Williams v. City of Austin

• Decision Date: 16 March 2016
• Docket Number: Case No. A-14-CA-695-SS
• Citation: 170 F.Supp.3d 939
• Parties: Blayne Williams, Plaintiff, v. City of Austin, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas

170 F.Supp.3d 939

Blayne Williams, Plaintiff,

v.City of Austin, Defendant.

Case No. A-14-CA-695-SS

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division.

Signed March 16, 2016

Alondra Geneva Johnson, Gary L. Bledsoe, Harry G. Potter, III, The Bledsoe Law Firm, PLLC, Austin, TX, for Plaintiff.

Andralee Cain Lloyd, City of Austin-Law Department, Christine G. Edwards, Assistant City Attorney, Austin, TX, for Defendant.

ORDER

SAM SPARKS

, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

BE IT REMEMBERED on this day the Court reviewed the file in the above-styled cause, and specifically Plaintiff Blayne Williams' Third Amended Complaint [# 33]; Defendant City of Austin's Motion for Summary Judgment [# 42]; Plaintiff's Response [# 64] thereto; Defendant's Reply [# 67] in support; and Defendant's Objections and Motion to Strike Evidence Attached to Plaintiff's Response [# 62]¹ . Having considered the documents, the governing law, the arguments of the parties, and the file as a whole, the Court now enters the following opinion and orders.

Background

This is a Title VII employment discrimination case brought by Plaintiff Blayne Williams, an African-American Austin Police Department (APD) police officer, against Defendant City of Austin, his employer. Williams claims the City retaliated and discriminated against him on the basis of his race by initiating three internal affairs investigations into his conduct as an officer, indefinitely suspending him from APD, and bypassing him three times for a promotion.

Williams seeks declarations the City violated federal and state law, as well as a Meet and Confer Agreement entered into between the City and the Austin Police Association, by failing to provide him with sufficient notice of the complaints against him and by not providing him a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Finally, Williams seeks a declaration the City violated Article 55 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure by violating an expunction order. The facts, taken in the light most favorable to Williams, are as follows.²

I. HEB Incident

On February 11, 2011, while off-duty and in plain clothes, Williams was involved in an physical altercation with an HEB grocery store employee after the employee cut him in line at the store's ATM. See Mot. Summ. J. [# 42-2] Ex. B at 010085. At the conclusion of an Internal Affairs (IA) investigation into his conduct, Williams was found to have violated the following four policies: (1) Responsibility to Know and Comply (all laws); (2) Police Involvement when Off-duty/Reporting of Incident; (3) Acts Bringing Discredit to the Department; and (4) Requirements of Duty/Devotion of Time and Attention. Id. at 010005. After a Disciplinary Review Hearing (DRH), Williams agreed to a temporary 90-day suspension as well as a one-year probationary period beginning at the conclusion of the suspension. Id. [# 42-6] Ex. D at 008889.

In April 2012, Williams filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, claiming the 90-day temporary suspension was a product of race discrimination. See id. [# 42-13] Ex. I. Williams subsequently filed suit in state court and, on October 14, 2013, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City and dismissed the suit with prejudice. See id. [# 42-15] Ex. L.

II. The Hyatt Incident

Approximately one year after he filed his EEOC charge, Williams was again investigated for police misconduct. The incident occurred on April 10, 2013, while Williams was working his approved secondary employment as a Manager On-Duty/Security Person for the Hyatt Regency Austin. At approximately 6:30 pm, Williams was notified that a female hotel guest complained about finding a cell phone concealed in the ceiling partition above her guestroom bathroom. See id. [# 42-3] Ex. B-1 at 010321. The Hyatt manager on duty believed the cell phone belonged to a hotel engineer who had misplaced it in the ceiling after working in the area and asked Williams to investigate and verify the complaint. When he arrived, Williams saw that one of the ceiling partitions had been moved and that there was a hole the circumference of a pen or a pencil in one of the partitions directly over the shower. Williams recorded a short video of the scene and photographed the partitions. Williams then reached behind the ceiling partitions and recovered a cell phone which was powered off. Williams powered the phone back on, but its battery died before Williams could confirm whether it had been used to make any illicit recordings.

Williams then brought the phone back to the assistant manager on duty, explaining that the phone had been found in the ceiling and that “this was possibly a felony incident of improper video or photography.” Id. [# 42-3] Ex. B-1 at 010322. Williams made a number of attempts to locate a charger for the phone but was ultimately unsuccessful. Williams also returned to the room with a member of the Hyatt's engineering team to further investigate the likelihood the hole was created by one of the engineers as part of their duties rather than as part of a potential crime. Williams was aware engineering employees often performed electrical work above the ceiling partitions and the phone he located was the same type used by engineers in the performance of their duties. At the end of his shift, he took the cell phone to the security department and left a note directing the head of security to charge the phone and to find, fire, and prosecute the employee if any improper video or photography was found. Id. [# 42-2] Ex. B at 010262. Williams then briefed another security officer and completed an internal hotel incident report. Williams did not write an APD incident report and did not call APD to respond.

The following day, security personnel were able to power up the phone and found material leading them to believe a Hyatt employee had been improperly filming guests. APD was immediately contacted.³ Once notified, Williams' supervisors instructed Williams to write a supplemental report regarding the incident and submit it to the department. See also id. [# 42-2] Ex. B at 010262-63.

III. Hyatt Internal Affairs Investigation and Discipline

Based on Williams' failure to generate an offense report and failure to seize the phone as evidence, Commander Fred Fletcher initiated an IA investigation into the incident in April 2013. On September 3, 2013, at the conclusion of the investigation, Williams was notified that two policy violations had been sustained: (1) Incident Reporting and Documentation; and (2) Property and Evidence Collection Procedures. See id. [# 42-3] Ex. B at 010244 (First Notice of Sustained Allegations). The disciplinary recommendation from Williams' chain of command was “Written Recommendation to 3 days.”

On September 20, 2013, after a Disciplinary Meeting (DM), Williams received a second Notice of Sustained Violations. The second notice added two new policy violations to the original two sustained in the first notice—Neglect of Duty and Honesty—bringing the total number of violations to four. Id. [# 42-3] Ex. B at 010238-39 (Second Notice of Sustained Allegations). With regard to the Honesty violation, Williams was alleged to have lied about his level of suspicion a crime had taken place at the Hyatt in order to hide or mitigate his culpability for failing to preserve the phone as evidence or document the incident with APD. Id. The disciplinary recommendation from Williams' chain of command for the four sustained violations in the second notice was “Up to Indefinite Suspension.” Id. at 010239.

On October 2, 2013, after a DRH with Chief Art Acevedo and his chain of command, Williams was indefinitely suspended. Id [# 42-5] Ex. D at 008882-88 (Indefinite Suspension Mem.).⁴ According to the disciplinary memorandum, Williams was indefinitely suspended for failing to understand and perform his duties and obligations as a police officer, making contradictory statements to investigators and his chain of command,⁵ his inability to take responsibility for his actions, and his disciplinary history, including the 90-day suspension related to the HEB Incident. Id.

Williams appealed his indefinite suspension to a third-party hearing examiner. On October 31, 2014, the hearing officer issued an order sustaining three of the violations but overturning the Honesty violation. Id. at 010855-65 (Hearing Examiner Op.). The hearing examiner found that the disciplinary memorandum failed to identify precisely which statements were alleged to be contradictory or conflicting and that the Honesty violation could not be sustained based solely on Acevedo's subjective belief Williams was lying. Id. at 010862. Considering the three sustained violations, and considering the prior discipline arising from the HEB Incident, the hearing examiner found that “the appropriate discipline does not rise to the level of an indefinite suspension but clearly arises above a suspension of more than 15 days.” Id. at 010865. However, because the examiner only has the authority to reduce the indefinite suspension to a temporary suspension of 15 days or less, the examiner instituted a 15-day suspension. See id. at 010864-65 (citing Waco v. Kell e y , 309 S.W.3d 536, 542 (Tex.2010)

). As a result of the hearing examiner's decision, Williams was reinstated to his previous position and given back pay and benefits in the amount of $45,604.58. Id. [# 42-14] Ex. K at 009828-31.

III. The Pit Bull and Williamson County Incidents

After the Hyatt Incident, but before his indefinite suspension, Williams was involved in two additional incidents leading to the initiation of IA investigations into Williams' conduct. The first occurred on June 20, 2013, when Williams responded to reports of an aggressive pit bull. Id. [Ex. # 42-3] Ex. B-1 at 010543. After he arrived, the dog became aggressive and Williams was forced to shoot the animal. When the first shot was ineffective, Williams followed the animal back between two houses and, when it charged at him again, fired several more...