City of Belzoni, et al. v. Johnson
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-01879-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-16-2012 Opinion Author: King, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Employment discrimination - Denial of summary judgment - Title VII - 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 - Section 1983 - Hostile work environment - Tort Claims Act - Jury verdict - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Dickinson, P.J., Concurs in Part and Dissents in Part Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-26-2010 Appealed from: Humphreys County Circuit Court Judge: Jannie M. Lewis Disposition: The jury returned a unanimous verdict of $150,000 - $50,000 against each of the defendants, and the trial court denied the defendants' jnov. Case Number: 2006-0091 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | City of Belzoni, Mississippi, et al. |
STEPHANIE NICOLE MORRIS
THOMAS MORRIS, SR. |
||
| Appellee: | Shirley Johnson | STEVEN CRAIG PANTER RONALD EARL STUTZMAN, JR. |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Employment discrimination - Denial of summary judgment - Title VII - 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 - Section 1983 - Hostile work environment - Tort Claims Act - Jury verdict - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Pursuant to 42 United States Code Sections 2000e-5 and 1983, Shirley Johnson brought suit against the City of Belzoni; Mickey Foxworth, individually and in his capacity as City of Belzoni Police Chief; and David James, City of Belzoni police officer. Johnson claimed she was sexually harassed at work by James for approximately a year. A jury returned a unanimous verdict of $150,000–$50,000 against each of the defendants, in favor of Johnson. The defendants appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Denial of summary judgment The defendants argue that the trial court erred in failing to grant their motion for summary judgment. Within the motion for summary judgment, the defendants argued that Johnson was not entitled to maintain a Title VII action (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5) against both the City and its employees and that Johnson could not prove her work environment was hostile. As for the Title VII claim, Johnson’s counsel clearly stated, both during pretrial motions and at trial, that Johnson was pursuing a Title VII claim against only the City of Belzoni. Thus, this issue is without merit, as it is moot. As for Johnson’s claim of a hostile work environment, the trial court was presented with conflicting testimony and therefore, summary judgment was not appropriate. Issue 2: Title VII The defendants argue that the trial court erred in allowing Johnson to maintain a Title VII action against both the City of Belzoni and the individual defendants, Foxworth and James. An employer is liable under Title VII for coworker harassment under a negligence theory if the employer knew, or should have known, and failed to take prompt or remedial action. Johnson’s intentions regarding her Title VII claim were clearly articulated. The instruction to the jury was clear that Johnson was asserting a Title VII claim against only the City of Belzoni. Johnson did not pursue a Title VII claim against James or Foxworth individually. Instead, her claim was against the City of Belzoni under a negligence theory, as permitted by the United States Supreme Court. Issue 3: Section 1983 The defendants argue that the trial court erred in allowing Johnson to maintain a Section 1983 against Foxworth and James. To establish personal liability in a § 1983 action, it is enough to show that the official, acting under color of state law, caused the deprivation of a federal right. More is required in an official-capacity action, however, for a governmental entity is liable under § 1983 only when the entity itself is a “‘moving force’” behind the deprivation; thus, in an official-capacity suit the entity's “policy or custom” must have played a part in the violation of federal law. The record, including the complaint and the trial transcript, specify that Johnson named Fox worth and James as defendants in their individual capacities in order to hold them responsible for their own actions. Johnson claimed that James continuously harassed her and Foxworth failed to remedy the situation. State officials can be subject to personal liability in Section 1983 actions. Issue 4: Hostile work environment The defendants argue that Johnson did not establish the existence of a hostile work environment, which is a necessary element of a Title VII claim. Whether an environment is “hostile” or “abusive” can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances, which may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. The effect on the employee's psychological well-being is relevant in determining whether the plaintiff actually found the environment abusive. Here, Johnson described the conduct of James as outrageous, indecent and abusive. According to Johnson, James insulted her ability as a police officer because of her gender and made her the target of unwanted sexual innuendos and vulgar comments. Johnson testified that the behavior had continued for nearly a year on a daily basis. Johnson testified that she had reported the incident to Foxworth, who corroborated her testimony of reporting the harassment, and that she felt no action had been taken in regard to the complaints. Johnson testified that, as a result of James’s behavior, she had suffered from physical and emotional injuries and felt as if she could no longer perform her occupational duties. There was sufficient evidence to indicate a hostile working environment caused by James’s behavior, as well as the corresponding failure of Foxworth and the City of Belzoni to rectify the situation. Issue 5: Tort Claims Act The defendants argue that Johnson’s federal claims are barred by the procedural requirements of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act, including providing appropriate notice. The Mississippi Tort Claims Act does not apply to a Section 1983 claim. Thus, the notice requirements of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act are not applicable to a Title VII or Section 1983 claim. Issue 6: Jury verdict The defendants argue that the jury abandoned its oath when it returned a $150,000 verdict in favor of Johnson. The defendants claim that the amount awarded by the jury was not supported by evidence. It is true that compensatory damages for emotional distress may be awarded only when specific evidence of actual harm is introduced. However, testimony of the plaintiff alone may be enough to satisfy this requirement. Johnson testified that James’s behavior had affected her confidence, self respect, and dignity. Johnson testified that James’s behavior had offended and humiliated her. According to Johnson, she no longer wanted to be attractive to anyone. She decided to take a management position at Double Quick in order to escape the work environment at the police department. Thus, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s award. Issue 7: Sufficiency of evidence Johnson testified that James had used vulgar, profane language and sexual innuendos towards her. According to Johnson, she had reported the situation to Foxworth on three separate occasions. Foxworth testified and corroborated that Johnson had, in fact, reported being harassed. Mayor Walton also testified and stated that Johnson had reported being treated unfairly. A fellow officer testified that discrepancies had occurred in the treatment of female officers within the police department. According to the officer, she also had reported differential treatment between the sexes to Foxworth. The determination letter from the EEOC, which stated that the EEOC had investigated the charge and had granted Johnson the right to sue, was entered into evidence. The record holds sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
