Branford v. Wash. Cnty.

ANGELA BRANFORD, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON; PAT GARRETT; JONATHAN CHRISTENSEN;JOHN BLACK, and THE CITY OF PORTLAND, OREGON; and JEFFREY MYERS, Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-94-SI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

May 2, 2019

OPINION AND ORDER

Daniel Snyder, Carl Post, and John David Burgess, LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL SNYDER, 1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2400, Portland Oregon, 97205. Of Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Karen O'Kasey, HART WAGNER LLP, 1000 SW Broadway, Twentieth Floor, Portland, Oregon 97205. Of Attorneys for Defendants Washington County, Pat Garrett, and John Black.

Jonathan Christensen, pro se.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

Plaintiff Angela Branford, a former deputy in the Washington County Sheriff's Office ("WCSO"), asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; and Oregon state law against Washington County ("the County"), Washington County Sheriff Pat Garrett, and WCSO employees or former employees Jonathan Christensen and John Black.¹ (Defendants Washington County, Pat Garrett, and John Black, but excluding Jonathan Christensen, are collectively referred to as the "Washington Defendants.") The Washington Defendants move for summary judgment against all of Branford's claims against them. In response, Branford concedes her state law claim alleging breach of confidentiality and her claims against the County (but not against Defendants Garrett, Black, and Christensen) for violations of her constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Branford cross-moves for partial summary judgment on her claim of battery against Defendant Christensen. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motion filed by the Washington Defendants and grants Branford's motion for partial summary judgment against Christensen.

STANDARDS

A party is entitled to summary judgment if the "movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant and draw all reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor. Clicks Billiards Inc. v. Sixshooters Inc., 251 F.3d 1252, 1257 (9th Cir. 2001). Although "[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge . . . ruling on a motion for summary judgment," the "mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position [is] insufficient . . . ." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 255 (1986). "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find forthe non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

"Where the non-moving party bears the burden of proof at trial, the moving party need only prove that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case." In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010). Thereafter, the non-moving party bears the burden of designating "specific facts demonstrating the existence of genuine issues for trial." Id. "This burden is not a light one." Id. The Supreme Court has directed that in such a situation, the non-moving party must do more than raise a "metaphysical doubt" as to the material facts at issue. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586.

BACKGROUND²

Angela Branford previously worked as a jail deputy in the Washington County Sheriff's Office for almost ten years, from July 2008 until June 2018.³ ECF 82-1 at 2. In 2010, Branford passed her probationary period and became a permanent deputy sheriff. From the time she began her employment until the filing of her complaint, Branford was not subjected to any formal disciplinary procedures and received only positive or satisfactory job performance reviews. The WCSO certified Branford only as a jail deputy and never as a patrol deputy, and she worked exclusively in the Washington County Jail. ECF 82-1 at 2. Branford, however, received cross-training in law enforcement skills, such as room-clearing, handling high-risk stops, and crisisnegotiation, and she was issued a service firearm that she was required to wear while on duty and in uniform outside of the secure perimeter of the jail. ECF 94 at 2-3.

The WCSO has a predominantly male workforce. Branford describes the WCSO as having a "long history" of "comments, remarks, and behavior by . . . male supervisors and coworkers . . . that were offensive in nature and based on sex and gender." ECF 94 at 3. She describes a working environment permeated with joking of a frank sexual nature or involving sexual innuendo. Id. During her employment at the WCSO, Branford alleges that she was subjected to numerous instances of sexual harassment and sexual assault and that this harassment was so severe that it constituted a hostile work environment. In her First Amended Complaint, Branford describes harassment by the following employees of the WCSO: Sergeant Kelly Degman, Sergeant Daniel Cardinal, Sergeant Jonathan Christensen, Sergeant Shane Siemiller, and Deputy Justin Ulrich, as described more fully below. She also complains of retaliation for reporting several instances of sexual harassment.

A. Sergeant Kelly Degman

In October or November of 2011, Branford became upset with Sergeant Kelly Degman because he was making crude comments to coworkers at work about her personal and private life. During a smoke break, Branford told Sergeant Red Wortham that Sergeant Degman was making inappropriate comments and crude jokes to coworkers about Braford's consensual relationship with another WCSO employee. ECF 82-1 at 9; ECF 96-3 at 8; ECF 96-3 at 6. As she explains, however, Branford did not want Wortham to report Degman's behavior to command staff because Degman was "well-liked and [Branford] didn't want [Degman] to be retaliated against, [Branford] just wanted [Degman] to stop" joking about her. ECF 102-3 at 11. Branford believes that Wortham eventually spoke to Degman about his behavior. ECF 82-1 at 12. AfterBranford spoke to Wortham, and Wortham spoke to Degman, Degman stopped making inappropriate comments about Branford's relationship.

Sometime in 2012, however, Degman made an offensive comment about Branford's underwear to an inmate in the Washington County Jail in the presence of Branford. ECF 94 at 7; ECF 82-1 at 11. Branford and Degman were working with a mentally ill inmate, who began talking about what color underwear Branford must have been wearing that day. Degman told the inmate, "No, you have it all wrong. She wears crotchless panties." ECF 82-1 at 54. Branford did not report Degman's comment to any WCSO supervisors or to WCSO human resources or file a complaint at the time. ECF 82-1 at 11.

In June 2016, Branford sent an email to Sheriff Garrett in which she complained of policy violations committed by Degman, although it is not clear to which specific events she was referring. ECF 82-1 at 55. In July of 2016, the WCSO investigated Branford's complaints about Degman. Branford met with Shawn Fisher, a WCSO employee in the Services Division, and the two of them discussed Degman's comments. ECF 82-1 at 56. It is unclear what was the outcome of the investigation.⁴ Branford also states in her responses to interrogatories that she did not report Sergeant Degman to WCSO before filing her lawsuit. ECF 82-10 at 3.

B. Sergeant Daniel Cardinal

In 2014, Sergeant Daniel Cardinal asked Branford when he would get to see her breasts. She responded, that was not going to happen. ECF 94 at 11-12. She also describes an incident in late 2014 or early 2015 in which Sergeant Cardinal contacted her at home while he was on duty and out on patrol. Cardinal ask Branford if he could come to her home to use her bathroom. ECF 94 at 16. She agreed. When Cardinal arrived at Branford's home, Cardinal exposed himselfto her and asked if she wanted to play with his genitals. She declined. Branford also alleges that Cardinal stated at the time, "It's nice, isn't it." ECF 82-10 at 5. Branford did not report this incident to the WCSO, but she did disclose it to investigators from the Portland Police Bureau in the spring of 2015. ECF 94 at 17.

C. Sergeant Jonathan Christensen

Branford met Sergeant Christensen through her work for the WCSO when he led a training session for WCSO staff. ECF 94 at 14. Sometime in 2013 or 2014, Branford and Christensen began a consensual romantic and sexual relationship. During the course of the relationship, Branford described Christensen's behavior as growing more controlling. ECF 94 at 15. Branford attempted on several occasions to end her relationship with Christensen but was unsuccessful. ECF 94 at 15.

On March 7, 2015, while Sergeant Christensen was on duty, he drove his patrol car to Branford's home. ECF 94 at 18. Christensen demanded that Branford let him into her home, but she refused, stating that she wanted to end their relationship. ECF 94 at 18. The two got into a heated argument. Christensen put his hands around Branford's neck and choked her until she promised that she would continue to have a relationship with him. ECF 94 at 18.

On April 17, 2015, Sheriff Garrett and several other Washington County officials received an anonymous email, detailing allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior by three employees of the WCSO: Jonathan Christensen, Daniel Cardinal, and Nick Markos. ECF 82-2 at 3. A similar email was sent to a local newspaper, and the newspaper published an article describing inappropriate sexual behavior by WCSO employees.

The anonymous email was sent on a Friday, and sometime early the following week, the WCSO...