Sampson v. City of Fort Smith
| Decision Date | 08 June 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:15-CV-02251.,2:15-CV-02251. |
| Citation | 255 F.Supp.3d 873 |
| Parties | Wendall N. SAMPSON, Jr., Plaintiff v. CITY OF FORT SMITH, ARKANSAS ; Carl Geffken ; Kevin Lindsey; Jarrard Copeland; Levi Risley; Mark Hallum; Dean Pitts; Anthony Bowers; Doug Brooks ; Daniel Grubbs; Austin Collins ; and Dawn Sprayberry, Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas |
Matthew Douglas Campbell, Pinnacle Law Firm, PLLC, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff.
Colby T. Roe, Douglas M. Carson, Jerry L. Canfield, Daily Woods P.L.L.C., Fort Smith, AR, for Defendants.
Before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 49), Plaintiff Wendall N. Sampson, Jr.'s response (Doc. 54), Defendants' reply (Doc. 56), and the parties' supporting documents. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants' motion for summary judgment will be granted.
Officer Sampson is an African–American officer who has been employed by the Fort Smith Police Department since 1995. His career in the department consists of working first for four years in the patrol division; then in narcotics for several months, the criminal investigations division for eight years, and the community relations division for two years; then as an airport liaison for two years and an assistant communications center supervisor2 for four years; and currently as the information desk officer. He holds the rank of corporal, which is an automatic promotion after an officer attains ten years of experience. (Doc. 54, p. 2).
In his second amended complaint (Doc. 26), Officer Sampson asserts that each Defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against him on the basis of his race and by retaliating against him for engaging in protected activity. In particular, Officer Sampson asserts that Defendants discriminated against him by investigating and disciplining him when white officers were not investigated for the same conduct, and by failing to promote him but promoting similarly- or less-qualified white officers. Officer Sampson also asserts that the investigations into him were retaliation for his general complaints about racial discrimination and harassment, and that he was subjected generally to harassment, suspension, and transfer on the basis of his general complaints and for filing an April 2013 internal grievance and an October 2013 discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Officer Sampson filed an EEOC charge on the basis of racial discrimination and retaliation in April 2015. In addition to his Title VII claims, Officer Sampson asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Defendants' deprivation of Officer Sampson's 42 U.S.C. § 1981 rights3 and for retaliation against him for his speech protected by the First Amendment. Finally, Officer Sampson brings a discrimination claim under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act ("ACRA"), Ark. Code § 16–123–101 et seq., based on the same damage to his employment and reputation.
In 2015, the year Officer Sampson filed this lawsuit, the Fort Smith Police Department had 165 total officers. See http://www.fortsmithpd.org/Assets/2015AnnualReport.pdf, last accessed May 8, 2017. At that time and for approximately seven years prior, Officer Sampson was the sole African–American officer in the entire department. Officer Sampson alleges that he was only the tenth African–American officer hired by the department in its entire history, and that no African–American officer has been promoted since 1988. On the basis of 2012 and 2013 examination scores, he applied for promotion but was not chosen.4
In April 2013, Officer Sampson filed a formal complaint against Sergeant Dawn Sprayberry with then-Chief Kevin Lindsey. In the formal complaint, Officer Sampson accused Sergeant Sprayberry of "harassment/creating a hostile work environment" and "vengeful retaliatory bullying" against Officer Sampson, CALEA Communications Accreditation Manager Rhonda Harper, and "other members of the department." (Doc. 49–11, p. 15). The formal complaint listed a wide range of grievances against Sergeant Sprayberry stemming from the way in which she treated individuals in the department. It recalled Officer Sampson's previous duties as an assigned recruiter for minority officers and an incident in which an African–American applicant, Tiffany Johnson, who Officer Sampson stated was "# 1 on our hire list before failing her final interview." (Id. p. 18). Officer Sampson claimed Sergeant Sprayberry docked Ms. Johnson points because Ms. Johnson had expressed interest in joining the United States Marshal's Service. (Id. ). The formal complaint also alleged that Sergeant Sprayberry "could possibly have manipulated the results" of Officer Sampson's oral presentation score as part of his 2012 promotional testing. (Id. ). At no point did Officer Sampson's formal complaint mention race as a basis for Sergeant Sprayberry's objectionable actions, or ascribe them any basis other than her general disdain for others.
On April 16, 2015,5 Officer Sampson filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC alleging racial discrimination or harassment. This charge was amended on May 28, 2015, after meeting with the EEOC investigator. On August 27, 2015, the EEOC issued a right to sue letter. Following the filing of the April 2013 formal complaint against Sergeant Sprayberry and the October 2013 EEOC discrimination charge, Officer Sampson claims that Defendants retaliated against him by unjustly making him the target of a number of internal investigations when, prior to the filing of his formal complaint against Sergeant Sprayberry in April of 2013, he had been the subject of only one sustained complaint during eighteen-plus years of employment by the department. Officer Sampson primarily bases his discrimination and retaliation claims on the internal investigations opened against him subsequently to his April 2013 formal complaint and October 2013 EEOC charge, and on Defendants' failure to promote him based on his 2012 and 2013 examination scores. Officer Sampson also alleges that he did not receive an increase in pay for his tenure as Assistant Communications Center Supervisor, even though one was allowed. (Id. , ¶ 32).6
As part of his failure to promote claim, Officer Sampson contends that he is qualified for a promotion and applied for a promotion to Sergeant based on his 2012 and 2013 examination scores, but that the department instead hired or promoted individuals who were not members of a protected group who were similarly qualified to or less qualified than Officer Sampson. The Fort Smith Police Department employs both an objective and subjective component to its promotional testing. Officers must take an objective multiple choice exam.7 They then undergo an oral examination before five panelists, with both the top and the bottom scores given being discarded. The objective and subjective component scores are then combined, and each officer is ranked according to his or her overall performance. Under the "Rule of Three," when a position is open, the Chief of Police can select any of the three top-scoring candidates. In 2012, Officer Sampson ranked fourth out of twelve, with just 0.17 of one point separating him from the third-ranked scorer. In 2013, Officer Sampson also ranked fourth out of twelve, with one point separating him from the third-ranked scorer.
Officer Sampson's § 1983 and ACRA claims allege that he was deprived of his reputation and employment without due process or equal protection as required by the Fourteenth Amendment, and that Defendants retaliated against him for making antidiscrimination complaints, violating his First Amendment rights.
The Court previously dismissed without prejudice Officer Sampson's illegal exactions claim, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the unrelated state law claim. (Doc. 39). The claims against Separate Defendants Colby Roe and Wyman Wade were dismissed by the same order (Id. ), and individual capacity claims against former City Administrator Ray Gosack were subsequently dismissed after no motion to substitute was filed within 90 days of the filing suggesting his death. (Doc. 47).
Defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment, arguing that each of Officer Sampson's claims fail under the burden-shifting framework outlined in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). They argue that Officer Sampson has not made out a prima facie case for any of his claims, and that even if he had done so, the Defendants have provided legitimate reasons for each of their actions that Officer Sampson cannot prove as pretext. Defendants additionally argue that they are entitled to judgment based on qualified immunity, claim preclusion, statute of limitations grounds, and because Officer Sampson has not shown a custom or policy as part of his § 1983 claims.
When a party moves for summary judgment, it must establish both the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 ; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 586–87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) ; Nat'l Bank of Commerce of El Dorado, Ark. v. Dow Chem. Co. , 165 F.3d 602 (8th Cir. 1999). In order for there to be a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must produce evidence "such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Allison v. Flexway Trucking, Inc. , 28 F.3d 64, 66–67 (8th Cir. 1994) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ). Only facts "that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law" need be considered. Anderson , 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. "[T]he non-movant must make a sufficient showing on every essential element of its claim on which it bears...
To continue reading
Request your trial