Free Statement - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Terry Goddard ATTORNEY GENERAL LISA K. HUDSON MICHAEL M. WALKER Assistant Attorneys General State Bar No. 012597 State Bar No. 20315 1275 W. Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997 Telephone: (602) 542-7673 Fax: (602) 542-7644 Attorneys for Defendants ADOA and Capitol Police UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Bobbie M. Golden and Daniel Golden, husband and wife; and Shelley M. Hebets, Plaintiffs, v. State of Arizona ex rel. Arizona Department of Administration and the Capitol Police Department; Wayne Corcoran and Patricia Corcoran, husband and wife; and Andrew Staubitz and Laura Staubitz, husband and wife, Defendants. Case No: CIV-04-0320-PHX-PGR DEFENDANT STATE OF ARIZONA'S STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Assigned to the Honorable Paul G. Rosenblatt)

In accordance with Rule 56(e) and Local Rule 56.1, Defendant submits this Statement of Facts in support of its summary judgment motion. This Statement of Facts is supported by the following exhibits: Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Bobbie M. Golden Deposition (excerpts); Shelley Hebets-Hartsuiker Deposition (excerpts);

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR
914823

Document 86

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 1 of 21

1 2 3 4 5

Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7:

Andrew Staubitz Deposition (excerpts); Wayne Corcoran Deposition (excerpts); Brian Neus Memorandum dated September 12, 2002; Memorandum of Concern issued to Shelley Hebets by John Harkness dated February 26, 2004; Bobbi Golden Memo to Brian Neus dated Sept. 16, 2002; Letter to Wayne Corcoran from Andrew Staubitz dated Sept. 12, 2002; Letter from Wayne Corcoran to Andrew Staubitz dated Sept. 17, 2002; Capitol Police Policy and Procedure Manual (excerpt); Shelley Hebets memo to Sergeant Brian Neus dated Sept. 9, 2002; Andrew Staubitz Affidavit; Hollis Corey Affidavit; Andrew Staubitz Memo to Corporal Bobbie Golden dated Oct. 3, 2003; Bobbie Golden's EEOC charge dated August 8, 2003; and, Shelley Hebets' EEOC charge dated August 8, 2003.

6 Exhibit 8: 7 8 9 Exhibit 10: 10 Exhibit 11: 11 Exhibit 12: 12 Exhibit 13: 13 Exhibit 14: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 (Exh. 1, p. 154:16-25; p. 155:1-5). 3. From approximately 2000 until 2003, Plaintiff Golden reported to Sgt. Neus A. Exhibit 15: Exhibit 16: Exhibit 9:

Facts Material to Plaintiff Bobbie Golden. 1. Plaintiff Bobbie Golden began working at the State of Arizona Capitol

Police Department in February 1996 and was originally hired as a full time employee. (Exh. 1, p. 26:13-20, p. 153:1-4). 2. After she had her first child in 2000, Plaintiff Golden requested to return to

work on a part-time basis where she would only work two ten-hour days. (Exh. 1, p.37:1013; p. 39:9-22, p. 153:5-25; p. 154:1-3). Defendant Andrew Staubitz approved her request.

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR
916936

Document 86

2

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 2 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

and worked the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. swing shift. (Exh. 1, p. 37:10-25; p. 38:1-6). 4. Prior to January 2002, Plaintiff Golden and Defendant Wayne Corcoran

patrolled together. (Exh. 1, p. 50:8-23). 5. Plaintiff Golden alleges that in January 2002, Defendant Corcoran and she

were attending a training seminar. (Exh. 1, p. 53:14-25; p. 54:1-8). 6. At the end of the seminar, Defendant Corcoran asked Plaintiff Golden to go

his personal vehicle because he wanted to show her something he had purchased. Defendant Corcoran gave Plaintiff Golden a street survival book and a holster for a secondary weapon to put on her ballistics vest. (Exh. 1, p. 55:12-25; p. 56:1-4). 7. Defendant Corcoran then told Plaintiff Golden he got the gifts for her and

kissed her on the cheek. Plaintiff Golden laughed and said thank you. (Exh. 1, p. 56:514). 8. 9. Plaintiff Golden never reported the incident to anyone. (Exh. 1, p. 57:5-7). Prior to this incident, Plaintiff Golden had never witnessed Defendant

Corcoran act inappropriately toward herself or others. (Exh. 1, p. 51:23-25; p. 52:1-12). 10. In the summer of 2002, Plaintiff Golden's ballistic vest had expired and she

needed a new vest. (Exh. 1, p. 80:21-24). 11. According to Plaintiff Golden, she and Defendant Corcoran were in a Capitol

Police briefing room and Defendant Corcoran stated he needed to measure her for a ballistic vest. (Exh. 1, p. 89:6-22). 12. Although Defendant Corcoran had been instructed not to measure the female

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR
916936

Document 86

3

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 3 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

officers, he was trained in how to measure officers for ballistic vests. (Exh. 4, p. 45:1118). 13. Defendant Corcoran measured Plaintiff Golden for the ballistic vest over her

clothing using a soft measuring tape. (Exh. 1, p. 90:17-25; p. 91:1-25; p. 92:1-18). 14. Plaintiff Golden recalls Defendant Corcoran measuring around her waist, her

chest and then from the top of her neck down to her waist, and writing the measurements on a form. (Exh. 1, p. 93:1-25; p. 94:1-22, p. 97:16-18). 15. p. 95:12-15). 16. Plaintiff Golden contends that Defendant Corcoran said "because I'm not One of the measurements asked for was a woman's breast cup size. (Exh. 1,

supposed to be measuring females, should I go down to the cafeteria and get a" ­ something to the effect of "a 16 ounce, 32 ounce, or 44 ounce cup, so can you say what your cup size is?" (Exh. 1, p. 95:12-22). 17. Plaintiff Golden recalls Defendant Corcoran laughing as he made the

comment and does not recall that she said anything in response although she did tell him what her cup size was. (Exh. 1, p. 95:23-25; p. 96:6-24). 18. Plaintiff Golden contends that she told Capitol Police Captain Jay Swart that

she had been measured for the ballistic vest and that she was upset about it because she was pregnant and the measurements were not going to be accurate so she did not understand why the measurements had to be taken. (Exh. 1, p. 99:25; p. 100:1-8). 19. Plaintiff Golden recalls Captain Swart telling her that Defendant Corcoran

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR
916936

Document 86

4

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 4 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

was not supposed to be measuring females. (Exh. 1, p. 100:9-11). 20. Plaintiff Golden recalls a similar conversation with Sgt. Neus. (Exh. 1, p.

100:23-25; p. 101:1-14). 21. During her conversation with Captain Swart and Sgt. Neus, Plaintiff Golden

never mentioned sexual harassment. (Exh. 1, p. 107:11-25). 22. Captain Swart told Defendant Staubitz about Defendant Corcoran's

measuring Plaintiff Golden, but he did not mention anything about Plaintiff Hebets being measured. (Exh. 3, p. 43: 13-20). 23. Defendant Staubitz was very upset that Defendant Corcoran had measured

Plaintiff Golden and spoke with Plaintiff Golden about the incident the following work day after learning about the measurement. (Exh. 3, p. 44:13-19). Defendant Staubitz asked Plaintiff Golden what happened, asked her if she had been offended by the incident and apologized for the incident. (Exh. 3, p. 44:19-21). 24. Plaintiff Golden told Defendant Staubitz that the incident was no big deal,

laughed and told him, "that's just Wayne." (Exh. 3, p. 44:23-25, p. 45:1). 25. Defendant Staubitz directed Captain Swart to begin an investigation into

Defendant Corcoran. (Exh. 3, p. 45: 5-8). 26. After assigning Captain Swart to investigate Defendant Corcoran, Defendant

Staubitz learned of complaints from several other employees, including Plaintiff Hebets, regarding Defendant Corcoran. (Exh. 3, p. 55: 11-23, p. 58: 16-25). 27. Sgt. Neus and Captain Swart told Defendant Staubitz that due to the nature

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR
916936

Document 86

5

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 5 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

of the allegations against Sgt. Corcoran, the Arizona Department of Administration ("ADOA") would be undertaking the investigation. (Exh. 3, p. 45: 9-20). 28. Wayne Corcoran was put on administrative leave pending an investigation

on September 12, 2002. (Exh. 4, p. 99: 8:25; p. 100: 1-10; Exh. 8). 29. Thereafter, Captain Swart approached Defendant Staubitz and stated that he

thought he could convince Defendant Corcoran to retire. (Exh. 3, p. 48:1-6). 30. Defendant Staubitz then consulted with Ron Loyd of ADOA regarding

whether allowing Defendant Corcoran to leave the state through retirement would be acceptable resolution and was told that it would be acceptable. (Exh. 3, p. 48:9-18). 31. On September 16, 2002, Plaintiff Golden sent Sgt. Neus a memorandum

stating in part: Upon your request, I am providing the following information regarding Sergeant W. Corcoran's assignment to obtain measurements for replacement body armor. Sergeant Corcoran approached me during the time we were scheduled to be receiving replacement body armor and indicated that he needed to obtain my measurements.
...

While obtaining my measurements, Sergeant Corcoran related that Chief Staubitz had instructed him not (sic) measure any of the female officers. As he was already obtaining the measurements and no inappropriate contact was occurring, I did not object to the measurements being taken. The only comment that was made related to my chest size to wit Sergeant Corcoran said something to the effect, `if you want, I can go to the cafeteria and get drink cups and you can say if you are a 24, 32, or 44 ounce.' I did not take offense to Sergeant Corcoran's comment, as such comments

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR
916936

Document 86

6

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 6 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 141:1).

have been made several times before in a joking manner. (Exh. 1, p. 110:1-9; Exh. 7). 32. Plaintiff Golden's reference to "such comments have been made several

times before in a joking manner" pertain to comments made by Capitol Police Sgt. Jim Warner, a friend of hers, who had made comments about her breast size that did not offend her. (Exh. 1, p. 117:17-25; p. 118:1-25; p. 119:1-3). 33. On September 17, 2002, Wayne Corcoran submitted a letter stating that he

was retiring effective September 23, 2002 from the Arizona State Capitol Police Department. (Exh. 4, p. 101:19-25, p. 102:1-13; Exh. 9). 34. Plaintiff Golden also recalls various co-workers of hers viewing an Internet

website showing a girl in a school uniform and the other officers mentioned that the girl looked like Plaintiff Golden. (Exh.1, p.137:14-25; p.138:14-25). The website's

commentary discussed anal sex. (Exh. 1, p. 139:5-8). 35. The reference to anal sex during the website commentary and statements that

the girl on the website looked like Plaintiff Golden did not offend Plaintiff Golden. (Exh. 1, p. 140:2-6). 36. Plaintiff Golden is aware that Plaintiff Hebets also saw the website, laughed

and said that the girl on the website looked like Plaintiff Golden. (Exh. 1, p. 140:21-25; p.

37.

Plaintiff Golden was not offended that Plaintiff Hebets would laugh and

suggest that a girl depicted in a website discussing anal sex looked like Plaintiff Golden.

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR
916936

Document 86

7

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 7 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

(Exh. 1, p. 141:2-6). 38. After complaining about Defendant Corcoran, Plaintiff Golden's friend/Sgt.

Jim Warner also joked about her breasts. Plaintiff was not offended by Sgt. Warner's comments. (Exh. 1, p. 118:3-3-17, p. 187:13-20). 39. in buildings. Capitol Police Officers have patrol duties and are also assigned to work shifts (Exh. 1, p. 157:1-4). Plaintiff Golden did not like being assigned to When under Sgt. Neus'

buildings and preferred patrol. (Exh. 1, p. 158:15-25).

supervision, he did not assign Plaintiff Golden building assignments. (Exh. 1, p. 172:412). 40. Plaintiff Golden began reporting to Sgt. Hollis Corey in June or July of 2003.

(Exh. 1, p. 38:10-13). 41. When Plaintiff Golden began working under Sgt. Corey's supervision, she

continued working two ten-hour shifts per week. (Exh. 1, p. 38:10-22). 42. Capitol Police officers had been complaining to Sgt. Corey about Plaintiff

Golden not having to work building assignments while assigned to Sgt. Neus' supervision. (Exh. 12, ¶¶ 30-32, Exh. 13, ¶ 6). 43. As a result, Sgt. Corey decided to assign Plaintiff to work one of her shifts on

patrol and one shift assigned to a State building. (Exh. 1, p. 172:13-16; Exh. 13, ¶ 7). 44. 45. Plaintiff complained to Sgt. Neus about the building assignment. (Exh. 14). Defendant Staubitz heard about Plaintiff Golden's complaints and reversed

Sgt. Corey's decision to change Plaintiff's schedule. This allowed Plaintiff Golden to

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR
916936

Document 86

8

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 8 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

work both of her shifts on patrol. Defendant Staubitz took the action in an attempt to accommodate Plaintiff Golden and diffuse her animosity toward Sgt. Corey. (Exh. 12, ¶¶ 34-36). Defendant Staubitz is unaware of Plaintiff working a building assignment since. (Exh. 12, ¶ 35). 46. Plaintiff Golden had never made any sexual harassment allegations against

Sgt. Corey and has no knowledge suggesting that his actions were in retaliation for her complaining about Defendant Corcoran's sexual harassment. (Exh. 1, p. 173:1-25; p. 174:1). In fact, Sgt. Corey and Defendant Corcoran were not friends, did not socialize and Sgt. Corey did not have a favorable impression of Defendant Corcoran. (Exh. 13, ¶ 2). 47. Plaintiff Golden also contends she was retaliated against because she was

given a memo asking her to sign a log book. (Exh. 1, p. 175:24-25; p. 176:1-6). 48. All officers were expected to sign a logbook at the start of their shift. Shortly

after Sgt. Corey became a sergeant, he created another logbook for his shift to sign. The new logbook was created to ensure all officers became aware of information pertinent to the performance of their jobs and to further ensure the information was passed to each officer. (Exh. 13, ¶ 10). 49. Each officer was required to initial the new logbook indicating that they had read and received the updated pertinent information contained in the logbook. (Exh. 13, ¶ 10, 11). 50. Sgt. Corey sent a memorandum in July 2003 reminding all officers to sign the

logbook. (Exh. 13, ¶ 12).

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR
916936

Document 86

9

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 9 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

51.

Thereafter, on a Saturday in late July 2003, Sgt. Corey noticed that Corporal

Golden and Officer Bob Gerome had not signed the logbooks as requested and spoke with both of them about needing to sign the logbooks. When Sgt. Corey returned to work the following Monday, he noticed Officer Gerome had signed the logbooks, but Officer Golden had not. As a result, Sgt. Corey sent Plaintiff Golden a reminder memorandum asking her to sign both logbooks. (Exh. 13, ¶¶ 11-14). 52. The reminder note Plaintiff Golden received was not a form of discipline and

did not change the conditions of her employment based. (Exh. 1, p. 176:14-25; p. 177:14). 53. Sgt. Corey also sent similar memoranda to officers Vic Lundin and Cheryl

Judd who failed to sign the logbook. (Exh. 13, ¶ 15). 54. Plaintiff Golden has no reason to believe that Sgt. Corey was retaliating

against her for something other than she believed he was being short with her and not as friendly as he used to be. (Exh. 1, p. 177:14-24). 55. Plaintiff Golden filed an EEOC charge alleging sex discrimination, national

origin discrimination and retaliation on August 8, 2003. (Exh. 1, p. 101:20-24; Exh. 15). 56. In January 2004, Plaintiff Golden was off work for approximately one month In February 2004, Plaintiff Golden returned to

due to surgery. (Exh. 1, p. 181:6-14).

work in a light duty capacity and was working Saturdays and Mondays. (Exh. 1, p. 181:15-20). 57. When Plaintiff Golden returned back to full duty and Sgt. Corey and

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR
916936

Document 86

10

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 10 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Lieutenant John Harkness changed Plaintiff Golden's schedule to her working Saturdays and Sundays. (Exh. 1, p. 186:1-9). 58. Plaintiff Golden's supervisors told her that they wanted a corporal working

on the weekends. (Exh. 1, p. 186:10-13). 59. Sgt. Corey assigned Plaintiff to working Sundays because he had two

corporals, Plaintiff Golden and Corporal Miller, working on Mondays. In addition, there were also other sergeants, lieutenants and other superiors working on Mondays. (Exh. 13, ¶ 16). 60. Sgt. Corey felt it was a waste of resources to have two supervisory officers

working on Monday and no supervisory officers supervising officers working Sundays. (Exh. 13, ¶ 17). 61. Sgt. Corey assigned Plaintiff to work Sundays because Corporal Miller, who

worked full time, had several other administrative tasks assigned to him which required him to be available during the Monday through Friday work week. (Exh. 13, ¶ 18). Plaintiff Golden did not carry these same responsibilities. (Exh. 13, ¶ 18). 62. Sgt. Corey believed it was important to have trained supervisors working

weekend shifts to provide guidance to officers working weekends. (Exh. 13, ¶ 19). 63. Sgt. Corey had previously assigned Corporal Cliff Colsten to work weekends.

(Exh. 13, ¶ 20). 64. Plaintiff Golden disagrees that a corporal was needed on weekends, as a

swing shift ran with just an officer in charge. (Exh. 1, p. 186:10-14). But Plaintiff Golden

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR
916936

Document 86

11

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 11 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

does not know whether it is better to have a corporal or sergeant running a shift, as opposed to an officer in charge. (Exh. 1, p. 186:15-19). 65. Aside from other shifts being run by officers, Plaintiff Golden has no

knowledge that her assignment to Saturdays and Sundays was in retaliation for any protected activity. (Exh. 1, p. 186:25, p. 187:1-9). 66. Plaintiff Golden has never heard anyone make any discriminatory remarks

based upon her being Hispanic. (Exh. 1, p. 225:18-23). B. Facts Material to Plaintiff Shelley Hebets' claims. 67. Plaintiff Shelley Hebets Hartsuiker ("Hebets") began her employment with

the Capitol Police Department in October 2000. (Exh. 2, p. 17:20-22). 68. When Plaintiff Hebets became a sworn law enforcement officer she reported

to Sgt. Neus and worked the dayshift five days a week. (Exh. 2, p. 23:1-16). Thereafter, Plaintiff Hebets was supervised by Sgt. Jim Warner and worked the swing shift from 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. (Exh. 2, p. 23:20-25; p. 24:1-6). 69. The Defendant's sexual harassment policy indicates that an employee who

feels that they have been harassed should report such harassment to their immediate supervisor in writing. Plaintiff Hebets understood that this was her responsibility as a Capitol Police employee. (Exh. 2, p. 37:1-9; Exh. 10). 70. In the summer of 2002, Plaintiff Hebets already had a ballistics vest. (Exh. 2,

p. 48:23-25; p. 49:1). She had previously been measured by a male for the vest and had no problems with how she was measured. (Exh. 2, p. 49:2-25, p. 50:4-18).

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR
916936

Document 86

12

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 12 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

71.

In the summer 2002, Plaintiff Hebets came on shift and Plaintiff Golden told

her that Plaintiff Hebets needed to be measured for a ballistics vest. Plaintiff Golden, while laughing, told Plaintiff Hebets in a joking manner that she did not want to measure Plaintiff Hebets or was not going to measure Plaintiff Hebets. (Exh. 2, p. 53:9-18; p. 54:18-25, p. 55:1-6). 72. After Plaintiff Golden joked about not wanting to measure Plaintiff Hebets,

Defendant Corcoran stated to Plaintiff Hebets that he needed to measure her. (Exh. 2, p. 55:7-12). 73. Defendant Corcoran then took Plaintiff Hebets into his office and shut the

door. (Exh. 2, p. 55:14-15). Plaintiff Hebets never told Defendant Corcoran that she did not want him to measure her. (Exh. 2, p. 55:19-21). 74. Although Plaintiff Hebets' friends Sgt. Neus and Sgt. Warner were also

present in the area, she did not tell them she objected to Defendant Corcoran's measuring her. (Exh. 2, p. 56:11-25; p. 57:1-7). 75. Plaintiff Hebets was wearing a t-shirt and sports bra when she was measured

for the ballistics vest. (Exh. 2, p. 157:1-8). 76. Defendant Corcoran measured Plaintiff Hebets and after each measurement

he wrote down the measurement information. (Exh. 2, p. 59:2-25; p. 60:1-2). 77. Defendant Corcoran did not say anything inappropriate to Plaintiff Hebets

while he was measuring her and did not touch Plaintiff Hebets' breasts. (Exh. 2, p. 61:6-8, p. 65:12-14; Exh. 4, p. 75:18-19).

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR
916936

Document 86

13

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 13 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

78.

Plaintiff Hebets believes that the manner in which Defendant Corcoran

measured her breasts was inappropriate, as he stood to her side when measuring her chest rather than measuring her from the back and because he lifted the measuring tape over her breasts instead of allowing her to do so. (Exh. 2, p. 62:1-24). 79. Plaintiff Hebets spoke with her friend Sgt. Warner regarding the vest

measurement issue but she did not tell him that she wanted to make a complaint, did not tell him that she wanted him to take some action, did not tell him that she considered what happened to be sexual harassment, and did not have any expectations that he would do anything in response to her statements. (Exh. 2, p. 160:22-25; p. 161:1-20). 80. When Plaintiff Hebets spoke with her friend Sgt. Neus within a few days of

the vest measurement issue, she did not tell him that she wanted to make a complaint, did not tell him that she felt she had been sexually harassed, did not tell him she wanted him to take any action and did not have any expectations that Sgt. Neus would take any action as a result of her statements to him. (Exh. 2, p. 161:1-25; p. 163:1-7). 81. Plaintiff Hebets also spoke with her friend Captain Swart about the vest

measurement, but did not tell him that she wished to make a complaint, did not tell him that she wanted an investigation, and did not tell him what had happened to be sexual harassment. (Exh. 2, p. 119:22-25, p. 120:20-25, p. 164:5-22). Plaintiff had no

expectations that Captain Swart would take any action as a result of her speaking with him. (Exh. 2, p. 164:23-24). 82. On August 16, 2002, Plaintiff Hebets attended a street survival training with

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR
916936

Document 86

14

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 14 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

other Capitol Police employees. (Exh. 2, p. 75:5-7). 83. On the seminar's third day, Plaintiff Hebets was wearing baggy shorts. (Exh.

2, p. 90:25; Exh. 11). 84. Plaintiff Hebets alleges that when she walked into the seminar and stood next

to Defendant Corcoran, he stated something to the effect of "oh, it is casual wear today?" and took his finger and cuffed it into the cuff of her shorts and pulled them up her thigh. (Exh. 2, p. 91:11-25). 85. Plaintiff Hebets claimed she then pushed Defendant Corcoran's hand away

and he turned, walked away and she did not see him the rest of the day. (Exh. 2, p. 95:2325; p. 96:1-2; p. 98:4-9). 86. Sgt. Neus was aware of the incident, but did not know that Plaintiff Hebets

contended Defendant Corcoran had lifted her shorts up her thigh. He believed Defendant Corcoran was expressing disagreement with what Plaintiff was wearing. (Exh. 5). 87. Sgt. Neus again spoke with Plaintiff Hebets on September 9, 2002 and told

her that Defendant Staubitz asked him to have Plaintiff Hebets write a memo regarding the street survival seminar shorts incident. (Exh. 2, p. 184:12-25; p. 185:1-6, Exh. 12, ¶ 3). 88. Plaintiff Hebets wrote a memorandum to Sgt. Neus on September 9, 2002

regarding the October 21, 2002 incident pertaining to Defendant Corcoran. (Exh. 11). 89. Defendant Corcoran submitted his retirement from state service on

September 17, 2002 after being placed on administrative leave pending an investigation on September 12, 2002 (Statements of Fact 28, 33).

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR
916936

Document 86

15

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 15 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

90.

Andrew Staubitz has never discussed Plaintiff Hebets' national origin with

her, nor has he made any comments suggesting he knows what Plaintiff Hebets' national origin or background is. (Exh. 2, p. 153:19-25). 91. In May 2003, Capitol Police Officer Bob Gerome complained to Lieutenant

John Harkness that Plaintiff had acted inappropriately regarding the handling of an arrest by failing to properly charge the offender and failing to take fingerprints. (Exh. 2, p. 215:18-25; Exh. 12, ¶¶ 15-16). 92. Lieutenant Harkness expressed concern to Defendant Staubitz about Plaintiff

being a graduate from a police academy and not knowing how to take fingerprints. (Exh. 12, ¶ 16). 93. Defendant Staubitz believed Plaintiff Hebets should have known how to take

fingerprints because this skill is taught at the Police Academy. Plaintiff Hebets claimed she did not know how to take fingerprints because the Academy pairs people to teach fingerprinting and it was her partner who did the hands-on portion. (Exh. 12, ¶ 16). 94. Defendant Staubitz was concerned that quality investigations were not being

completed by the officers and was also concerned about training because an officer lacked basic officer training in fingerprinting and crime scene investigation. (Exh. 12, ¶ 16). 95. Defendant Staubitz asked everyone involved to write memorandum regarding

the incident. (Exh. 2, p. 216:1-10). 96. Plaintiff Hebets acknowledges that if the Police Chief receives information

that there's been an incident where are varying accounts regarding whether a police officer

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR
916936

Document 86

16

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 16 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

acted inappropriately, having everyone involved write to report regarding what happened might be a way of approaching the issue. (Exh. 2, p. 216:21-25; p. 217:1-3). 97. Plaintiff Hebets did not receive any disciplinary action stemming from her She did not receive any

failure to secure the suspect or from her lack of training.

disciplinary action stemming from the May 2003 burglary. Plaintiff Hebets having to write her version of the events did not adversely impact her employment. (Exh. 2, p. 217:4-6, Exh. 12, ¶ 17). 98. On August 8, 2003, Plaintiff Hebets filed a charge of discrimination with the

EEOC alleging sex and national origin discrimination and retaliation. (Exh. 16). 99. Plaintiff Hebets also contends that she was retaliated against as a result of an

internal review arising from Officer Charlie Miller complaining about a high speed pursuit she was involved in. (Exh. 2, p. 211:19-22, p. 213:5-25). 100. Defendant Staubitz reviewed the pursuit tapes pursuant to internal procedure to ensure no policy violations existed. He never requested an investigation into the matter be undertaken and never implied that Plaintiff Hebets did anything wrong. (Exh. 12, ¶ 20). 101. This review never resulted in any disciplinary action being taken and Plaintiff Hebets did not lose any pay or experience a resulting change in the conditions of her employment. (Exh. 2, p. 212:4-15; Exh. 12, ¶ 20). 102. Plaintiff Hebets also contends she was retaliated against because she was asked what had occurred regarding drugs found in her patrol car eight months after the incident occurred. (Exh. 2, p. 223:9-19; p. 225:22-24).

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR
916936

Document 86

17

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 17 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

103. When the drugs were first found in the back of Plaintiff Hebets' patrol car, Defendant Staubitz instructed her supervisor Sgt. Neus to document the incident and any action taken. Despite this instruction, Sgt. Neus only spoke to Plaintiff Hebets about it without documenting the incident or the discussion. Eight months later, when drugs were found in Officer Clay Jeppson's patrol car, Defendant Staubitz wanted the procedure to be consistent with what happened on the prior occasion when drugs were found in Officer Hebets' car. Defendant Staubitz asked Sgt. Neus what he had done and Sgt. Neus

responded that he had only spoken to Plaintiff Hebets and failed to document anything, even the verbal warning. (Exh. 12, ¶ 21). 104. Defendant Staubitz told Sgt. Neus that these incidents have to be documented 104. so that if there was an on-going problem, the prior incidents are recorded and others can reference the documentation. Plaintiff Hebets received no disciplinary action as a result of her own failure to detect and secure the drugs left in her patrol car, either at the time or eight months later when it was inquired about again. (Exh. 12, ¶ 21, Exh. 2, p. 226:20-25; p. 227:1-3). 105. In approximately December 2003, Defendant Staubitz learned that another

female employee, Cheryl Judd, was alleging that Sgt. Jim Warner had sexually harassed her. (Exh. 3, p. 60:14-24). 106. The matter was turned over to ADOA for investigation. (Exh. 3, p. 61:1-3). 107. After the completion of the investigation, Jim Warner resigned from Capitol Police. (Exh. 12, ¶ 38).

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR
916936

Document 86

18

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 18 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

108. Plaintiff Hebets received a memorandum of concern on February 26, 2004. (Exh. 2, p. 199:9-15; Exh. 6). 109. The memorandum of concern addressed two issues pertaining to Plaintiff Hebets. The first portion of the memorandum of concern involved Plaintiff Hebets' was reported to have commented to Sgt. Warner during a conversation that taking steroids would cause "your wiener to shrivel up" or words to that effect. (Exh. 6). Plaintiff Hebets denies having made the comment about steroids and claims that the memorandum of concern was retaliation by Sgt. Corey. (Exh. 2, p. 197:11-16). 110. Plaintiff Hebets believes Sgt. Corey simply does not like her, and had issues with her and friends of hers within the Department. (Exh. 2, p. 201:10-16). 111. The second allegation in the memorandum of concern involved Plaintiff's contacting Sgt. Neus and discussing her investigative interview regarding the sexual harassment investigation into Sgt. Warner after being directed not to discuss the investigation. (Exh. 6). 112. Plaintiff Hebets admits she discussed the investigation with Sgt. Neus even though she had been directed not to discuss the ongoing investigation. (Exh. 2, p. 208:919). Sgt. Neus' conversations with Plaintiff Hebets regarding the investigation played a part in the decision to terminate his employment from Capitol Police. (Exh. 12, ¶ 40). 113. Officer Cheryl Judd, a white female, who provided another officer with information she should not have provided concerning the same investigation also received a memorandum of concern. (Exh. 12, ¶¶ 39-42).

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR
916936

Document 86

19

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 19 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

114. The memorandum of concern did not result in Plaintiff Hebets losing any pay, losing any promotional opportunity, losing out on any potential pay increases and no hours or other conditions of her work were changed as a result of the memorandum of concern. (Exh. 2, p. 200:12-25). 115. Defendant Corcoran never supervised either Plaintiff Hebets or Plaintiff Golden, did not have the authority to terminate them and did not have authority to dictate their assignments. (Exh. 4, p. 74:10-25) 116. In addition to the allegations against Defendant Corcoran, two other police officers, Officer Traci Woody Carmen, a white female, and Corporal Jeff Miller, a white male, also complained about Defendant Corcoran engaging in sexually inappropriate conduct. (Exh. 5, Exh. 12, ¶¶ 25-27). Defendant Staubitz treated each of these individuals in the same manner that he treated Plaintiffs regarding the allegations and in the information provided to them. (Exh. 12, ¶¶ 28-29). 117. Neither Plaintiff Golden, nor Plaintiff Hebets have any personal knowledge of the allegations made by Officer Woody-Carmen or Officer Miller against Defendant Corcoran and did not learn about the allegations until after Defendant Corcoran was gone from State Service. (Exh. 1, p. 215:17-25, p. 216:1-25, p. 217:1-3; Exh. 2, p. 144:23-25, p. 145:1-17). 118. Defendant Staubitz knew Officer Woody-Carmen spoke with a sergeant regarding the logistics of her being interviewed regarding the Sgt. Jim Warner sexual harassment investigation, but he had no knowledge she spoke with anyone regarding the

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR
916936

Document 86

20

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 20 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

substance of her investigative interview or her opinion on the matter. As such, Defendant Staubitz did not believe Officer Woody-Carmen deserved discipline. (Exh. 12, ¶¶ 43, 44). RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 5th day of August, 2005. Terry Goddard Attorney General

LISA K. HUDSON MICHAEL M. WALKER Assistant Attorneys General Attorneys for Defendants ADOA and Capitol Police ORIGINAL e-filed with The Clerk of the Court and then hand delivered to the Honorable Paul G. Rosenblatt this 5th day of August, 2005: By: __________________________ Linda A. Martin Secretary to Michael M. Walker
ELS04-0037

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR
916936

Document 86

21

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 21 of 21