Lloyd v. Birkman
| Decision Date | 02 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:13–CV–505.,1:13–CV–505. |
| Citation | 127 F.Supp.3d 725 |
| Parties | Robert LLOYD, Plaintiff, v. Lisa BIRKMAN, Cynthia Long, Valerie Covey, and Ron Morrison, individually and in their official capacities as County Commissioners of Williamson County, Texas, and Dan A. Gattis, individually and in his official capacity as County Judge of Williamson County, Texas, and Williamson County, Texas, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
James C. Harrington, Wayne Krause Yang, Texas Civil Rights Project, Austin, TX, for Plaintiff.
Alan D. Albright, Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, Austin, TX, Jay Aldis, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Houston, TX, for Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND VACATING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court are three sets of Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 58), filed by Defendant Dan A. Gattis ("Gattis") (Dkt. # 60); Defendants Williamson County, Lisa Birkman ("Birkman"), Valerie Covey ("Covey"), Cynthia Long ("Long"), and Ron Morrison ("Morrison") (Dkt. # 61) (collectively, "Defendants"); and Plaintiff Robert Lloyd ("Lloyd") (Dkt. # 62).1 After reviewing the Objections and the supporting and opposing memoranda, the Court ADOPTS IN PART AND VACATES IN PART the Memorandum and Recommendation (Dkt. # 66).
On February 14, 2013, the sitting Constable for Williamson County's Precinct 3, Bobby Gutierrez, submitted his resignation to the Williamson County Commissioners' Court. Faced with an opening and an election over a year away, the Commissioners invoked their power under Texas Local Government Code § 87.041 to appoint a new constable to serve until the next general election. ("Pl. MSJ," Dkt. # 41, Ex. 1.)
On March 6, 2013, the Court, whose five members were County Judge Gattis, Precinct One Commissioner Birkman, Precinct Two Commissioner Long, Precinct Three Commissioner Covey, and Precinct Four Commissioner Morrison, issued a call for applications to fill the vacancy. (Id. ) The Court approved Gattis and Covey to review the resumes and select five final candidates for interviews. (Id. )
On March 18, 2013, the Court conducted an executive session to privately interview candidates Churchill, Goodrich, Lloyd, Kevin Stofle ("Stofle"), and Wade Fowler ("Fowler"). (Pl. MSJ, Ex. 16; Defs. MSJ, Ex. A at 40.) During the interviews, the candidates received questions on their positions on abortion and same-sex marriage, their political affiliations, the churches that they attended, and their political ideology.2 ("Lloyd Dep.," Pl. MSJ, Ex. 2, Ex. B at 164:15–167:5, 170:6–17; "Churchill Dep.," Pl. MSJ, Ex. 3, Ex. B at 106:19–107:20, 112:2–113:18; "Goodrich Dep.," Pl. MSJ, Ex. 4, Ex. B at 91:18–92:22, 117:1–118:13, 120:22–121:5.)
Specifically, Lloyd attests that Birkman's first question to him was about his views on abortion, and Lloyd replied that, based on his Catholic faith, he was pro-life. (Lloyd Dep. 164:11–165:15.) He then clarified that that view was somewhat qualified in circumstances of rape, incest, or health of the mother. (Id. at 205:1–206:20.) Lloyd states that Long and Covey frowned and exchanged disapproving glances upon hearing Lloyd's answer. (Id. )
Birkman next asked about his views on same-sex marriage; Lloyd responded that he was heterosexual man who had been married to his wife for over nineteen years; based on his faith, he believed that marriage was between a man and a woman; but, nonetheless, the laws were shifting and the Supreme Court could change at any time. (Id. at 165:20–167:20.) Birkman responded that if he was appointed to the position, he would need to come up with a better answer. (Id. )
Lloyd attests that Covey then took over questioning and asked him which church he attended. (Id. at 170:1–173:5.) Lloyd responded that he attended St. Helen's Catholic. (Id. ) Covey asked Lloyd some additional questions, and then Long began to question him. (Id. ) Lloyd attests that Long asked him if he was a Republican or a Democrat; Lloyd responded that although he didn't understand why he was asked the question, he was a Republican. (Id. 174:8–177:17, 185:7–19.) Long then asked him if he was a liberal or conservative, to which he responded that if Republicans are conservative and Democrats are liberal, he answered the question when he stated that he was a Republican. (Id. at 181:1–25, 185:7–19.) Before Lloyd could respond, Birkman pulled up his voting record on her phone and announced that he had voted Republican. (Id. at 189:13–24.)
During the interviews, Covey noted with regard to Lloyd, "R—vote," "prolife—+ ˜ gay rights—not definitive." Following their interviews of the candidates, the Commissioners opened their session to the public and formally voted in Stofle as the interim county constable. (Defs. MSJ, Ex. A at 491; Gattis Dep. 209:3–7; Morrison Dep. 66:9–22.)
On June 17, 2013, Lloyd filed a Complaint in this Court against Birkman, Long, Covey, Morrison, and Gattis, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the provisions of the Texas Constitution protecting Equality Rights and Privacy and prohibiting Religious Tests. (Dkt. # 1.) On March 18, 2013, Lloyd amended his Complaint to include Goodrich and Churchill as plaintiffs, Williamson County as a defendant, and claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act ("TCHRA"), Tex. Labor Code § 21.051. (Dkt. # 11.)
On September 22, 2014, Gattis filed his Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 33); on the same day, the remaining defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 40). The Motions sought summary judgment on all of Lloyd's claims. Lloyd filed a Response to both Motions on October 27, 2014 (Dkt. # 48), and Defendants filed Replies on November 14, 2014 (Dkts. 51, 54, 55). Meanwhile, on September 22, 2014, Lloyd filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, which sought summary judgment on his invasion of privacy claim under the Texas Constitution. (Dkt. # 41.) Defendants filed their Response on October 27, 2014 (Dkt. # 47),3 and Lloyd filed his Reply on November 14, 2014 (Dkt. # 56).
On September 22, 2014, U.S. District Judge Yeakel referred the case to Magistrate Judge Lane (Dkt. # 37). On November 20, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 58). On December 4, 2014, all parties submitted Objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Dkts. 60, 61, 62.)
On December 8, 2014, Judge Yeakel transferred the case to this Court. (Dkt. # 66.) The Court scheduled oral argument on the matter for January 22, 2015. (Dkt. # 69.) On January 16, 2015, the parties informed the Court that they had gone into mediation and were pursuing settlement. At the hearing, the parties informed the Court that only two of the three plaintiffs were able to reach settlement, and oral argument went forward on the Motions.
On February 17, 2015, the Court received and granted a Motion to Dismiss all claims brought by Churchill and Goodrich, thereby terminating Churchill and Goodrich from the suit and leaving Lloyd the only remaining plaintiff. (Dkts. 72, 73.)
On February 20, 2015, Birkman, Covey, Long, Morrison, and Williamson County filed a supplement to their Objections to the Report and Recommendation in light of the claims dismissed by Churchill and Goodrich. (Dkt. # 74.) On March 2, 2015, Lloyd filed a supplement to his Objections. (Dkt. # 75.)
Any party may contest the Magistrate Judge's findings by filing written objections within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the Memorandum and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations that the party wishes to have the district court consider. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). A district court need not consider "[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general objections." Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir.1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n. 8 (5th Cir.1982), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir.1996) ).
The Court must conduct a de novo review of any of the Magistrate Judge's conclusions to which a party has specifically objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (). On the other hand, findings to which no specific objections are made do not require de novo review; the Court need only determine whether the Memorandum and Recommendation is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.1989).
A movant is entitled to summary judgment upon showing that "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a) ; see also Meadaa v. K.A.P. Enters., L.L.C., 756 F.3d 875, 880 (5th Cir.2014). A dispute is only genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). If the moving party meets this burden, the nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts that establish the existence of a genuine issue for trial. Distribuidora Mari Jose, S.A. de C.V. v. Transmaritime, Inc., 738 F.3d 703, 706 (5th Cir.2013) (quoting Allen v. Rapides Parish Sch. Bd., 204 F.3d 619, 621 (5th Cir.2000) ). "Where the record taken as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carey v. Lone Star Coll. Sys., 16-cv-1638
...F.3d 258, 262 (5th Cir. 1999) ("a Title VII suit against an employee is actually a suit against the corporation"); Lloyd v. Birkman, 127 F. Supp. 3d 725, 745 (W.D. Tex. 2015) (recognizing that Title VII and TCHRA claims against individual defendants in theirofficial capacities are against t......
-
Garza v. Escobar, Civil Action No. 7:18-CV-249
...Human Res. , 846 F.2d 1021, 1025 (5th Cir. 1988) ).144 Noyola , 846 F.2d at 1025 (internal quotations omitted).145 Lloyd v. Birkman , 127 F. Supp. 3d 725, 767 (W.D. Tex. 2015) ; see e.g. , Gentry , 337 F.3d at 487–88 (concluding that a road manager was exempt, but that regardless, the defen......
-
Harris v. Noxubee Cnty., CAUSE NO. 3:17-cv-291-CWR-LRA
...is only genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Lloyd v. Birkman , 127 F.Supp.3d 725, 739 (W.D. Tex. 2015) (quotations and citations omitted). "On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court reviews each party's motion indepe......