Date: 10-17-2001

Case Style: Sherman Loftis v. City of Eufaula, et al.

Case Number: 01-cv-120

Judge: Frank Seay

Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Kay Bridger-Riley, Diana R. Stallard, Christopher L. Camp and Tony Mareshie of Bridger-Riley & Associates, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma

Defendant's Attorney: Stephen C. Lewis of Barkley Titus Hillis & Reynolds, PLLC, Tulsa, Oklahoma

Description: This action arose under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983"), 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (“§ 1985"), 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (“§ 1986") and the law of the State of Oklahoma, of the Defendant, for the intentional acts committed by the Defendants, the City of Eufaula, Mayor Bill Day, Chief Randy Johnston, Sgt. Mark Goodwin, and Sgt. Charles Hammett, and suffered by the Plaintiff, Sherman Lollis.

On May 1, 1994, Plaintiff became a police officer with the Eufaula Police Department in Eufala, Oklahoma. At all times during his employment, Plaintiff was the only African-American officer in the Department. Plaintiff contended that he complained of racially discriminatory practices within the Department against African-American citizens of Eufaula soon after he completed his initial six (6) month probationary and field training period. Plaintiff also contended that Defendant Day, Chief of Police at the time, acknowledged racism in the Department and identified Defendants Hammett and Goodwin as being racist.

Plaintiff maintained that over the first six (6) years of his employment he was routinely denied access to training catalogs published by the Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training (“CLEET”) until after the nonAfrican-American officers had been given the opportunity to select their desired courses, and that this practice resulted in his being denied career-enhancing training opportunities. After Plaintiff’s request to attend a Sex Crimes course in March, 1999, he lodged a complaint of race discrimination with respect to training and time-off, first with Mayor Day, then with Chief Johnston later the same day.

Plaintiff contended that Johnston, on two occasions, requested that he delay filing a formal complaint against the Department with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission until after the city elections were held in April, 1999, and that Johnston went so far as to say that he planned to promote Plaintiff to Corporal “after this mess is over with.” Plaintiff also contended that Day, who was not a party to the conversations with Johnston, became angry when Plaintiff informed him that he had filed his complaint of race discrimination with the EEOC prior to the elections, and that Day accused him of reneging on his promise to wait. Plaintiff contended that this was evidence of a conspiracy between Day and Johnston to coerce Plaintiff into not asserting, or discontinuing his assertion of his rights under Title VII. Plaintiff avered that Defendants Hammett and Goodwin became willing parties to and participants in this conspiracy shortly after Plaintiff informed Day and Johnston that he would be filing a formal complaint of race discrimination with the EEOC.

In Plaintiff’s six (6) years of employment preceding his complaints of race discrimination directed at him, Plaintiff had never received a written counseling or reprimand. Within two (2) months of these complaints, however, Plaintiff received six (6) written reprimands in one day. Plaintiff was not questioned about the allegations contained in the reprimands and was never provided an opportunity to rebut those allegations. Plaintiff insisted that this was the beginning of a continuous and on-going pattern of retaliation by Defendants against him for engaging in protected activity, for asserting his First Amendment right to free speech, and for asserting his constitutionally protected right to due process.

At the height of the retaliation, but not at its conclusion, Plaintiff maintained that he was wrongfully terminated by Defendants in violation of federal constitutional and statutory law, as well in violation of Oklahoma public policy. Although Plaintiff was eventually reinstated to his position as patrol officer, he alleged that his reputation in his profession and in the community has been damaged, and that he was denied any opportunity to clear his name and restore his reputation Defendants Bill Day, Randy Johnston, Charles Hammett, and Mark Goodwin claimed they are entitled to qualified immunity in that their conduct was at all times in the performance of their official duties and did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Defendant Hammett did not supervise Plaintiff during the actions about which he complains.

Defendants alleged that Plaintiff was not denied procedural or substantive due process. Defendant City of Eufaula is not liable under 42 U.S.C. §1983, on the theory of respondeat superior, cannot be held liable for punitive damages, and cannot be held liable for the state tort of “outrage” as alleged by Plaintiff.

Defendants denied having made or published defamatory statements about Plaintiff, stating that any statements made by Defendants about Plaintiff are true and believed in good faith by Defendants to be true. Defendants contended that certain statements complained of by Plaintiff are privileged. Defendants contended Plaintiff was a public official, thereby requiring allegations and proof of “actual malice” in order to recover for defamation. Defendants contended that the alleged “published retaliatory reprimands” complained of by Plaintiff did not impugn the good name, reputation, honor, or integrity of Plaintiff, but instead relate to poor work habits, failure to follow instructions and job performance. Defendants contended that the alleged statements claimed to violate plaintiff’s liberty interest did not do so, were not stigmatizing, did not affect his future employment opportunities, were not published and if made were made under circumstances in which plaintiff’s reputation was protected and the statements were privileged. Defendants maintained that the statements, if made, were true and believed in good faith by Defendants to be true, and that Plaintiff never requested a name clearing hearing and acquiesced in the cancellation of a hearing which could have served as a name clearing hearing.

Defendant’s contended that damages under Title VII are limited to $50,000 and under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act are limited to $25,000, and that Defendants were entitled to attorney fees and costs on Plaintiff’s claims found to be frivolous.

Outcome: 1) There would be no confidentiality attached to the Settlement;

2) Defendants to pay Officer Sherman Lollis $250,000;

3) Each and every police officer, elected city official and city counselor must, within the next nine months attend both of the following seminars:

a. EEOC or CLEET training on cultural diversity; and
b. EEOC training on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

4) For each member of the police department or elected city official that does not attend both seminars, the City must pay Lollis $10,000 per violation

5) Bridger-Riley, Stallard & Associates, P.C . may not use the terms of this settlement in their representation of any other client against any of the Defendants unless they first bring up any of the terms.

Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown

Defendant's Experts: Unknown

Comments: None