Allen v. Stephens

1

TASHA ALLEN, formerly known as Tasha Hewitt, Plaintiff, v. STEVE STEPHENS, ROB SIMS, and THE WOOD COUNTY COMMISSION, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-00388

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston

March 20, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

John T. Copenhaver, Jr. Senior United States District Judge

Pending are defendants Sims and Wood County Commission's (“the Commission”) Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 82) and defendant Stephens' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 84), both filed December 7, 2023.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

This action concerns events that occurred while plaintiff Tasha Allen^[1] was a deputy sheriff at the Wood County Office of the Sheriff (“Sheriff's Office”) where she was employed from 2018 until July 15, 2023. See Pl. Dep. at 14:24- 15:9, 19:4-17. Defendant Steve Stephens was the Wood County Sheriff from January 2017, until his retirement on December 1, 2021. Stephens Dep. 8:12-14; Stephens Mem. Supp. 2. Plaintiff alleges that she endured sexual harassment in the form of a hostile work environment, and retaliation while at the Sheriff's Office, behavior which she primarily attributes to Stephens, either as instigator or because of the precedent he set in the office.

Plaintiff began her career in law enforcement in 2017, as a police officer with the Elkins Police Department. Pl. Dep. at 13:24-14:5. Six months later, in 2018, plaintiff went to the West Virginia State Police Academy. Pl. Dep. at 14:16-15:1. Around the time she applied to the Elkins Police Department, plaintiff had also applied to work with the Wood County Office of the Sheriff, and while she was at the Academy, she was contacted by Stephens about working as a Wood County Deputy Sheriff. Pl. Dep. at 15:4-17:7. Plaintiff pursued the Wood County opportunity. Pl. Dep. at 15:4-17:7. She had already undergone the physical fitness, agility, and written testing for the position, but she had to complete final hiring steps, such as passing a polygraph examination and completing a psychological evaluation, before she could be hired. Pl. Dep. 15:21-18:2; Stephens Dep. at 26:13-29:23.

As part of the background check, plaintiff submitted written responses to a set of questions and underwent a polygraph examination. See Stephens Dep. at 26:13-29:23. According to plaintiff, she wrote in her application that she may have failed to disclose pertinent information to a family court judge, which she made known in her application “in a spirit of full and honest disclosure.” Pl.'s Resp. to Stephens 7. The incident about which she wrote occurred in 2012, while she was in family court finalizing her divorce from her first husband. Plaintiff was pregnant, but did not disclose this to the family court judge; she was nineteen years old at the time. Pl. Dep. 124-29. Plaintiff testified that she was not asked whether she was pregnant and was never intentionally untruthful, but was later told by family or friends that failing to disclose a pregnancy in family court was tantamount to lying, regardless of whether she was asked. Pl. Dep. 127.

Sergeant Derek Cross and Detective Matt Hupp assembled plaintiff's hiring packet - performing the initial review of plaintiff's application, polygraph results, and background investigation - and Cross informed Stephens of plaintiff's disclosure of the family court incident. Cross Dep. at 8:12-15. It appears that plaintiff's disclosure came to read in her hiring packet: “Lied during Family Court hearing about being pregnant.” See Cross Dep. at 10:14-11:3. Cross said he discussed the issue with Stephens because Cross “felt this would be something that would prevent her from working” at the Sheriff's Office, but that Stephens “said that it wouldn't.” Cross Dep. at 10:14-11:3.

Stephens and Sims were not concerned about the disclosure at the time plaintiff was hired; they both considered the circumstances of the incident, including the timing, to make the disclosure a non-issue. See Sims Dep. at 21:4-18; Stephens Dep. at 47:11-48:4. Stephens testified that to his knowledge no one attempted to obtain the family court records or consulted with Lefebure. Stephens Dep. at 54:12-22.^[2] Stephens and Cross testified that they were not very familiar with Giglio issues at the time. Stephens Dep. at 48:14-49:9; Cross Dep. 10-17. Sims testified that he was familiar with Giglio at the time, but because of the context of the family court incident, and in particular that it occurred before plaintiff was in law enforcement, he did not think it was necessary. Sims Dep. at 22:1-10.

While the ultimate hiring decision fell to Stephens, he testified that he likely discussed hiring plaintiff with Sims, and with Dave Bussey and Matt Hupp from the detective bureau, who together comprised his “go to group of guys that we discussed applicants and candidates with” - as well as with Cross, who had performed the background investigation. Stephens Dep. at 52:11-53:14. Stephens testified Cross did not convey any significant concerns about hiring plaintiff at the time and that he did not recall anyone voicing concerns about hiring plaintiff, and plaintiff was ultimately hired. Stephens Dep. at 51:10-52:10, 53:9-11.

Plaintiff had many different supervisors during her time at the Sheriff's Office. Pl. Dep. at 21:6-26:15. At various times, plaintiff reported directly to Andrew Shiver, Jason Allen, Derek Cross, Ryan Windland, and others. Pl. Dep. at 23:8-15. Plaintiff testified that her supervisor could change daily based on which sergeant was scheduled for what shift.^[3] Pl. Dep. at 23:16-24:1. Plaintiff testified that normally, as a deputy, she would report directly to a sergeant and that as a deputy, it was rare to engage with a lieutenant.^[4]Pl. Dep 25:13-26:15. A deputy's supervisor would be whichever sergeant was on that shift, or the senior sergeant, if more than one was on the shift. Stephens Dep. at 98:7-13.

Plaintiff filed a written harassment complaint against Stephens in February 2020. Stephens Mot. Summ. J. ¶ 2. Two of the primary allegations against Stephens were that he called plaintiff a “whore” and he tried to put a wedge in plaintiff's relationship with Tim Allen. When asked in her deposition about the events leading to the June 2020 Settlement, plaintiff responded thusly:

It was him [Stephens] calling me a whore to approximately everyone on the department. It was the fact that he said to other officers that he only sent Tim [Allen] to the Academy to ruin our happy little family. It was the fact that he said he wish he'd sent me instead because I'd have f***ed all the troopers. . . . [I]t was also the fact that he tried to interfere with my divorce proceedings with my ex husband Shane Hewitt. Shane even said that he [Stephens] called him trying to get him to pursue criminal charges against me.

Pl. Dep. at 47:10-23. Stephens admitted in his deposition to calling plaintiff a whore prior to the settlement. Stephens Dep. at 116:2-15.

Her complaint prompted the Commission to hire the law firm Bailey & Wyant to investigate the claims, which resulted in a confidential settlement agreement on or about June 4, 2020 (“the 2020 Settlement”), related to allegations of harassment, discrimination, and hostile work environment, and released Stephens, the Commission, and the Sheriff's Office.^[5] Stephens Mot. Summ. J. ¶¶ 2-3; Sims & WCC Mem. Supp. 2; Pl. Dep. at 46. In particular, the claims were settled by the liability/risk management company engaged by the Commission. See Couch Dep. at 41:19-42:1; 76:9-16. The settlement was arranged by the Commission, although Blair Couch, one of three Wood County Commissioners, testified that the county did not have any role in drafting the settlement agreement itself. See Couch Dep. at 44:7-10.

Stephens testified that he did not know anything about the settlement until after it was signed. He “had no input, no retribution . . . [and was not able] to discuss [his] side of the story with the county,” nor has he ever seen the settlement agreement. Stephens Dep. at 71:20-72:18. Although the complaints were against Stephens, the settlement agreement specifically releases the county commission. Stephens Dep. at 13:11-14:1.

Stephens was told after the settlement that plaintiff was not to be retaliated against. Stephens Dep. at 66:3-69:14. Stephens says he reached out to the supervisors (including Cross) to notify them of the same. Stephens Dep. at 66:3-69:14. Sims testified that although he couldn't remember specifically being told this after the settlement, not retaliating against a person for filing a harassment complaint is “pretty much common sense for any type of administrator.” Sims Dep. at 30:21-31:8. Stephens said once he was warned about that, “I had very little contact verbally, email or anything with Tasha.” Stephens Dep. at 66:18-19.

According to plaintiff, she continued to experience harassment, discrimination, and retaliation subsequent to the 2020 Settlement, for which she brings the current action.

A long-running issue, at least as far as Stephens was concerned, appears to have been plaintiff's relationship with Tim Allen. The two became romantically involved in the year after plaintiff began working at the Sheriff's Office, and eventually married in December 2022. Pl. Dep. at 37:9-15. Stephens considered the relationship between Tim Allen and plaintiff to verge on conduct unbecoming an officer, not because of their difference in rank (Tim Allen was a sergeant and plaintiff was a deputy), but because they were both still married, albeit separated, to other people at the time. Stephens Dep. at 101:8-19. Stephens admitted that he considered the situation immoral and questioned whether it was even legal, saying he's “an old guy” and “I thought there was a state code...