Schrag on Law

Plaintiffs Colleen Stuart, Jana Harden, and Jennifer Cross sued defendants City of Topeka, Kansas and Bryan Wheeles, in his individual capacity, in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas raising claims of sex discrimination under Title VII and violations of equal protection under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.

Factual Overview

Plaintiffs are three female law enforcement officers employed by the City of Topeka Police Department (TPD). They allege they were passed over for promotions because of their sex. Stuart and Harden claim they were discriminated against when Wheeles selected Jamey Haltom as Deputy Chief in November 2021 and when Michael Cross was promoted to Major in 2021. Cross alleges she was discriminated against when she was not selected for Captain in 2021.

The facts detail the employment histories of the plaintiffs, including their various positions and promotions within TPD since joining in the late 1990s/early 2000s. The opinion recounts specific instances where plaintiffs felt they experienced discrimination or inappropriate conduct, though many incidents were not formally reported. It also describes the qualifications and selection processes for the disputed promotions.

Legal Analysis

Failure to Plead Exhaustion: The court rejected defendants’ argument that the Title VII claims should be dismissed for failure to plead exhaustion of administrative remedies in the complaint, finding this was not fatal at the summary judgment stage given the undisputed facts showing plaintiffs did exhaust.

Timeliness of Claims: The court granted summary judgment for any alleged failures to promote occurring before July 27, 2020, as untimely under the 300-day filing period for EEOC charges.

Deputy Chief Position: The court found the City provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for selecting Haltom over Stuart and Harden, and plaintiffs failed to show this reason was pretext for discrimination.

2021 Major Position: The court denied summary judgment on Stuart and Harden’s Title VII claims regarding the 2021 Major promotion. Both plaintiffs alleged they were passed over for this promotion in favor of Michael Cross because of their sex.

The City argued it had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for promoting Cross, citing his military experience, experience within TPD, track record of good operational and tactical decisions, public speaking ability, leadership record, and assignment completion history.

However, the court found that plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of fact as to whether this reason was pretextual. Specifically:

1. There was evidence that one panel member had marked Cross as unpromotable, contradicting the City’s claim about his qualifications.
2. Evidence was presented that Cross had a reputation for being untrustworthy, which had been brought to Wheeles’ attention prior to the selection.
3. There was testimony that Cross had failed to complete assigned tasks during his career.
4. Evidence suggested that in the two years prior to the promotion, Cross was consistently late to work, left early, and took long lunches.

The court found that this evidence cast sufficient doubt on the City’s explanation for its decision to promote Cross over Stuart and Harden. As a result, the court determined that a reasonable jury could potentially find that the plaintiffs’ sex was a determining factor in the promotion decision, and thus denied summary judgment on this specific claim.

Cross’s Captain Claim: The court granted summary judgment on Cross’s claim regarding the 2021 Captain promotion, finding she failed to show the City’s reasons for promoting others were pretextual.

Section 1983 Claims: The court granted summary judgment to Wheeles on the § 1983 claims based on qualified immunity, as plaintiffs failed to respond to this defense. The court also granted summary judgment to the City on the municipal liability claim, finding insufficient evidence of a policy or custom of sex discrimination in promotions.

Place of Trial: The court addressed the parties’ competing motions to determine the place of trial, with plaintiffs designating Kansas City and defendants designating Topeka. In deciding this issue, the court considered factors similar to those used in change of venue motions under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). These factors include the plaintiff’s choice of forum, convenience of witnesses, accessibility of evidence, possibility of obtaining a fair trial, and other practical considerations. The court noted that while plaintiffs chose Kansas City, they actually reside in Topeka, which diminished the weight given to their forum choice. Additionally, most witnesses reside in Topeka, making it more convenient for them. The court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that potential jury bias due to local media coverage necessitated a Kansas City trial, stating that such concerns could be addressed during voir dire. Ultimately, the court found that Topeka was the more convenient forum, given the case’s minimal connection to Kansas City and the balance of other factors favoring Topeka.