Massey v. Dorning
| Decision Date | 17 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action Number 5:18-cv-02045-AKK |
| Parties | Sonya MASSEY, Plaintiff, v. Blake L. DORNING, Madison County, Alabama, Madison County Commission, and Jermie Howell, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
Kerri Johnson Riley, Kerri Johnson Riley, P.C., Huntsville, AL, for Plaintiff.
David J. Canupp, George W. Royer, Jr., Lanier Ford Shaver & Payne PC, Huntsville, AL, for Defendant Blake L. Dorning, Jermie Howell.
L. Franklin Corley, IV, Sirote & Permutt PC, Huntsville, AL, for Defendants County of Madison, Madison County Commission.
Sonya Massey, a Deputy Sheriff at the Madison County Sheriff's Office, alleges that she was discriminated against at work based on her gender. She asserts claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. ("Title VII") and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three defendants: Blake Dorning, the Madison County Sheriff; Jeremy Howell, the director of the personnel department of Madison County; and against Madison County.1 The defendants each filed motions to dismiss the claims against them. Docs. 29, 31, 33. For the reasons explained below, the motions are granted in part and denied in part.
A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). If the complaint fails "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted," the defendant may move to dismiss it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citation omitted). The complaint must establish "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. (citation omitted). Mere "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action" are insufficient. Id. (citation omitted). In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court "must accept all facts in the complaint as true and view those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Sun Life Assurance Co. v. Imperial Premium Fin., LLC , 904 F.3d 1197, 1207 (11th Cir. 2018).
Furthermore, to establish discriminatory intent at the motion to dismiss stage, Massey does not have to allege a prima facie case under McDonnel Douglas . See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Instead, Massey need only "provide enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest intentional [gender] discrimination." Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Found. , 789 F.3d 1239, 1245 (11th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).
A. Factual Allegations
In July 2013, Massey began working in the Madison County Sheriff's Office as a Deputy Sheriff. Doc. 25 at 5. As a condition of her employment, Massey agreed to abide by the Madison County Employee Handbook and the Madison County Sheriff's Office Policy and Procedure Manual. Id. at 5–6. The Employee Handbook prohibits "all forms of discrimination," and sexual harassment specifically. Handbook at 56.2 Nonetheless, Massey alleges that there is a pervasive culture of harassment at the sheriff's office.
The sheriff's office is predominantly male, with no female supervisors. Doc. 25 at 6. At an orientation meeting, Sheriff Dorning told another female employee, Erica Cagle, that the office was a "male dominant workplace" where "men do what men do." Id. at 7. Massey alleges that, essentially, Sheriff Dorning communicated that he would not take any disciplinary action against male employees for offensive or discriminatory behavior, and he expected female employees to accept such behavior without complaint. Id.
Massey alleges that female employees were subjected to offensive conduct "[o]n a near daily basis." Id. at 9. She alleges, inter alia, that: male supervisors and employees referred to female arrestees as whores and prostitutes, and "comment[ed] about the smell of [their] private parts," id. ; male co-workers openly discussed having sex with married female co-workers, id. ; they explicitly stated their sexual desires regarding female co-workers and openly made crude comments about their breasts and backsides, id. ; and that the men in the office also called their female co-workers "whores" and "bitches," id. at 10.3 Massey says she was personally exposed to some of this behavior, but acknowledges that not all of it was directed at her. She alleges that Sheriff Dorning was physically present in the office and thus was able to personally observe this conduct. Id. at 6.
Massey also alleges that her supervisor, Sergeant Gary Cross, harassed and assaulted her in July 2015. Before the assault, Sergeant Cross searched Massey's phone without her permission and found a partially nude picture of her. Doc. 1-1 at 6. After that incident, Sergeant Cross started asking Massey to send him nude pictures of her. Id. at 7. Then in the pre-dawn hours of July 20, 2015, Massey and Sergeant Cross were parked on a gravel road, standing by their cars and making idle conversation while they waited for calls. Id. at 5. At some point, Sergeant Cross grabbed Massey, pulled her tightly against his body, and tried to kiss her. Id. at 6. Massey resisted, told him to stop, and struggled to get away. Id. When she finally broke free, she got in her car and left. Id.
Massey told a female co-worker about the incident; however, she did not report it. She believed that it would be futile to complain because of the hostile work environment, that she would be retaliated against, and that it would damage her career. Docs. 25 at 11, 1-1 at 7.
Ultimately, the incident became public two years later when, in November 2017, one of Massey's female co-workers filed a lawsuit against Sheriff Dorning and the County that referenced Sergeant Cross' alleged assault of Massey. Doc. 25 at 12; see also Garcia v. Dorning , No. 5:17-cv-01957-LCB. Another female co-worker filed a lawsuit in February 2018, referencing the same assault. Doc. 25 at 12; see also Cagle v. Madison County , No. 5:18-cv-00201-AKK. After these lawsuits were filed, Massey's superiors required her to provide information about the assault. Doc. 25 at 12.
Accordingly, on February 19, 2018, Massey filed a declaration attesting to the assault. Doc. 1-1 at 5–9. In the declaration, Massey also recounted an incident that transpired just a few days earlier, when she received a call to a residence to investigate a subject with a possible gun. Doc. 1-1 at 9. Protocol dictates that a deputy should have back-up in such situations. Id. Two male deputies were supposed to accompany Massey as back-up, but Sergeant Cross interfered and prevented them from assisting. Id. By depriving her of back-up, Massey alleges that Sergeant Cross placed her life in jeopardy, in purported retaliation for reporting his assault. Id.
Massey sent the declaration to Sheriff Dorning and Director Howell, among others. Doc. 25 at 12. Thereafter, Massey was called a liar and became the subject of cruel gossip and disparaging comments by her co-workers and supervisors. Id.
About a month after submitting the declaration, Massey was required to report to the Internal Affairs Office of the Huntsville Police Department, a separate entity from the Sheriff's Office, for an "abusive ‘criminal-style’ interrogation." Id. at 12–13. The interrogators accused Massey of lying, and bullied and verbally abused her. Id. at 13. They questioned her in "an abusively hostile manner" about why she had not reported the assault by Sergeant Cross sooner, and also threatened her with discipline, including the loss of her job. Id.
The next month, Massey was required to report to Human Resources for an interview with Director Howell. Id. at 14. Director Howell expressed disbelief at Massey's accusations, stating that he had known Sergeant Cross for years and Cross would not have engaged in the alleged conduct. Id. Although Howell said that if this was a pattern, "we need to look into it," allegedly no further action was taken to investigate or remedy her accusations. Id.
The abusive interrogation and ostracization at work caused Massey to cry, lose sleep, become depressed, humiliated, and lose enjoyment of her job and her life. Id. at 13. The treatment purportedly also caused Massey to have an anxiety attack one day at work, for which she was transported by ambulance to a hospital for treatment. Id. Massey continued to be subject to cruel comments after she fell ill at work. Id.
Massey brings four claims against Sheriff Dorning and the County: (1) a Title VII claim for hostile work environment; (2) a Title VII claim for retaliation; (3) a § 1983 claim for gender-based discrimination; and (4) a § 1983 claim for failure to train and supervise. And she brings a single claim against Director Howell under § 1983 for failure to train. The defendants move to dismiss each claim. The court will address each claim in turn.
The court first addresses a basis for dismissal raised that is relevant to all claims. The defendants move to dismiss the complaint as an impermissible shotgun pleading. Massey's second amended complaint clocks in at 37 pages. For each claim, she incorporates the opening 52 paragraphs of facts and background. This is a quintessential shotgun pleading. See Jackson v. Bank of Am. , 898 F.3d 1348, 1354 (11th Cir. 2018) ().
The Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly condemned shotgun pleadings. See Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. , 516 F.3d 955, 979 n. 54 (11th Cir. 2008) ()....
To continue reading
Request your trial