Lloyd v. Jefferson, Civ.A. 97-307-GMS.
| Decision Date | 12 May 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ.A. 97-307-GMS.,Civ.A. 97-307-GMS. |
| Citation | 53 F.Supp.2d 643 |
| Parties | William LLOYD and Kathaleen McCormick, Plaintiffs, v. Richard JEFFERSON, William McDaniel, and William Hill, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
Catherine T. Hickey and Noel E. Primos, of Schmittinger & Rodriguez, Dover, Delaware, for plaintiffs.
Marc P. Niedzielski and Kevin P. Maloney, of the Department of Justice, State of Delaware, Wilmington, Delaware, for defendants.
Kathaleen McCormick ("McCormick" or "plaintiff") was a contract employee with the Department of Public Instruction of the State of Delaware ("DPI"). Sgt. N. Richard Jefferson ("Jefferson"), Capt. William McDaniel ("McDaniel"), and Chief William Hill ("Hill") (collectively "defendants") are employees of the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control of the State of Delaware ("DNREC").
Plaintiff also served as a corporate officer for an entity that held leases in a mobile home park in Sussex County, Delaware. A complaint was apparently received concerning an open septic system at the mobile home park. An investigation was initiated by defendant Jefferson. It was in this regard that McCormick and Jefferson had their initial contact. This contact did not go especially well, and to understate what will later become apparent, matters went increasingly downhill from there.
Indeed, Jefferson's supervisor, defendant McDaniel, initiated a second contact with plaintiff which lead to additional contacts between McDaniel's supervisor, defendant Hill, and plaintiff's supervisor, Valerie Woodruff. The ultimate contact occurred in the rear parking area of the Bridgeville Police Department in Bridgeville, Delaware, when — as a result of an incident related to the mobile home park and DNREC's regulatory responsibilities but unrelated to the septic system complaint — Jefferson was in the process of effecting the arrest of McCormick's father, William Lloyd.1
This action stems in part from plaintiff's contention that during that arrest, Jefferson physically accosted her in order to prevent her from using a video camera to record the event and to prevent her from entering into the police station with her father. Plaintiff asserts that all the defendants conspired to have defendant Jefferson assault and detain her. Plaintiff also contends that, as a result of another conspiracy among the defendants, she lost her contract with the DPI.
Plaintiff has filed this action seeking from defendants, among other forms of relief, compensatory and punitive damages. Plaintiff alleges that, during their confrontation, Jefferson unlawfully seized her and, in the process, used excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 19832 pursuant to rights secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments3 of the United States Constitution. In addition, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 19854 and 19865 by conspiring to deprive her of equal protection of the law based upon her gender and to deprive her of rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff also claims violations of various rights secured by state law. The court has jurisdiction over the federal statutory and constitutional claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. The court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
The court currently has before it defendants' motion for summary judgment on all of plaintiff's claims. Because the court finds that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding certain of plaintiff's claims, defendants' motion will be denied in part and granted in part.
From 1988 to 1997, McCormick was under contract with the DPI as an Education Associate. She also served as an officer in a corporation that held the in-fees of ninety-nine year leases at a mobile home park located in Sussex County, Delaware. In August 1996, defendant Jefferson, an Environmental Protection Officer with DNREC, while investigating a complaint regarding an open septic system at the mobile home park, left his business card at the park's office. When plaintiff responded via telephone, Jefferson told her that he would rather speak to a man. When McCormick made it clear that he would have to speak with her regarding the matter, Jefferson told her about the complaint and indicated that the septic system would have to be repaired. Plaintiff assured him that the problem would be fixed. Jefferson informed McCormick that he would need to meet with her at the park to discuss the matter. Plaintiff suggested a meeting time for the following weekend. This was too late for Jefferson so plaintiff agreed to meet with him at her workplace during a break, on Monday, August 26, 1996. At the appointed time, Jefferson appeared at plaintiff's job and served citations on her for violations in connection with the mobile home park's septic system.
On September 9, 1996, Jefferson's supervisor, defendant McDaniel, contacted plaintiff at work via the State's e-mail system. He asked her to respond by e-mail to set up a time to discuss the situation at the mobile home park. The next day plaintiff e-mailed McDaniel that she preferred to speak with McDaniel's supervisor, defendant Hill, or Hill's supervisor. That same day, McDaniel sent another e-mail to plaintiff questioning her further regarding the situation at the mobile home park.
Rather than responding further, later that day, while still at work, plaintiff sent an e-mail message to several DNREC employees, including the Cabinet Secretary of DNREC, Director of Water Resources, Director of Air and Waste Management (the immediate supervisor of McDaniel's supervisor, defendant Hill), and McDaniel. In this message, plaintiff requested cooperation from the agency regarding the septic system issues at the mobile home park. McCormick stated that in her opinion the state had created these issues by approving ninety-nine year leases without a plan for management at the state level, thus causing conflicting decisions between the state agencies. Plaintiff contended that this issue was currently being addressed in Superior Court. McCormick also complained about Jefferson's stated desire to deal with a man which she viewed as discriminatory.
Still later that day, McDaniel contacted her again, this time by telephone, to discuss the problems with the septic system at the mobile home park. The following day, the 11th at 8:28 a.m., McDaniel sent an e-mail message to the Director of Water Resources and sent a copy to McDaniel's supervisor, defendant Hill. Referring to plaintiff's electronic mail message from the previous day to the Secretary and others, McDaniel stated, "Mrs. McCormick needs to be reeled in!" In addition, McDaniel requested a meeting with the Director of Water Resources on this matter. The Director responded later that evening saying, "[w]henever you're ready." Eleven minutes after sending this message, McDaniel sent another to Hill, with a copy to Jefferson, allegedly disparaging McCormick and asserting her use of state time to handle personal business.
On the morning of the 11th, Hill spoke with McCormick's supervisor at the DPI by phone and told her that McCormick had sent several e-mail messages to DNREC personnel over a period of a few days. McCormick notes that, at the time of Hill's discussion with her supervisor, she actually had sent a total of three e-mail messages — two of which were responses solicited by McDaniel on a single day.
Later on the morning of September 11th, McCormick's supervisor, Valerie Woodruff, and Hill met in his office. Reportedly, Hill told plaintiff's supervisor that plaintiff had sent e-mail messages and met with DNREC staff during the work day. Hill also stated that he had seen plaintiff in a state vehicle at the Justice of the Peace Court in Georgetown — an accusation which plaintiff denies.
Later that day, plaintiff's supervisor met with McDaniel. During the meeting, McDaniel said that he had seen plaintiff on August 23 at the Justice of the Peace Court in Georgetown between 10:15 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. Further, McDaniel told Woodruff that when he left the Court at 11:00 a.m. or 11:15 a.m., plaintiff was still there. Reportedly, this assertion was later recanted by McDaniel, while testifying at plaintiff's contract renewal hearing. At this hearing regarding the allegations against plaintiff, McDaniel testified that he had seen plaintiff around lunch time, and, when he had left the Justice of the Peace Court, he had not noticed whether or not she was still there.
On Friday, September 13th, plaintiff gave McDaniel her personal e-mail address and asked him to send any further e-mail messages to that address at her home. Nevertheless, several hours later, McDaniel sent another e-mail message to plaintiff at work. Plaintiff responded and asked whether McDaniel had received her home e-mail address.
Further on September 11th, defendant Jefferson spoke with plaintiff's supervisor by telephone and said that plaintiff had asked for a meeting with him. Apparently, it was Jefferson who requested the original meeting. At his deposition, he admitted that he may have told McCormick that he wanted to meet with her the next week at the park. Jefferson also told plaintiff's supervisor that when plaintiff met with him at the DPI offices, she brought a box of documents to the meeting. Plaintiff, however, testified that she did not bring a box of papers. Finally, Jefferson allegedly told plaintiff's supervisor that he had spent a total of an hour at the DPI offices meeting with plaintiff. Plaintiff testified that her entire meeting time with Jefferson was comparable to a coffee break — approximately 20...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cousins v. Goodier
...Lawsuit, according to his complaint in this case. App. to Opening Br. at A20. Additionally, Cousins’ citation to Lloyd v. Jefferson , 53 F.Supp.2d 643, 650–52 (D.Del. 1999) does not support his claim because Lloyd is plainly distinguishable from the facts of this case and also involved mult......
-
Russoli v. Salisbury Tp.
...qualified immunity. Id. However, Defendants have not undisputedly demonstrated that their motivations were fair. See Lloyd v. Jefferson, 53 F.Supp.2d 643, 681 (D.Del.1999); St. Germain v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd., No. Civ. A. 98-5437, 2000 WL 39065, at *6 (E.D.Pa. Jan.19, 2000); Watf......
-
West v. Davis
...of the physical contact and whether the alleged grasp was ultimately used to drag the young woman behind a building. Lloyd v. Jefferson, 53 F.Supp.2d 643, 656 (D.Del.1999). That court denied summary judgment and submitted the question of seizure to a jury. Ibid. Here, even accepting West's ......
-
West v. Davis
...of the physical contact and whether the alleged grasp was ultimately used to drag the young woman behind a building. Lloyd v. Jefferson, 53 F.Supp.2d 643, 656 (D.Del.1999). That court denied summary judgment and submitted the question of seizure to a jury. Ibid. Here, even accepting West's ......