Reid v. Aransas Cnty.

• Decision Date: 06 April 2011
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. C–10–144.
• Citation: 805 F.Supp.2d 322
• Parties: Steven REID, Plaintiff, v. ARANSAS COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

805 F.Supp.2d 322

Steven REID, Plaintiff,

v.ARANSAS COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. C–10–144.

United States District Court,S.D. Texas,Corpus Christi Division.

April 6, 2011.

William H. Berry, Jr., Gail D.C. Dorn, Law Office of William H. Berry Jr., Corpus Christi, TX, for Plaintiff.

Rodney Robert Handel, Hunter Handel PC, Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendants.

ORDER

JANIS GRAHAM JACK, District Judge.

On this day came on to be considered Defendants' Aransas County, Texas and William “Bill” Mills' Motion for Summary Judgment. (D.E. 12.) For the reasons stated herein Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. Jurisdiction

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), as this cause of action is brought under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over Plaintiff's state law causes of action.

II. Factual Background

This is a discrimination and retaliation case brought by Plaintiff Steven Reid against his former employer, Aransas County, Texas and Sheriff William Bills, Aransas County Sheriff. The Court lays out the most relevant details below.

A. Initial Hiring by Aransas County Sheriff's Office

Plaintiff is presently a fifty-one year old Caucasian male. On September 28, 2004, Plaintiff was issued a permanent jailer's license by the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education (“TCLEOSE”). After obtaining this TCLEOSE license, Plaintiff was hired as a corrections officer in the Aransas County Sheriff's Office (“ACSO”) on February 13, 2006. (D.E. 30–3.) Plaintiff was forty-six years old at the time he was hired. At the time of his hire, Plaintiff hoped to attend the Peace Officer Academy, but states that he was told by Captain Tina Kutach that ACSO would only sponsor him at the Academy if he completed six to nine months as a corrections officer before applying. (D.E. 1 at 4–5.)

B. Outstanding Warrant

In March 2006, during a routine computer check as part of his training, Plaintiff discovered that he had an outstanding warrant related to a bounced check for $197.62 in 2002; Plaintiff states that he resolved the matter in July 2003 by funding the check. (D.E. 30 at 4; D.E. 30–46 at 16–17.) Plaintiff sought advice, and was told by Captain Kutach and the county attorney to come in, be processed pursuant to the warrant, pay the check plus interest, and accept deferred adjudication rather than fight the charge. Plaintiff paid over $800 and believed the matter was resolved. (D.E. 1 at 5; D.E. 30–46 at 17.) Plaintiff accepted unadjudicated community supervision for six months, agreed to pay restitution and court costs, and a fine. The community supervision was terminated three months early, in June 2006. (D.E. 30–7.) Plaintiff maintained his position at the Aransas County Detention Center throughout this entire period. (D.E. 30–7.)

C. Termination, Reinstatement, and Report of OSHA Violations

In July 2007, ACSO sponsored Plaintiff for the Peace Officer's Academy. Plaintiff passed the required tests, but was told that his deferred adjudication on the bounced check charge disqualified him from entry into the Academy for ten years and possibly disqualified him from working as a corrections officer. (D.E. 1 at 7.) Thereafter, in a July 31, 2007 letter, Captain Kutach terminated Plaintiff allegedly due to his community supervision and the problems that would pose with his TCLEOSE license. (D.E. 30–10; D.E. 30–11.) The letter explained:

Mr. Foust from Del–Mar Regional Police Academy contacted [Sheriff Gilliam] in reference to your enrollment in the Academy. He has brought to our attention that the Court Ordered Community Supervision that you were placed on for your warrant in 2006 has disqualified you from attending the academy. This being brought up I took the position that TCLEOSE had to be called to ensure that you still be licensed as a jailer. After speaking with TCLEOSE I was informed that even though you were not actually convicted of this offence, the fact that you were Court Ordered Community Supervision your jailers' license is no longer valid for you to work for this department either. This is not a decision that I like having to make, but due to the fact that it is now known that your license is not valid I must relieve you from your position as a jailer of the Aransas County Detention Center. (D.E. 30–10.) ¹

Plaintiff then contacted TCLEOSE, which informed him that he could be terminated only after an administrative hearing. On August 20, 2007, ACSO reinstated Reid to his position, and reinstated his full benefits on October 24, 2007. (D.E. 30–12; D.E. 30–15; D.E. 30–46 at 21.)

It was around this time when Plaintiff reported to state authorities certain alleged Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) violations (related to the placement of pesticides in employee work areas) (D.E. 30–13) and reported the misuse of medications by certain nurses at the county jail (regarding the dispensing of prescription medications intended for federal inmates to state inmates). (D.E. 1 at 7–8; D.E. 30–9.) The Texas Board of Nursing investigated this latter matter, found a violation, and issued a sanction of “Warning with Stipulations,” along with an admonishment to abide by all provisions of applicable law. (D.E. 30–32.)

D. Suspension of TCLEOSE License, Hand Injury, and Termination

Despite Plaintiff's reinstatement at ACSO, the matter of his warrant and community supervision was not resolved with TCLEOSE. In March 2008, Plaintiff obtained the support of Chief Deputy McLester, in preparation for his upcoming administrative hearing with TCLEOSE. ( See D.E. 30–16.) McLester's letter explained:

From the first instance I have acknowledge[d] to Officer Reid that I would personally vouch for and stand along side Officer Reid in his pursuit to clear his record. Due to his personal actions to not only bring this situation forward but his willingness to stand tall and do the right thing coupled with TCLEOSE first giving their blessing to stay employed then to recommend termination and then advising to rehire, brings me to sincerely request the TCLEOSE governing board to consider his judgment complete and allow him to continue to pursue his goal of becoming a Certified Law Enforcement Officer. (D.E. 30–16.)

Nevertheless, following a hearing, TCLEOSE issued a final order suspending Reid's jailer's license for three months effective June 27, 2008, thus making Reid eligible for reinstatement on September 27, 2008. ACSO was informed of this decision on July 3, 2008. (D.E. 30–19; D.E. 30–19.) A few days prior to this notification (on June 24, 2008), Reid injured his right hand while on the job, dealing with a physically aggressive inmate. (D.E. 30–17; D.E. 30–18.) Aransas County filed the injury report on July 10, 2008. (D.E. 30–20.)

Reid was subsequently placed on restricted duty on June 30, 2008. Reid inquired into whether he could perform “master control position” duties, in light of his hand injury and his suspended TCLEOSE license. Captain Kutach denied this request, and Aransas County allegedly refused to put Reid back to work or accommodate his injury by assigning him other tasks. (D.E. 30 at 6–7.)

Reid was terminated on July 14, 2008, and a hand written note on his Personnel Action Form stated that he was “eligible for rehire upon showing all proof of reinstatement” of his TCLEOSE license. (D.E. 30–22.) Chief Deputy McLester informed Plaintiff that he had been fired because TCLEOSE changed its decision as to Plaintiff's license; specifically, they changed Plaintiff's three months license probation to a three month suspension. Plaintiff later received a letter of separation dated July 17, 2008, postmarked July 21, 2008. (D.E. 1 at 10–11.) Thereafter, on July 17, 2008, ACSO reported to TCLEOSE that Reid was discharged because he failed to complete TCLEOSE licensing requirements. (D.E. 30 at 8.)

E. Failure to Rehire

Reid's TCLEOSE license was eligible for reinstatement on September 28, 2008, although the license was not actually reinstated until March 20, 2009, when Reid paid the fees associated with reinstatement. (D.E. 30–29.) Reid was medically released for full duty on August 11, 2008, and he reached Maximum Medical Improvement on June 16, 2009, making him eligible to return to full working duties. (D.E. 30–30.) Reid claims that Aransas County was aware of his eligibility, both with respect to his license and his medical clearance. Reid applied to return to work on several occasions in response to advertisement, including in March 2009 (after his license was reinstated), but Defendants never rehired him. (D.E. 30 at 9.)

Reid filed an EEOC Charge on February 25, 2009, which was amended on March 18 and April 1, 2009. (D.E. 30–27; D.E. 1 at 4.) Reid makes claims of sex and age discrimination, along with retaliation. He claims that he was terminated for making a worker's compensation claim, and provides other comparison officers who had theft charges or convictions, but were never reported to TCLEOSE. (D.E. 30–28.) The EEOC issued its right to sue letter on February 18, 2010. (D.E. 30–33.) This lawsuit followed.

F. Causes of Action

Based upon these facts, Plaintiff alleges causes of action for (1) gender discrimination, in violation of the Equal Employment Opportunities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., (2) age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., (3) retaliation for gender and age discrimination claims, (4) hostile work environment, (5) violation of the Texas Labor Code § 451.001 et seq, based upon Defendants' alleged retaliation for pursuing a worker's compensation claim for his injured right hand, and (6) violation of the Texas Whistleblower's Act, Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 554.001 et seq. in retaliation for Plaintiff...