Benton Police Chief Kirk Lane is being sued this week in federal District Court in Little Rock for alleged gender discrimination against three female employees that occurred while he was a captain with the Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office.
Lane, who left the Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office to become Benton police chief in January 2009, is named as a defendant in the lawsuit filed by plaintiffs, all of whom are or were officers in the Pulaski County department. He is one of 13 defendants named in the lawsuit, which was first filed in April 2008.
The lawsuit alleges that Lane, along with the other 12 defendants, illegally discriminated against the three female sheriff’s deputies and then retaliated against them for complaining of discrimination and exercising their free speech rights.
Specifically, the lawsuit tells of dozens of instances in which each of the three women — Stephanie Cloos of Hensley and Synnova Inscore and Daphne McCoy, both of North Little Rock — were verbally abused, ignored as though they were not present, overlooked for training and promotion opportunities, disallowed from performing routine job duties that males were allowed to perform, written up after complaining of discrimination and harassment, forced to perform certain jobs without the minimal training given to all other male officers of the same rank, and generally harassed for a period lasting several years.
The plaintiffs all allege similar instances of discrimination, and name the same people in most examples they give in their complaint. In addition, all three describe retaliation by the defendants after the women each filed EEOC complaints about the alleged mistreatment.
“Defendants have retaliated against plaintiffs by means of threats, intimidation, coercion, demotion, discipline, a hostile work environment, and false accusations for complaining of discrimination, which violates their rights of freedom of speech under the Arkansas Constitution and the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,” the lawsuit states. It also violates their right to complain of discrimination as spelled out in Title VII and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993, the lawsuit states.
The charges in the plaintiffs’ complaint are being heard at trial this week in Little Rock. The trial began on Tuesday and continues today.
Of the dozens of examples of discrimination that are alleged in the lawsuit, only one specifically names Lane — although he was a captain, a management rank, most of the time the discrimination took place, the plaintiffs say.
In the one example that names Lane, Inscore alleges that she complained of the discrimination and harassment to her captain, who was Lane, and Lane responded by asking whether he had ever done any of this sort of conduct.
“Inscore reminded him of the time that he came in and asked Inscore where each of the male investigators were, and she indicated they were all out and asked what she could do for him,” the lawsuit states. “He indicated he needed somebody to serve a search warrant so she offered to do this, and he said no. Inscore was excluded from warrant service and field work in this regard, and forced to remain in the office.”
In the defendants’ answer filed with the court, the defendants “admit that there was an occasion when Kirk Lane asked for assistance with a search warrant but deny any suggestion that he did not want women to go on search warrant executions and state affirmatively that Inscore went on the one in question and that women are valued participants in such tasks because there are frequently female suspects who need to be searched during the warrant execution,” the lawsuit states.
Furthermore, the defendants, in their filing with the court, go on to deny any and all accusations of discrimination against each of the three women. In addition, the defendants claim that they “in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity from damages.”
However, that immunity is likely to be called into question, as at least one federal judge has recently ruled that officers of the law are not entitled to immunity from damages for their actions while in uniform.
When reached this morning and asked for comment, Lane declined, citing a judge’s order that witnesses not speak to the media until after they testify. Lane was unsure when he would be testifying in the trial.
The lawsuit does not seek a specific amount of damages, but instead requests back pay as well as a number of other specific forms of relief, including:
• Promotion, transfer and reinstatement;
• Equal training;
• Appropriate compensatory damages for mental, emotional and physical suffering;
• Punitive damages against the individual defendants;
• A court order requiring the defendants to remove all adverse information from the plaintiffs’ personnel files;
• The creation of an independent monitor to take, investigate and recommend disciplinary action for illegal gender discrimination and retaliation;
• Posting the finding of discrimination at the workplace;
• Imposition of a program to seek out, hire, train and promote qualified female candidates
• A requirement that all test questions, answers and scores and other materials used in hiring, promotion and transfer decisions be made available for inspection and copying upon request by individual employees;
• A requirement that all open jobs be posted;
• A requirement that a woman be placed on hiring committees;
• A requirement that the defendants complete a yearly report regarding the gender of persons occupying positions and applying for positions;
• A requirement that the defendants keep all complaints of discrimination and related materials on file for five years after promotion; and
• A requirement that the Sheriff’s Office hold intensive training for all personnel regarding gender discrimination and retaliation.
|
Razorbacks
