Kramer v. Wasatch Cnty.
| Decision Date | 09 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:08–CV–475–TC. |
| Citation | 857 F.Supp.2d 1190 |
| Parties | Camille Mae KRAMER, Plaintiff, v. WASATCH COUNTY and Kenneth Vanwagoner, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Lynn C. Harris, Jones Waldo Holbrook & McDonough, Provo, UT, Michelle Swift, Kathleen E. McDonald, Jones Waldo Holbrook & McDonough, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff.
Kristin A. Vanorman, Jeremy G. Knight, Strong & Hanni, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendants.
Plaintiff Camille Mae Kramer asserts sex discrimination claims against her formeremployer Wasatch County 1 and former Wasatch County Sheriff Kenneth Van Wagoner.2 She alleges that when she was employed as a bailiff at the Wasatch County courthouse she was sexually assaulted, harassed, and threatened on multiple occasions by her immediate supervisor Sergeant Rick Benson, who subjected her to quid pro quo harassment and a hostile work environment. She further alleges that she was the victim of a hostile work environment perpetuated by Wasatch County's and Sheriff Van Wagoner's failure to adequately respond to Sergeant Benson's sexual harassment and other co-workers' harassing behavior in the workplace. She brings her claims against Wasatch County under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and against Sheriff Van Wagoner under § 1983. 3
The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court originally denied in its March 31, 2011 Order and Memorandum Decision, 2011 WL 1233194 (Docket No. 59). In the March 2011 Order, the court held that genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on Ms. Kramer's Title VII claims. ( Id. at 2.) The court also dismissed Ms. Kramer's § 1983 claims on the basis that such claims were not adequately pled. ( See id. at 2 n. 2.) But now, upon reexamination of the issues and factual record (after supplemental briefing and hearings),4 the court reconsiders and reverses its decision in the March 2011 Order.
For the reasons set forth below, the court holds that: (1) Wasatch County is not directly liable under Title VII for the actions of Rick Benson or Sheriff Van Wagoner; (2) Wasatch County has established the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense to Ms. Kramer's Title VII vicarious liability claims; (3) Sheriff Van Wagoner is entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983; and (4) Wasatch County is not liable as a matter of law under § 1983 because there is no evidence of any custom, practice, or policy that created or supported the hostile work environment alleged by Ms. Kramer. Accordingly, Wasatch County and Sheriff Van Wagoner are entitled to summary judgment on all of Ms. Kramer's remaining claims.
Former Wasatch County employee Camille Kramer alleges (with no dispute from the Defendants for purposes of the summary judgment analysis) that former Wasatch County employee Sergeant Richard “Rick” Benson made a series of unwanted sexual advances toward Ms. Kramer, including rape. Sergeant Benson's actions are the foundation and catalyst for her Title VII sexual harassment and § 1983 claims against Wasatch County and Sheriff Van Wagoner.
Plaintiff Camille Mae Kramer was a Wasatch County employee from July 2005 to July 2007. At the relevant times, Defendant Kenneth Van Wagoner was the Sheriff of Wasatch County, and, consequently, the department head of the Wasatch County Sheriff's Office.
Ms. Kramer was a POST-certified 5 officer working toward the goal of becoming a police officer who worked “on the road.” Initially, Ms. Kramer worked as a jailer in the Wasatch County Jail. In the summer of 2006, she was promoted to the position of deputy bailiff at the Wasatch County Court. It was Ms. Kramer's understanding that working as a bailiff would provide opportunities for “road experience and serving warrants,” which would allow her to get experience necessary to become a police officer. (Kramer Dep. at 12.)
Ms. Kramer was one of three bailiffs at the courthouse. Besides Ms. Kramer, Deputy Brad Hulse and Sergeant Benson worked as bailiffs. Ms. Kramer was the least senior of the three. Brad Hulse was a deputy bailiff who had some seniority over Ms. Kramer. Their immediate supervisor was Sergeant Benson. The bailiffs, under Sergeant Benson's direction, were in charge of security at the courthouse, including maintaining a security presence in the courtrooms, managing the magnetometer at the courthouse's secure entrance, and transporting prisoners to and from the courthouse for hearings.
Sergeant Benson's job duties included managing the other two bailiffs, scheduling, delegating tasks such as monitoring the magnetometer, transporting and managing prisoners in court, and serving warrants. Because he was in charge of scheduling and ensuring that court coverage was complete at all times, he had limited control over when Ms. Kramer could take vacation time or leave her shift to attend to personal business such as doctor appointments and family matters. He also wrote her performance evaluations, which were submitted to Captain Rogers and then to Sheriff Van Wagoner for review. He did not have authority to affect the material conditions of Ms. Kramer's job, such as pay or benefits. Only Sheriff Van Wagoner had the authority to hire, fire, promote, and demote employees. Sergeant Benson, however, had authority to make a recommendation to the Sheriff about demoting, promoting, or firing Ms. Kramer.
According to Ms. Kramer, before Sheriff Van Wagoner placed her under Sergeant Benson's supervision, Sheriff Van Wagoner “had notice of [Sergeant] Benson's history of harassment and intimidation of female co-workers and a history of disregard for rules.” (Pl.'s Mem. Supp. 1983 Causes of Action (Docket No. 57) at 7.) She then lists Sergeant Benson's alleged history, which includes “unlawfully ‘fixing a ticket’ for his friend, intimidating, threatening, and harassing female employees, unlawfully taking police vehicles outside of the county for personal reasons, violating a court order to stay out of the courtroom, ... [and] sexually inappropriate behavior toward two female confidential informants (CIs) of the department when he worked narcotics [.]” ( Id. at 7 (internal citations omitted).) The incidents of the “ticket fixing,”the improper use of a Wasatch County vehicle, and alleged sexual misconduct with two female confidential informants apparently occurred before Ms. Kramer was placed under Sergeant Benson's supervision. The other two incidents—“intimidating, threatening, and harassing female employees” and “violating a court order to stay out of the courtroom” occurred during the time Sergeant Benson sexually harassed Ms. Kramer.
The “ticket fixing” and improper use of a County vehicle are not gender based (Ms. Kramer refers to these incidents as evidence of Sergeant Benson's “disregard for the rules”) and would not have put the County on notice of any propensity for sexual misconduct.
The incident of a “violati[on] of a court order” is overstated and cannot reasonably be inferred to constitute sexual misconduct. First, the order was not a “court order” but an internal order to Sergeant Benson by the Sheriff (based on a letter from Judge McCotter) to stay out of the courtroom while an investigation into missing court funds was pending (Sergeant Benson, Ms. Kramer, and other courthouse employees were suspects). The order was based on the intimidation and harassment of courtroom employees—including Ms. Kramer and two of the Judge's female employees—during the investigation. The extent of Sergeant Benson's actions was to sit in the courtroom “glaring” at the employees. ( See June 13, 2007 Mem. from Justice Court Judge Lane McCotter to Sheriff Van Wagoner (Ex. 16 to Van Wagoner Dep); see also June 5, 2007 Mem. from McCotter to Van Wagoner noting that Sergeant Benson's conduct was “disconcerting” to the judge as well). While this behavior made the employees uncomfortable and caused disruption in Judge McCotter's courtroom, nothing in the record suggests it was gender-based or sexual, much less that Sheriff Van Wagoner believed it to be so.
The allegation that Sergeant Benson sexually harassed two female confidential informants, and that Sheriff Van Wagoner knew of the alleged harassment, has no support in the record other than inadmissible hearsay. The court has reviewed the deposition testimony, briefs, and attached exhibits. Of all the places in the deposition testimony where the allegation of misconduct with confidential informants was raised, none constituted admissible evidence that such allegations were true. Wasatch County Sheriff's Office Deputy Jeffrey M. Winterton had no knowledge of the allegation ( ). (Winterton Dep. at 16.) Then–Chief Deputy Todd Bonner (second-in-command under Sheriff Van Wagoner) said he heard allegations of misconduct (he did not know if it was sexual misconduct), but he had no further information. (Bonner Dep. at 9–11.) Sheriff Van Wagoner testified that he never received any report regarding possible misconduct, sexual or otherwise, by Sergeant Benson with two confidential informants. (Van Wagoner Dep. at 24.) To support Ms. Kramer's allegation that Sergeant Benson had engaged in sexual misconduct with two confidential informants, Ms. Kramer relies solely on two sources: Chief Deputy Todd Bonner's deposition and an investigation report, both of which only contain inadmissible hearsay on the topic.
In her opposition brief, Ms. Kramer cites to a state investigator's report (Exhibit 23 attached to Sheriff Van Wagoner's Deposition) and Todd Bonner's deposition testimony, which, as described above, is inconclusive and offers only allegations and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kramer v. Wasatch Cnty. Sheriff's Office
...Sergeant Benson, however, had authority to make a recommendation to the Sheriff about demoting, promoting, or firing Ms. Kramer.Kramer, 857 F.Supp.2d at 1195. In addition to controlling Ms. Kramer's schedule and conducting her performance reviews, Sergeant Benson controlled whether she woul......
-
Chavez-Acosta v. Sw. Cheese Co.
...an important consideration in determining whether an employer acted reasonably to prevent sexual harassment." Kramer v. Wasatch County, 857 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1208 (D. Utah 2012) (citing Helm v. Kansas, 656 F.3d 1277, 1288 (10th Cir. 2011)). An employer who periodically trains employees how ......