McGuire v. City of Newark
| Decision Date | 26 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2019 CA 00095 |
| Parties | KAYLA MCGUIRE Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF NEWARK, ET AL. Defendants-Appellees |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
For Plaintiff-Appellant:
MICHAEL T. CONWAY
3456 Sandlewood Dr.
Brunswick, OH 44212
For Defendants-Appellees:
PATRICK KASSON
THOMAS N. SPYKER
200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 800
Columbus, OH 43215
{¶1} Plaintiff-Appellant Kayla McGuire appeals the August 27, 2019 judgment entry of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas.
{¶2} On May 8, 2018, Plaintiff-Appellant refiled her original complaint against Defendants-Appellees City of Newark and Safety Director Steven Baum (hereinafter "City of Newark") alleging the defendants engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices in violation of R.C. 4112.02. McGuire claimed that during her employment with the City of Newark as a police officer, she was subjected to discrimination because of her sex.
{¶3} In Count One of her complaint, she alleged discrimination and retaliation by the City of Newark, in violation of R.C. 4112.99 and 4112.02(I). R.C. 4112.99 states, "Whoever violates this chapter is subject to a civil action for damages, injunctive relief, or any other appropriate relief." R.C. 4112.02(I) states:
For any person to discriminate in any manner against any other person because that person has opposed any unlawful discriminatory practice defined in this section or because that person has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under sections 4112.01 to 4112.07 of the Revised Code.
{¶4} In Count Two, McGuire alleged the conduct of Safety Director Steven Baum, sued in his individual capacity, was a violation of R.C. 4112.02(J). The statute reads:
(J) For any person to aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce the doing of any act declared by this section to be an unlawful discriminatory practice, to obstruct or prevent any person from complying with this chapter or any order issued under it, or to attempt directly or indirectly to commit any act declared by this section to be an unlawful discriminatory practice.
{¶5} In Count Three, McGuire sued Baum in his individual capacity for violations of R.C. 4112.99 (discrimination) and 4112.02(I) (retaliation).
{¶6} The City of Newark filed a motion for summary judgment on April 12, 2019, arguing there were no genuine issues of material fact so that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on McGuire's claims of gender discrimination. In its motion for summary judgment, City of Newark claimed McGuire could not establish gender discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, or hostile work environment. It further contended that Baum, as an employee of a political subdivision, was entitled to immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6).
{¶7} McGuire responded to the motion for summary judgment. In support of her response to the motion for summary judgment, McGuire attached the affidavit of former City of Newark police officer, Jared Angle. On May 29, 2019, City of Newark filed a motion to strike the affidavit of Jared Angle. In support of the motion, City of Newark filed Angle's deposition.
{¶8} The following facts are based on the Civ.R. 56 evidence submitted by the parties.
{¶9} Plaintiff-Appellant Kayla McGuire graduated from Ohio State University in 2013 with a bachelor's degree in political science and the Ohio Police Officer Training Academy in 2015. In May 2016, she interviewed with the City of Newark Division of Police and on June 6, 2016, she was offered a probationary appointment to the position of Police Officer effective on June 20, 2016. Her annual salary was $40,655.30. The letter notifying McGuire of her employment offer stated that her continued employment in the position of Police Officer would be based upon the satisfactory completion of the one-year probation period from the date of appointment.
{¶10} Three men were also offered conditional employment positions as police officers with the City of Newark Division of Police: Derrick Beach, Adam Carter, and Oren Nauman. McGuire, Beach, Carter, and Nauman comprised the June 2016 class of police officer trainees for the City of Newark.
{¶11} In 2016, the City of Newark employed four full-time female police officers and one female reserve police officer. Three female police officers were assigned to patrol.
{¶12} The Defendant-Appellee City of Newark utilizes the Police Training Officer ("PTO") Model for training and evaluating new police trainees. The PTO program, according to the "PTO Manual/A Problem-Based Learning Manual for Training and Evaluating Police Trainees," is a problem-based learning model based on community-oriented policing. The focus of the program is on the trainee's learning capacity and problem-solving skills. The evaluation process for trainees involves multiple activities: informal assessment of daily activities through completing daily journal entries and dialogue, weekly coaching and training reports, problem-based learning exercises, neighborhood portfolio exercise, week-long mid-term evaluation, and a week-long final evaluation. The PTO is the police officer primarily responsible for guiding the trainee through the program. The PTO provides daily coaching and training to the trainee, documents training provided through a weekly coaching and training report, and keeps the Police Training Supervisors informed about pertinent issues associated with a trainee. During the PTO program, the trainee is expected to steadily improve. According to Barry L. Connell, Chief of Police for the City of Newark, the PTO program does not compare the performances of the trainees.
{¶13} The PTO program is fifteen weeks long and broken into phases: integration phase, Phase A/non-emergency incident response, Phase B/emergency incident response, mid-term evaluation, Phase C/patrol activities, Phase D/criminal investigation, and final evaluation. The phases are three weeks long. The PTO supervises the trainee during each phase and performs the mid-term evaluation and the final evaluation. The mid-term and final performance evaluation grades the trainee as passing or failing 15 different areas: police vehicle operation; conflict resolution; response to resistance and aggression; local procedures, policies, laws and organizational philosophies; report writing; teamwork; problem solving skills; community specific problems; cultural diversity and special needs groups; legal authority; individual rights; officer safety; communication skills; ethics; and lifestyle stressors, self-awareness, and self-regulation.
{¶14} McGuire began her Phase A training on July 6, 2016 with Officer David Arndt as her PTO. On July 8, 2016, Patrol Sergeant Al Shaffer commented in the coaching and training report that, Officer Arndt averred in his affidavit that during Phase A, McGuire McGuire testified that she did not receive any unfair criticisms during her first three-week training session. (McGuire Depo., 72).
{¶15} Officer Tim Fleming was McGuire's PTO for Phase B starting on July 27, 2016. McGuire stated her training with Fleming differed from her training with Arndt because (McGuire Depo., 74). Fleming stated in his affidavit that during Phase B, "McGuire showed deficient performance in operating her radio, operating police equipment, navigation, officer safety and situation awareness, and she struggled incorporating my feedback and training to improve her performance." Her Phase B training was extended for two weeks beginning August 6, 2016, where Fleming handled the calls and McGuire observed.
{¶16} Officer John Purtee conducted McGuire's Mid-Term Evaluation from August 24, 2016 to August 27, 2016. The evaluation showed that McGuire passed the areas of conflict resolution; response to resistance and aggression; report writing; teamwork; community specific problems; cultural diversity and special needs; individual rights; ethics; and lifestyle stressors, self-awareness, and self-regulation. McGuire failed in the areas of police vehicle operation; local procedures, policies, laws, and organizational philosophies; problem solving skills; legal authority; officer safety; and communication skills. Purtee attached a document to the Mid-Term Evaluation form which described in greater detail the areas where McGuire needed improvement. For example, in the area of police vehicle operation, Purtee elaborated that McGuire had trouble finding addresses, her regular patrol speeds were too fast, and she did not seem comfortable in the car when driving in emergency response. Purtee recognized that McGuire had made improvements and was trying hard. He recommended that McGuire move on to Phase C and her PTO's focus should be on McGuire's problem areas. McGuire was cautioned, however, that if improvement was not made in those areas and she was unable to pass the final, Purtee would recommend termination because the areas listed in the evaluation were serious and he was concerned for her safety.
{¶17} When McGuire...
To continue reading
Request your trial