 24, 2022, plaintiff digitally signed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), which listed the “Wood County Commissioners Office” as the sole respondent. Id. On March 31, 2022, she signed an Amended Charge of Discrimination, which added as a respondent the “Wood County Sheriff's Office.” Amended Charge, ECF No. 14-2. The EEOC issued a Determination and Notice of Rights, which was signed by Deborah A. Kane, Area Director, on June 27, 2022. EEOC Letter, ECF No. 1-1. This letter informed plaintiff that the EEOC would not be proceeding with its investigation, the EEOC was dismissing her charge, and she had the right to file a lawsuit within 90 days. Id.
On September 13, 2022, the plaintiff filed a complaint initiating the present civil action. Her complaint lists four counts: Count I alleges gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII; Count II alleges gender discrimination and retaliation under West Virginia state law; Count III alleges a deprivation of due process for plaintiff's placement on the Giglio list; and Count IV alleges defendants' intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Defendant Steve Stephens brings a partial motion to dismiss that seeks dismissal of counts I and IV of the plaintiff's complaint as to him. Stephens asserts that dismissal of Count I, encompassing the plaintiff's claims under Title VII, is appropriate for three reasons. First, because the plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies inasmuch as the grounds asserted in the complaint were not part of the Charges of Discrimination filed with the EEOC. Second, because the plaintiff failed to timely assert her claims within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory conduct. Third, because the plaintiff's Charges of Discrimination filed with the EEOC failed to name Stephens and the claims are therefore assertedly unexhausted as to him. As to Count IV, encompassing the plaintiff's claim of tortious intentional infliction of emotional distress, Stephens contends that it is barred by workers' compensation immunity.
The four Wood County defendants bring a motion to dismiss all claims against them. First, they argue that all claims...
To continue reading
Request your trial