Vincent v. Story Cnty.
| Decision Date | 14 January 2014 |
| Docket Number | NO. 4:12-cv-00157-RAW,4:12-cv-00157-RAW |
| Parties | CATHLEEN M. GRAUSE VINCENT, Plaintiff, v. STORY COUNTY, IOWA, STORY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, and STEPHEN HOLMES, in his Individual and Official Capacity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa |
This matter is before the Court following hearing on defendants' resisted motion for summary judgment [13]. Plaintiff Cathleen M. Grause Vincent was employed by Story County, Iowa as the Victim Witness Coordinator in the County Attorney's office. Her employment was terminated effective May 23, 2011. She filed a Petition in the Iowa District Court on March 6, 2012 in three counts. Count One is a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that the termination of Ms. Vincent's employment violated her First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of association. Counts Two and Three claim respectively that the County failed to pay her overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law, Iowa Code ch. 91A. Defendants removed the case to this Court on April 16, 2012. The defendants deny the constitutional and statutory violations alleged and defendant Stephen Holmes, the Story County Attorney, asserts the defense of qualified immunity tothe § 1983 damages claim against him. Mr. Holmes is a defendant only on the federal constitutional claim. Story County is the only defendant on the federal and state wage claims. Though named as a defendant, there is no claim pleaded against the Story County Attorney's Office.
By the present motion, defendants challenge all of plaintiff's claims. The case is before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The Court has federal question jurisdiction of the First Amendment and FLSA claims and supplemental jurisdiction of the state law wage claim. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367(a).
A party is entitled to summary judgment only if, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and affording the nonmovant all reasonable inferences, see Coker v. Arkansas State Police, 734 F.3d 838, 841 (8th Cir. 2013); Burton v. St. Louis Bd. of Police Com'rs, 731 F.3d 784, 791 (8th Cir. 2013), the depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, affidavits, or other materials presented to the court, show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Foster v. Missouri Dept. of Health and Sr. Services, 736 F.3d 759, 762 (8th Cir. 2013); Preston v. City of Pleasant Hill, 642 F.3d 646, 651 (8th Cir. 2011); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), (c)(1)(A). "A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that it could cause a reasonablejury to return a verdict for either party; a fact is material if its resolution affects the outcome of the case." Flores v. U.S., 689 F.3d 894, 902 (8th Cir. 2012); Rakes v. Life Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 582 F.3d 886, 893 (8th Cir. 2009)(citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).
The moving party must first inform the court of the basis for the motion and identify the portions of the summary judgment record which the movant contends demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011)(citing Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)); Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp., 581 F.3d 737, 742-43 (8th Cir. 2009); Robinson v. White County, Ark., 459 F.3d 900, 902 (8th Cir. 2006)). The nonmoving party must then "go beyond the pleadings and by affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact." Rouse v. Benson, 193 F.3d 936, 939 (8th Cir. 1999); see Torgerson, 643 F.3d at 1042; Glorvigen, 581 F.3d at 743; In re Patch, 526 F.3d 1176, 1180 (8th Cir. 2008); Thomas v. Corwin, 483 F.3d 516, 526-27 (8th Cir. 2007); Littrell v. City of Kansas City, Mo., 459 F.3d 918, 921 (8th Cir. 2006).
Many of the facts are undisputed. To the extent they are, the Court has viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff Vincent and given her the benefit of all reasonable inferences which flow from the evidence.
Ms. Vincent began working for the Story County Attorney's office as a full-time employee in June 1997. (Pl. App. [31-2] at 2). The County has a Victim Witness Assistance Program which provides services to victims and witnesses in connection with criminal proceedings, and coordinates their appearance for court proceedings and depositions. (See Def. Supp. App. [35-3] at 99). Initially Ms. Vincent's job duties involved assisting the office's investigator and providing victim witness services. (Pl. App. [31-2] at 2). At some point she became a victim witness program assistant. (Id. at 3).
In 1999 Ms. Vincent became the Victim Witness Coordinator. (Pl. App. [31-2] at 3). The parties dispute the extent of Ms. Vincent's management responsibilities in that position. Ms. Vincent worked with two victim witness assistants, Sara Thomsen and Cindy Koepsel, as well as two paid interns and sometimes unpaid interns. Ms. Vincent testified she supervised the "workflow" between herself and the two assistants by which she meant balancing the work between the three of them and seeing that the work got done. (Id. at 4-5). Ms. Vincent did not have the authority to hireor fire the victim witness assistants, though was involved in the hiring process to the extent of being present for hiring interviews and gave her opinions to Mr. Holmes who made the final hiring decisions. (Pl. App. [31-2, 3] at 4, 43; Def. Supp. App. [35-3] at 86). There is evidence she also had some involvement in disciplining the victim witness assistants. Specifically she authored a memorandum in 2008 critical of Ms. Koepsel's failure to set up some depositions in a case. Ms. Koepsel submitted a grievance to Mr. Holmes about the memorandum. (Pl. App. [31-2] at 8; Def. App. [14] at 49). She also wrote a memorandum to then-office manager Kathy Tiffany in 2008 about Ms. Thomsen's failure to follow up on a restitution request, (Def. App. [14] at 100), a memorandum Ms. Vincent testified she was directed by Mr. Holmes and Ms. Tiffany to write after Ms. Vincent brought the delinquency to their attention. (Pl. App. [31-2] at 9).
Ms. Vincent completed employment evaluations for Ms. Thomsen and Ms. Koepsel in 2006. (Pl. App. [31-2] at 10; Def. App. [14] at 103-06).
Ms. Vincent was also involved in interviewing and selecting interns, oversaw their training, and supervised their work. (Def. Supp. App. [35-3] at 84, 86). Final hiring decisions for paid interns were made by the office manager. (Pl. App. [31-2] at 6). Ms. Vincent had a bigger role in the discipline and discharge of the interns than she did with respect to the victim witness assistants. (Def. Supp. App. [35-3] at 87).
Most of Ms. Vincent's time, however, was spent doing the same victim/witness work as the assistants, Ms. Thomsen and Ms. Koepsel. Teresa Smith was the "legal executive officer" for the Story County Attorney's Office at the time of the events in issue with supervisory authority over Ms. Vincent. (Pl. App. [31-2, 3-4] at 23, 64, 102-03). Ms. Smith estimated Ms. Vincent spent twenty-five percent of her time each week performing supervisory work rather than performing direct victim/witness work. (Pl. App. [31-3] at 73-74).
On April 10, 2011 while she was out of town, Ms. Vincent learned from her husband that his first cousin Kevin Johnson had been shot and killed. (Def. App. [14] at 44-45). Mr. Johnson had been shot by a Nevada, Iowa1 police officer. (Id. at 44). Ms. Vincent knew the Story County Attorney's office would not be involved in any investigation of Mr. Johnson's death due to her family relationship to him. (Pl. App. [31-2] at 13). As she returned to Nevada, Ms. Vincent contacted Iowa Department of Criminal Investigation agent Adam DeCamp and left a message with Nevada Police Sergeant Martinez in an effort to obtain information about when relatives would be able to see the body. (Def. App. [14] at 49-51).2 She also contacted Tim Meals, an assistant Story CountyAttorney, to let him know of her family relationship with Kevin Johnson. (Pl. App. [31-2] at 14-15). Ms. Vincent did not know at the time of these calls that Johnson had been shot by a Nevada police officer, a fact she learned only upon her return on April 10. (Id. at 17).
On April 11, 2011 County Attorney Holmes and executive officer Smith met with Ms. Vincent to tell her the Story County Attorney's office would not investigate Kevin Johnson's death, the investigation would be handled by the Iowa Attorney General's office, and that Ms. Vincent should not discuss the details of the investigation with anyone, including other office staff and her family and friends. (Pl. App. [31-2, 3-4] at 20-21, 75-76, 48-49, 104-05, 110, 117-18). Mr. Holmes did not want anyone in his office commenting about the incident with anyone in the community and Ms. Vincent understood from her meeting with him that she was not to do so. (Pl. App. [31-4] at 118-19; Def. App. [14] at 59; Def. Supp. App. [35-3] at 143). In unemployment hearing testimony Mr. Holmes explained that it was important for his office to have nothing to do with the investigation so that no matter what the outcome they would not be "tainted" by it. (Pl. App. [31-4] at 118). He saw his office as "opinion leaders" in the community. Everyone in hisoffice was his agent and in his experience what his employees said would carry a higher level of credibility. (Id. at 119).
The Story County Attorney's office maintains close relationships with the Nevada Police Department and the Iowa Attorney General's office. (Def. App. [14] at 95-96). A good relationship with both was important because of the need to work closely with local law enforcement (t...
To continue reading
Request your trial