Lawrence Alexander Jr v. City Of Greensboro
| Decision Date | 04 January 2011 |
| Docket Number | 1:09-CV-934 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina |
| Parties | LAWRENCE ALEXANDER JR., ELLIS ALLEN, MITCHELL ALSTON, FRANCES R. BANKS, AHMED BLAKE, MICHAEL O. BRODIE, KEVIN E. CHANDLER, CHARLES E. CHERRY, ERNEST CUTHBERTSON, DARRIN DAVIS, STEVEN A. EVANS, WILLIAM GRAVES, MILFORD J. HARRIS II, JONATHAN HEARD, ANTUAN HINSON, STEPHEN L. HUNTER, BRIAN JAMES, DEMETRIUS W. JOHNSON, JOHN O. LEGRANDE, GEORGE M. LITTLE, DARRELL MCDONALD, C.L. MELVIN, STACY A. MORTON JR., WILLIE PARKER, LARRY PATTERSON JR., WILLIAM A. PHIFER, JOSEPH PRYOR, NORMAN RANKIN, WAYNE REDFERN, ALEXANDER RICKETTS, RONALD ROGERS, STEVEN SNIPES, CALVIN STEVENS JR., ERIC STEVENSON, JERMEIR JACKSON-STROUD, JULIUS TUNSTALL, ALLEN WALLACE, FRANK YOUNG and MICHAEL WAYLAND WALL, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF GREENSBORO, Defendant. |
Before the court is the motion to dismiss of Defendant City of Greensboro ("the City") pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Doc. 7.) Plaintiffs opposethe motion. (Doc. 15.) For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiffs commenced this action in this court on December 7, 2009. (Doc. 1.) They filed an Amended Complaint on March 15, 2010. (Doc. 4.) For purposes of this motion to dismiss, the court will view all factual allegations in the Amended Complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs as the non-moving parties. Ibarra v. United States, 120 F.3d 472, 474 (4th Cir. 1997).
Plaintiffs1 are all African-American/black police officers employed by the City through the Greensboro Police Department ("GPD") when David Wray ("Wray") was promoted to Chief of Police and Gilmer Brady ("Brady") to Deputy Chief. Both Wray and Brady are white.
After their promotions, Wray and Brady allegedly directed subordinate officers to gather pictures of black GPD officers for line-up books and other visual aids that were sometimes referred to as the "Black Book." Plaintiffs contend, upon information and belief, that their photographs, likenesses, or names were included in at least one version of the Black Book, which Scott Sanders ("Sanders") — an officer assigned to the GPD's Special Intelligence Section ("SID") — and other non-black officers showed on numerous occasions to the general public and criminal suspects in an effort to implicate black GPD officers in wrongdoing. Plaintiffs allege that the Black Book was not compiled or used for any legitimate investigatory purpose.2
According to Plaintiffs, Wray, Brady, and the City improperly used the SID, which was created to investigate groups like the Ku Klux Klan and street gangs, to investigate black GPD officers, including Plaintiffs, even though the GPD had a Criminal Investigation Division ("CID") whose purpose was to investigate officer misconduct. Wray and Brady instructed SID officers to investigate black GPD officers numerous times without following GPD standards. On several occasions, they allegedly investigated black GPD officers and their families despite no complaints having been made against the officers. When third parties alleged misconduct by GPD officers, moreover, the SID unit targeted only the black officers involved. Upon instructions of Wray and Brady, and contrary to GPD policy, black officers were allegedly investigated without any reasonable suspicion of unlawful conduct in order to test the officers' honesty and to entrap them. Plaintiffs claim that theactions of SID officers created an atmosphere of fear, distrust, and suspicion and undermined the morale of the GPD.
Plaintiffs allege that at the direction of Wray and Brady, Sanders placed keystroke-monitoring devices on the computers "of numerous Plaintiffs and other African-American officers of the [GPD]" without just cause. (Doc. 4 ¶ 101.) Plaintiffs identify only Plaintiff Antuan Hinson ("Hinson"), however, as one whose computer was allegedly monitored for keystrokes to determine a password to allow Sanders to enter his email account and download around one year of his emails.
Plaintiffs also allege that "on numerous occasions" Wray disparately disciplined black GPD officers and pressured subordinates to alter findings and evaluations "in order to make such determinations less favorable to African-American officers of the [GPD]." (Id. ¶¶ 91-92.) The Amended Complaint alleges as "examples, " however, only instances relating to Plaintiffs William A. Phifer ("Phifer") and Stephen L. Hunter ("Hunter"). It also alleges that Plaintiffs Brian James ("James") and Lawrence Alexander Jr. ("Alexander") were interrogated by Sanders as part of criminal investigations, although the conduct being investigated allegedly did not warrant criminal questioning.
Plaintiffs allege generally that the City "repeatedly, intentionally, and continuously" throughout Wray's and Brady'stenures at the GPD failed to promote black officers to positions for which they were qualified and should have been promoted, although no instance of a Plaintiff being denied a promotion is alleged. (Id. ¶ 106.) Plaintiffs allege that even in cases where black GPD officers were promoted (Plaintiffs identify two such officers), such promotions were made only to suggest the appearance of equal treatment. Plaintiffs also allege generally that black GPD officers were "frequently and typically denied opportunities and benefits afforded to other officers, " although Plaintiffs allege only facts relating to (1) a denial of reimbursement of expenses for the attendance of Plaintiff Steven A. Evans ("Evans") at a marksmanship certification program and (2) Wray's designation of white officers, instead of Evans, as marksmanship instructors at local community colleges and/or the Greensboro Police Academy. (Id. ¶ 108.)
Plaintiffs allege that the City "on numerous occasions violated the North Carolina Personnel Privacy Act in an effort to embarrass, intimidate, and/or discredit" black GPD officers, citing a June 2005 meeting with the Greensboro Police Officers Association during which Wray "publicly discussed the details of investigations into allegations of criminal conduct, identifying by name various black officers of the [GPD] in connection with such investigations." (Id. ¶ 112.) Plaintiffs also allege that the City "through its employees in positions of management ofthe [GPD] instituted, ratified, and/or approved of" these discriminatory acts and that race "was at least a motivating factor for each of the unlawful employment practices described herein." (Id. ¶¶ 109, 111.)
On or about November 11, 2005, the City retained Risk Management Associates ("RMA"), a consulting firm, to investigate "allegations of wrongdoing by [the City] during David Wray's tenure as Chief." (Id. ¶ 96.) RMA interviewed 52 GPD officers and law enforcement officials as part of its review and on December 11, 2005, issued a report ("RMA Report") that allegedly found that "the GPD engaged in a number of illegal and or improper practices" that included "disparate treatment of African-Americans, " "the appearance of racial targeting/discrimination, " and "failure to follow procedures." (Id. ¶¶ 98-99.)
Ultimately, the City accepted the resignations of Wray (sometime in January 2006) and Brady (date not alleged). Thereafter, the City Attorney's office conducted its own review and issued a report ("City Legal Report"). Pages two through forty-four are attached to the Amended Complaint and incorporated therein by reference. (Doc. 5.) The City Legal Report details the findings of the City Attorney's office as to the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiffs herein and provides additional instances of alleged wrongful conduct directed towardcertain GPD officers. Suffice it to say, however, the vast majority of the Plaintiffs are not mentioned in the City Legal Report.
Plaintiffs now bring claims against the City for discrimination on the basis of race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. ("Title VII").3 Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief. Before the court presently is the City's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (Doc. 7), which has been fully briefed (Docs. 8, 15, 16) and is ready for decision.
The City bases its motion to dismiss upon both Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6). The City advances several arguments under each rule, each of which applies to a distinct set of Plaintiffs. Therefore, the court will discuss each argument in turn.
The existence of subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold matter that a court must consider before it considers the merits of an action. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 93-95 (1998); Jones v. Am. Postal Workers Union, Nat'l, 192 F.3d 417, 422 (4th Cir. 1999). A plaintiff bears the burden of proving this court's subject matter jurisdiction. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991). When evaluating a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), the court may look beyond the face of the complaint and consider other evidence outside the pleadings without converting the proceeding to one for summary judgment. Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, 1219 (4th Cir. 1982). A court should dismiss for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction "only if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law." Richmond, 945 F.2d at 768.
The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is to "test[ ] the sufficiency of a complaint" and not to "resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses." Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992). In...
To continue reading
Request your trial