Santos v. Cnty. of Lake

ADRIAN SANTOS, III, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF LAKE, INDIANA; LAKE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT;JOHN BUNCICH in his individual capacity;and OSCAR MARTINEZ in his official capacity as Sheriff of Lake County, Indiana, Defendants.

CAUSE NO.: 2:17-CV-273-TLS-APR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION

June 1, 2020

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Lake County's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) [ECF No. 36] as well as the Sheriff Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 40]. For the reasons set forth below, Lake County's motion is denied. The Court grants in part and denies in part the Sheriff Defendants' motion, granting only the dismissal of the claims brought against Oscar Martinez in his official capacity as Sheriff of Lake County, Indiana.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Adrian Santos, III filed a Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 27] on November 3, 2017. Plaintiff was employed as a police officer by the County of Lake, Indiana (Lake County) and/or the Lake County Sheriff's Department (Sheriff's Department) from August 2012 until his discharge in 2015. Sec. Am. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 27. Plaintiff challenges his discharge under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(4); the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. ¶¶ 1, 3.

The following factual allegations are taken from the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is a former employee (police officer) of Lake County and/or the Sheriff's Department. Id. ¶ 4. Lake County and/or the Sheriff's Department is an "employer" as defined in Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5), and these entities receive federal financial assistance. Id. ¶ 5(a). Lake County paid the salary of Plaintiff and Defendant John Buncich, as well as other county police officers. Id. Sheriff Buncich had the statutory authority to dismiss county police officers under Indiana Code § 36-8-10-11(a). Id. ¶ 5(b). Lake County is responsible for paying any judgment awarding compensatory damages against Sheriff Buncich, and it may pay any punitive damages awarded against him. Id. ¶ 5(a).

Defendant Buncich is a Democrat and was elected Sheriff of Lake County in November 2010 and again in November 2014. Id. ¶ 5(c). Prior to the Democratic primary election in May 2014, Plaintiff publicly supported Oscar Martinez, one of Buncich's opponents. Id. ¶ 13. Buncich was removed from office on August 24, 2017. Id. ¶ 5(c).

As Sheriff, Buncich had the authority to place officers on leave; to file disciplinary charges against officers with the Sheriff's Merit Board; to recommend discipline, including discharge, to the Merit Board; and to dismiss or discharge Lake County police officers after a hearing with the Merit Board. Id.

On May 29, 2014, Plaintiff was arrested and charged with misdemeanor domestic battery and felony strangulation based on an incident involving him and his wife on May 28, 2014. Id. ¶ 6. Subsequently, Sheriff Buncich charged Plaintiff with four counts alleging violations of the Sheriff's Merit Board Rules: (1) violating state law, (2) conduct unbecoming a police officer, (3)violating Sheriff's Department rules and regulations, and (4) committing acts that bring the Department into disrepute. Id. ¶ 7. Sheriff Buncich placed Plaintiff on administrative leave, with pay. Id.

In November 2014, while on administrative leave, Plaintiff and his wife learned that their oldest son, age 14, had stage-4 brain cancer, with less than five years to live. Id. ¶ 11. The Sheriff's Department was notified of this in December 2014. Id.

In March 2015, the Lake County Prosecutor dropped the criminal charges against Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 6. Subsequently, Plaintiff informed Sheriff Buncich that the charges had been dismissed, that his son's condition was getting worse, and that he might need to take time off to deal with his son's situation. Id. ¶ 11. Sheriff Buncich told Plaintiff to await the outcome of the Merit Board proceedings and go from there. Id.

On April 20, 2015, Plaintiff was stopped by an Indiana State Police trooper who issued two traffic citations for speeding and failure to signal lane change and also issued a warning for improper window tinting. Id. ¶ 8.

In May 2015, Plaintiff appeared before the Merit Board and was presented with four additional counts brought by Sheriff Buncich related to the traffic citations and warning. Id. ¶ 9. The counts alleged violations of four Merit Board Rules: (1) violating state law, (2) conduct unbecoming an officer, (3) violation of Sheriff's Department rules and regulations, and (4) committing acts that bring the Department into disrepute. Id. At that time, Sheriff Buncich's attorney informed Plaintiff that Sheriff Buncich would recommend discharge if Plaintiff did not resign. Id. On June 2, 2015, the Lake County Prosecutor dismissed the traffic charges. Id.

On July 16, 2015, the Merit Board found Plaintiff guilty of conduct unbecoming a police officer and failing to treat another officer civilly and courteously. Id. ¶¶ 7, 9. The Merit Boardmet on July 21, 2015, and heard additional evidence related to punishment. Id. ¶ 10. In a written order entered on August 12, 2015, the Merit Board accepted Sheriff Buncich's recommendation and found just cause for dismissal of Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff's appeal of the Merit Board decision was affirmed by the Lake Superior Court in a judgment entered on June 20, 2017. Id.

Prior to his son's death on June 1, 2016, Plaintiff incurred medical expenses of approximately $1,000,000.00, some of which was paid by Lake County through its self-funded medical benefit for employees and some of which was paid by Medicaid. Id. ¶ 12. Approximately $40,000.00 of the medical expenses remains unpaid. Id.

Plaintiff alleges that disciplinary decisions and recommendations made by Sheriff Buncich are based on factors other than merit, including political support of Buncich and associations with Buncich. Id. ¶ 13. For example, Plaintiff alleges that an agent of Sheriff Buncich informed Plaintiff's attorney in the disciplinary proceedings that Officer Orlich, whose Class D felony charge of official misconduct was dismissed as part of a pre-trial diversion agreement, received a favorable recommendation from Sheriff Buncich, specifically a sixty-day suspension that was approved by the Merit Board, because of Sheriff Buncich's long association with Orlich's father. Id.

As Sheriff, Buncich appointed three of the five members of the Merit Board, and Plaintiff alleges that the appointees tend to vote on disciplinary matters in accordance with Sheriff Buncich's recommendation, thereby making Sheriff Buncich the de facto decision-maker in Merit Board proceedings related to officer discipline and discharge. Id. ¶ 14. Pursuant to Indiana Code § 36-8-10-11(a) and Art. 5, Chapter 1, § 5-1-1 of the Merit Board Rules, Buncich, as sheriff, had the actual authority to discharge Plaintiff after the Merit Board proceedings. Id. The discipline of discharge imposed on Plaintiff is harsher than the discipline imposed on otherSheriff's police officers who were charged with more serious offenses in recent years. Id. Plaintiff alleges that this difference in treatment is explained by Plaintiff's support of Oscar Martinez in the May 2014 primary election and by the disability (brain cancer) of Plaintiff's son, which resulted in substantial medical expenses incurred by Lake County. Id.

On November 17, 2017, Lake County filed a Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 36] pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff filed a response [ECF No. 38] on November 30, 2017, and Lake County filed a reply [ECF No. 39] on December 8, 2017. On January 3, 2018, Defendants John Buncich in his individual and official capacities and the Sheriff's Department filed a Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 40], also under Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff filed a response [ECF No. 42] on January 16, 2018, and Defendants Buncich and the Sheriff's Department filed a reply [ECF No. 43] on January 25, 2018.

On May 1, 2019, this matter was reassigned to the undersigned as presiding judge, and the Court subsequently held a telephonic status conference with the parties. See ECF Nos. 69-70. On September 30, 2019, and October 12, 2019, respectively, Plaintiff and Lake County each filed a supplemental brief [ECF No. 73, 76] with leave of Court.

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss brought under Rule 12(b)(6) "challenges the viability of a complaint by arguing that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 761 F.3d 732, 736 (7th Cir. 2014). The Court presumes that all well-pleaded allegations are true, views these well-pleaded allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and accepts as true all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the allegations. Reynolds v. CB Sports Bar, Inc., 623 F.3d 1143, 1146 (7th Cir. 2010). Surviving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion "requires more than labels and conclusions . . . . Factual allegations mustbe enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

ANALYSIS

Lake County seeks dismissal of all of Plaintiff's claims against it, arguing that Plaintiff has not pleaded facts sufficient to establish an agency relationship between the Sheriff and Lake County. In its motion, the Sheriff's Department seeks dismissal of the claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act on the basis that Plaintiff has not stated a claim under either statute. As for the § 1983 claims, both Lake County...