Schoiack v. Joseph County Policy Department, No. 3:00cv0439 AS (N.D. Ind. 2/27/2002)
| Decision Date | 27 February 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:00cv0439 AS.,3:00cv0439 AS. |
| Parties | STACI JO VAN SCHOIACK, Plaintiff v. ST. JOSEPH COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, RICHARD SENIFF, Sheriff, in his individual and official capacity, SERGEANT MAURICE VANBRUAENE, an individual, and CAPTAIN JAMES VANCE, an individual, jointly and severally, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
On or about July 21, 2000, now more than a year and-a-half ago, this Plaintiff, by counsel, filed a complaint in the South Bend division of this Court seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as more recently embodied in the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, and also under Indiana's Civil Rights Law, claiming that the Defendants discriminated against her because of her gender. She also claims that the Defendants subjected her to intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress, a claim based on state law. The Defendants in this case filed a motion for summary judgment on or about December 3, 2001, which has been fully briefed by both Plaintiff and Defendants. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties and supporting evidence, and now rules as follows.
Jurisdiction is based upon the presence of federal questions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and is proper pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)-(3). The plaintiff has also attempted to allege constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. §1983, and has invoked this Court's federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(3). Finally, the Plaintiff has invoked this Court's supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
At the summary judgment stage, the Court must take all unchallenged facts as true, and resolve factual disputes in favor of the nonmoving party, in this case, the Plaintiff. Therefore, for purposes of this motion, the Court assumes that Plaintiff's version of the facts is correct, except where Defendants have provided additional facts which the Plaintiff did not challenge. Because of the nature of this case, the Court finds it necessary to recount the facts with considerable detail for the record.
The Plaintiff in this case, Staci VanSchoiack, worked for the Defendant St. Joseph County Police Department ("SJCPD") from 1986 until the present. She was a road patrol officer from 1986 until December 8, 1999, at which time she was transferred to a position in the basement of the Saint Joseph County Jail. Def.s' Mem. in Supp. at 2. To simplify the analysis, the Court will divide the factual history into two time periods, one prior to the Plaintiff's reassignment in December, 1999, the other beginning with reassignment up to and including the most recent factual statements in the parties' motions, responses, and supporting documents.
The Court first notes that, as the Defendant points out, only incidents within the 300 day time period before the Plaintiff filed her charge with the EEOC may be counted in considering whether the Defendants violated Title VII. Many of the incidents related by the Plaintiff in her Deposition that took place during this time period are prior to the 300 days. However, the events are still relevant to the state of mind of the individual defendants, and also to the question of whether the County took reasonable efforts to prevent and correct sexual harassment in its Police Department, and will therefore be included in the factual statement.
When VanSchoiack became a road patrol officer in 1986, she was the first female to occupy that position in the County, and later she became the first female member of the County's Emergency Response Team ("SWAT Team"). Id., and Pl.'s Ex. 3. While she was preparing to be a member of the SWAT Team, she heard from SWAT Team member Feirrel, that Vance opposed her being on the team. He allegedly said that "he was going to quit because [she] did not belong in a man's world, it was a man's team, and it was a family and that a woman did not belong there." Pl.'s Dep. at page 134. At the time, Vance was her supervisor. Id. There was a form that supervisor's had to sign for an officer to be on the SWAT Team, and Vance refused to sign the form. Id. The Plaintiff had met all the requirements for being on the SWAT Team, and ultimately was on placed on the Team, in spite of Vance's opposition.
As the person who broke through barriers on the SJCPD, the Plaintiff felt that the other officers, and sometimes the administration, did not know how to treat her. Pl.'s Dep. at 54. Even a former Sheriff would sometimes pinch her "butt" in front of other people, and make comments about her breasts, but she never complained to anyone. Id. She said she found it "shocking", and would think, "I can't believe he did that," but that she was embarrassed, more for him than for herself. Id. She believed he was just joking, and that the former Sheriff wanted everyone to get along and be one happy family. Id.
Captain Vance was another person who allegedly did not know how to treat the Plaintiff. He was the Plaintiff's direct supervisor for a period of about four years in the early 1990's. Pl.'s Dep. at page 51. Besides opposing her being on the SWAT Team, Vance is said to have harassed the Plaintiff in other ways. According to the Plaintiff, Vance would follow her more than he followed male officers, he would have others follow her, he made an example of her in front of her peers, and he belittled and embarrassed her. Id. In one incident, when the Plaintiff asked Vance what a small caged area was for, Vance responded, "that's the cage where you're going to get your beatings."
At least once, Vance pulled the Plaintiff's hair in order to pull out her hair ribbon because it was the wrong color. Canoy Dep. at page 15. The Plaintiff claims he pulled her hair twice, and that the issue was the length of her hair, which she says was fine according to the merit board rules. Pl.'s Dep., Def.'s Ex. 41. The Plaintiff complained to Major Weisser after the second time, and Vance was told " to leave me alone and let my hair go." Id.
As her supervisor, Vance filled out performance reviews for the Plaintiff. Pl.'s Ex. 1. His comments about the Plaintiff were generally negative. Id. In two of the four in the record, he says she needs to deal with her supervisor first if she has a problem. In the other two, he states that he has been receiving some complaints about the way she handles calls. During this time, the Plaintiff complained to Vance's superiors about his harassing behavior. As a result of these complaints, the Plaintiff was transferred and Vance was no longer her supervisor.
In January, 1999, Defendant Seniff, newly elected as Sheriff of Saint Joseph County, made Captain Vance the Plaintiff's direct supervisor again. The Plaintiff immediately complained to Sheriff Seniff about working under Vance, and told him about the problems she had with Vance in the past. Pl.'s Dep. at p. 129 and 169. She was told, "we were going to start all over and, you know, if he started it again, then I was to contact Seniff or Wagh." Pl.'s Dep. at p. 129. The Plaintiff said in her Deposition, "I was told by the Sheriff that Paul Jones was put on the road patrol to keep an eye on James Vance so he wouldn't do the same things he was doing before." Id. at p. 136.
According to the Plaintiff, however, Vance had not changed. During the time period from January to March, 1999, as her supervisor, instead of speaking directly to VanSchoiack, he generally called her the "girlfriend" of whatever male officer she was working with. For example, he would make comments like, "You're working with your girlfriend today; where's your girlfriend today, where does your girlfriend hide when I can't find her." Pl.'s Dep. at p. 67. According to VanSchoiack, "He did it in front of people, he did it when I wasn't present, he did it when I was present." Id. VanSchoiack stated, "he picked up where he left off from the four years that I worked for him before, doing the same thing; you know, you'll be working with your girlfriend." Id., Def.'s Ex. 4. Captain Vance testified that referring to the Plaintiff as "girlfriend" was kind of a common phrase used "from high up in the administration down to officers and patrolmen." Vance Dep. at 10.
There is no evidence that Vance used demeaning language of this sort in reference to male officers, unless they were working with VanSchoiack. When the Plaintiff was working with Dave Hagan, besides making the girlfriend comments, Vance referred to them as "the two dumb blondes out east." Pl.'s Dep. at p. 67. The Plaintiff was offended by Vance always referring to her as someone's "girlfriend". She said of this conduct, "It was demeaning and it was not professional and I'm a police officer; not somebody's girlfriend." Pl.'s Dep. at p 129. Dave Hagan has a wife and kids, and the Plaintiff said she is friends with all of them, so she found it particularly offensive when Vance would refer to her as Hagan's girlfriend. Id., Def.'s Ex.
Vance admitted in his Deposition that it could be offensive to call a woman "girlfriend" instead of using her name, and Canoy stated in his Deposition, "I don't know if it was derogatory to her, but sometimes it was derogatory to me." Canoy Dep. at 18. After VanSchoiack complained about Vance's use of the word "girlfriend" to either Seniff or Waugh, an accommodation was made that reduced the number of days she was under Vance's direct supervision. Pl.'s Dep., Def.'s Ex. 4.
In January, 1999, when Vance was making assignments for the road patrol officers under him, he asked all the officers which areas they wanted to work. Pl.'s Dep. at p. 72. All the officers but the Plaintiff were given the areas they requested. Id. She was assigned to the two...
To continue reading
Request your trial