Walker v. City of Holyoke
| Citation | 523 F.Supp.2d 86 |
| Decision Date | 30 November 2007 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 05-30074-MAP. |
| Parties | Tammy WALKER, Plaintiff v. CITY OF HOLYOKE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Ozell Hudson, Jr., Boston, MA, for Plaintiff.
Carole Sakowski Lynch, Morrison Mahoney LLP, Springfield, MA, Karen T. Betournay, City of Holyoke Law Department, Holyoke, MA, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This case involves a number of discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims brought by Plaintiff Tammy Walker, a black, lesbian former sergeant in the Holyoke Police Department ("HPD"). Based on a series of incidents involving co-workers and some of her superiors in the police department over a span of several years, Walker charges Defendant City of Holyoke ("Holyoke") with gender, race, and sexual orientation discrimination under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B (Counts I, III, and V), gender and race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (Counts. II and IV), race-, gender-, and sexual orientation-based harassment creating a hostile work environment under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B (Counts VI, VIII, and X), race- and gender-based harassment creating a hostile work environment under Title VII (Counts VII and IX), retaliation under Title VII and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B (Counts XI and XII), retaliation in violation of the Massachusetts Whistleblower Statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 185 (Count XIII), racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count XIV), and retaliation for her exercise of First Amendment rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count XV).
Defendant now moves for summary judgment on all claims. For the reasons stated below, this motion will be allowed as to all counts except one, the state law claim under the Whistleblower Statute (Count XIII). This claim will be dismissed without prejudice to its re-filing in state court.
The facts are set out below in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, noting any material disputes along the way.1 Ramirez-Carlo v. United States, 496 F.3d 41, 50 (1st Cir.2007). As the factual record in this case is extensive, this summary will focus only on details material to the court's ruling.
As will be discussed further below, the argument pressed most strongly by Plaintiff is that Holyoke's discriminatory treatment was exhibited by the more favorable treatment afforded Sergeant Robert Wagner, a Caucasian, heterosexual male who worked the same shift as Plaintiff. Wagner began employment at the Holyoke Police Department in 1975. He was promoted to sergeant in 1982 and served as Chief of Police between 1991 and 1994. In 1994 he resigned as Chief and returned to the rank of sergeant.
In the late 1990s, Wagner was involved in an investigation of the Holyoke Police Department by the Massachusetts Attorney General's office. He cooperated with the investigation and in 1997 went to a local newspaper with information regarding possible criminal corruption in the department. Wagner was thereafter suspended for releasing confidential information to the newspaper. He ultimately received several more suspensions and reprimands between 1997 and 2000, some in connection with that behavior and some in response to other alleged violations of departmental regulations.2
In March 2003, Wagner sent an interoffice communication ("IOC") to the Chief of Police, Anthony Scott, in which he charged the mayor of Holyoke, Michael Sullivan, and the captain of his shift, Alan Fletcher, with pressuring an officer into changing someone's arrest for public intoxication into protective custody based on that person's connection to a public official. That claim was dismissed as unfounded, and Wagner was suspended for five days for failing to comply with an order to respond to Chief Scott via the chain of command, presenting inaccurate information in his IOC, and making serious accusations that could not be substantiated. Mayor Sullivan affirmed the suspension, taking into account Wagner's history of eleven previous suspensions and ten letters of reprimand. He did not grant a request by Chief Scott that Wagner be subjected to further discipline beyond the five-day suspension.
In August 2005, Wagner was involved in a confrontation with Dennis Egan, a retired Holyoke police officer, at a local bank. Chief Scott ordered an investigation and found that Wagner had followed Egan into the bank and yelled at him using obscene language. Scott issued Wagner two suspensions of five days each for unbecoming conduct and for giving false testimony in his statement about the incident and then refusing to sign it when ordered to by Chief Scott. At this time, Wagner was scheduled to retire on March 7, 2006.
In December 2005, Wagner brought three complaints against, Chief Scott relating to his suspensions for the Egan incident, accusing him of imposing discipline without, cause, giving an improper order, and allowing the improper release of confidential records. After an investigation by an outside officer from another police department, Chief Scott was exonerated.
Wagner also appealed his suspensions to Mayor Sullivan in December 2005, requesting that they be vacated, that he be compensated for his lost wages, and that he be allowed to "retire in peace." (Dkt. No. 56, Ex. 13.) Wagner's attorney requested postponement of the hearing before the mayor, with the result that it was not held until March 29, 2006. Meanwhile, Wagner had retired on March 7 as scheduled. Mayor Sullivan affirmed the suspensions and noted that "but for [Wagner's] voluntary retirement, discharge would be imposed." (Dkt. No. 56, Ex. 19 at 6.)
Walker joined the Holyoke Police Department as a full-time officer in July 1993, eighteen years after Wagner. In June 1999, she was considered for a promotion to sergeant, but was not hired. Plaintiff alleged that she was passed over because of her race and/or gender and in a subsequent settlement with the city was given the next available position as sergeant on May 5, 2002, with her seniority backdated to June 9, 1999, the date of her interview for the original slot, The city subsequently contended that her seniority should have dated from June 20, 1999, the day when Walker was formally rejected from consideration for the position, but Plaintiff declined to deviate from the date agreed upon in the settlement.
In 2002, Walker joined two other sergeants, John Monaghan and Joseph Garcia, on the 12 a.m. to 8 a.m. shift. She had worked with Monaghan before without any reported difficulties.
In May 2002, Plaintiff reported to two of her supervisors, Lieutenant Donald Whelihan and Sergeant John Lenihan, that Monaghan and Garcia resented that she was senior to both of them due to her seniority date of June 9, 1999.3 She stated that both sergeants had been refusing to speak with her while the three of them were on duty together and would also remain in the station for substantial parts of the shift, leaving Walker as the only sergeant to supervise from on the road. Whelihan did speak with Monaghan and Garcia, but the situation did not improve. (Dkt. No. 46, Ex. 6, Walker Dep. Vol. I at 83:6-15, 154:3-21.) Lenihan told Walker not to "make waves."4 (Id. 141:7-12.)
On June 20, 2002, as she was finishing a transmission over the Holyoke Police Department radio system, Walker heard Monaghan saying "lick it, lick it good" (a lyric from a song popular at the time) in an African-American dialect. Monaghan allegedly made the remark over a separate radio system, the Western Massachusetts Law Enforcement Channel ("WMLEC").5 Walker reported this occurrence to some of her supervisors, including Lieutenant David Fournier, who worked in the Professional Standards Division ("PSD") (the department's internal affairs unit), and possibly Lieutenant Whelihan. (Id. 171:1-19.) It is not clear when she made those complaints.
In September 2002, Walker told Captain Alan Fletcher about Monaghan's and Garcia's ostracism of her. Fletcher responded that he thought that if Walker changed her seniority date to the "correct" June 20 date, everything would "work out." He also held a meeting with Walker and Monaghan to discuss the accusation, at which Monaghan denied both behaving badly toward Plaintiff and making the "lick it" comment. According to Walker, "nothing changed" as a result of her complaints.
Around June 2002, while Walker was giving out an order from Chief Scott (who is African-American), she heard Monaghan say in an assumed African-American dialect, "Uncle Charlie done come out wit anutter order." Officer Jorge Rodriguez later confirmed that he had also heard unidentified officers referring to Chief Scott as "Uncle Charlie" at various times during roll calls. It is unclear when this was first reported, but Captain Fletcher had a meeting with Monaghan and Walker to discuss the allegation on October 17, 2002. Monaghan denied making the statement.
Plaintiff filed a complaint with Chief Scott on October 25, 2002, reporting that several officers had informed her that Monaghan referred to her as "Tyrone," rather than by her given name, "Tammy." According to Walker, Tyrone is a stereotypical African-American male name. The PSD began an investigation of this claim. Plaintiff refused to provide the PSD the names of the officers who told her about Monaghan's name-calling, citing their request not to reveal their identities.
Monaghan told Walker that she "should not be a sergeant because of her lesbian lifestyle," although Plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moebius v. Tharperobbins Co.
...favor a decision contrary to the one reached.'"Hodgens v. General Dynamics Corp., 144 F.3d at 168-69; see Walker v. City of Holyoke, 523 F.Supp.2d 86, 105 (D.Mass. 2007). In addition, as defendant correctly asserts, "chronological proximity does not by itself establish causality." Wright v.......
-
Cosme-Montalvo v. Trafon Grp., Inc.
...evidence must rest on proof that the proposed analogue is similarly situated in material respects.'" Walker v. City of Holyoke, 523 F. Supp. 2d 86, 103 (D. Mass. 2007) (quoting Perkins v. Brigham & Women's Hosp., 78 F.3d 747, 751 (1st Cir. 1996)). "'[I]n offering ... comparative evidence, [......
-
Hines v. Bos. Pub. Sch.
...victim in fact did perceive it to be so; and (6) that some basis for employer liability has been established.Walker v. City of Holyoke, 523 F. Supp. 2d 86, 106 (D. Mass. 2007) (quoting Torres-Negrón v. Merck & Co., 488 F.3d 34, 39 (1st Cir. 2007)). Even assuming arguendo that Hines were dis......
-
Larde v. Commonwealth Zoological Corp.
...job performance have tended to do so where the employee's poor record was undisputed or unrelated to the alleged discrimination.”). As in Walker, Larde “disputes the details of some the incidents for which [he] was disciplined (including the one for which [he] was fired . . .).” Id. For exa......