Sharon R. Compise sued David B. Hooten, individually and in his official capacity as Oklahoma County Clerk, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, raising claims of gender discrimination and sexual harassment under the Fourteenth Amendment. Hooten moved to dismiss Compise’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6) in his official capacity.
Factual Overview
Compise, a deputy clerk at the Oklahoma County Clerk’s Office, worked under Hooten’s supervision. From 2017 to 2022, Hooten allegedly engaged in behavior that made Compise uncomfortable, including asking to accompany her during lunch breaks, requesting she download a tracking app, watching her via office cameras, and frequently complimenting her appearance. Compise also learned that Hooten had sexually propositioned another female employee after helping her purchase a vehicle.
In April 2022, Hooten issued a “mandatory directive” for Compise and two other female employees to attend a “team building exercise” involving drinking and gambling at an undisclosed location. Fearing sexual assault, Compise reported Hooten’s misconduct and subsequently filed this lawsuit.
Legal Analysis
Abandoned Gender Discrimination Claim: The court noted that Compise’s gender discrimination claim against Hooten in his official capacity was abandoned, as she did not respond to Hooten’s arguments regarding this claim in her response to the motion to dismiss.
Sexual Harassment Claim: The court applied the “severe or pervasive” standard to evaluate Compise’s sexual harassment claim under the Equal Protection Clause. This standard requires considering the totality of circumstances, including the frequency, severity, and nature of the discriminatory conduct, as well as whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.
Severity of Conduct: The court found that Hooten’s alleged conduct, while troubling, did not meet the “severe” standard as established by Tenth Circuit precedent. The court noted that even conduct that is “juvenile, unprofessional, and perhaps independently tortious” cannot alone be deemed severe.
Pervasiveness of Conduct: The court determined that Compise failed to adequately allege that Hooten’s conduct was sufficiently pervasive. The alleged incidents were spread out over five years, and the complaint lacked specificity regarding the frequency and details of the harassment.
The court concluded that Compise failed to state a claim for sexual harassment under the Equal Protection Clause against Hooten in his official capacity and dismissed her amended complaint without prejudice.
Schrag on Law 