Whitfield Sheriff

Case 4:19-cv-00096-HLM-WEJ Document 1 Filed 05/14/19 Page 1 of 32
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ROME DIVISION
KAYLA FRANKS, )
)
Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION NO.
v. )
)
WHITFIELD COUNTY, GA., ) ___________________
)
Defendant. )
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff KAYLA FRANKS hereby states claims for relief under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended
(“Title VII”), on the grounds stated below.
Jurisdiction and Venue
1. The Court has original subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to (a)
28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises under the laws of the United
States, (b) 28 U.S.C. § 1337 because this action arises under Acts of Congress
regulating commerce, and (c) 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) because this action is
brought under Subchapter VI of Title VII.
2. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b),
because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims
in this action occurred in the Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division.
-1-
The Parties
3. Plaintiff KAYLA FRANKS (“PLAINTIFF”) is a female citizen of
the state of Georgia and the United States and resides in the Northern
District of Georgia.
4. Defendant WHITFIELD COUNTY, GA. (“DEFENDANT”) is a
political subdivision of the State of Georgia and is a legal entity that may sue
and be sued under Georgia law.
5. DEFENDANT can be served with process by service on Lynn
Laughter, Chairman of the Whitfield County Board of Commissioners, 301 W
Crawford St, Dalton, GA 30720.
6. DEFENDANT is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court.
Compliance With Administrative Prerequisites
7. PLAINTIFF has timely complied with all legally required
administrative prerequisites before filing this action.
8. On or about July 3, 2018, PLAINTIFF filed a Charge of
Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”) alleging discrimination by DEFENDANT on account of
PLAINTIFF’s sex and unlawful retaliation by DEFENDANT.
9. On or about March 13, 2019, the United States Department of
Justice Civil Rights Division issued to PLAINTIFF a notice of dismissal and
right to sue DEFENDANT.
-2-
Grounds for this Action
10. At all relevant times, DEFENDANT was an “employer” within
the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) of Title VII.
11. At all relevant times, DEFENDANT had more than 500
employees.
12. At all relevant times, DEFENDANT provided from its general
fund all funding necessary for the operation of the Whitfield County Sheriff’s
Office (“WCSO”), including all funds used to pay for the employment of all
WCSO employees.
13. At all relevant times, DEFENDANT set the terms and conditions
for hiring and compensating employees of the WCSO—including specifying
their minimum qualifications, requiring drug tests, paying salaries, and
providing benefits.
14. At all relevant times, DEFENDANT had the authority to hire,
transfer, promote, discipline, or discharge employees of the WCSO.
15. PLAINTIFF is a white female.
16. At all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was an “employee” of
DEFENDANT within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(f) of Title VII.
17. From on or about 2010 to on or about February 26, 2018,
DEFENDANT employed PLAINTIFF to work in the WCSO.
-3-
18. On or about February 26, 2018, DEFENDANT, acting through
Capt. Paul Woods of the WCSO, forced PLAINTIFF to resign from her
position as a Deputy: Evidence Technician/Crime Scene Investigator in the
Evidence Section of the WCSO’s Criminal Investigation Division (“CID”)—
thereby constructively discharging PLAINTIFF.
19. Throughout the period Capt. Woods supervised PLAINTIFF in
CID, he made offensive and sexually vulgar comments about women—
creating a sexually hostile work environment for PLAINTIFF.
20. Throughout the period Capt. Woods supervised PLAINTIFF in
CID, Woods made offensive and sexually vulgar comments about women—
demonstrating his discriminatory animus toward women.
21. On or about February 26, 2018, Capt. Woods discriminated
against PLAINTIFF because of her sex when Woods changed her shift hours
from 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.—knowing full well that
PLAINTIFF could not perform those hours because of her responsibilities to
her 11 year-old daughter, thereby forcing PLAINTIFF to resign from her
position with the WCSO.
22. On or about February 26, 2018, Capt. Woods retaliated against
PLAINTIFF because she complained to him about his sexually offensive
conduct when he changed her shift hours from 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. to 12:00
p.m. - 8:00 p.m.—knowing full well that PLAINTIFF could not perform those
-4-
hours because of her responsibilities to her 11 year-old daughter, thereby
forcing PLAINTIFF to resign from her position with the WCSO.
23. During PLAINTIFF’s employment with DEFENDANT, she held
various positions in the WCSO:
(a) In 2010, DEFENDANT hired PLAINTIFF as a Deputy -
Correctional Officer in the jail;
(b) In or about 2011, DEFENDANT promoted PLAINTIFF to
Deputy - Patrol Officer; and
(c) In or about September 2015, DEFENDANT promoted
PLAINTIFF to Deputy – Evidence Technician/Crime Scene
Investigator in the Evidence Section of CID.
24. Throughout PLAINTIFF’s employment, DEFENDANT invested
thousands of dollars to train PLAINTIFF in the various positions she held
while employed with the WCSO.
25. In or about January 2017, Lt. Paul Woods became PLAINTIFF’s
supervisor in CID.
26. At that time, Lt. Woods reported to Capt. Rick Swiney of CID.
27. In or about the beginning of February 2018, Lt. Woods was
promoted to Captain of CID, replacing Rick Swiney.
28. From on or about January 2017 to February 2018, when
PLAINTIFF worked under then-Lt. and later-Capt. Woods in CID, Woods
-5-
repeatedly made offensive and vulgar sexual comments about women on an
ongoing and continuous weekly and daily basis.
29. Capt. Woods made many of these sexually offensive comments in
PLAINTIFF’s presence.
30. PLAINTIFF learned about other of Woods’s sexually offensive
comments through Sheriff’s Office employees who heard them first-hand.
31. Many of the Woods’s sexually offensive comments, including
those in PLAINTIFF’s presence, were heard at the same time by supervisors
in the WCSO.
32. The WCSO, however, took no action to stop Woods’s offensive
sexual conduct, and Woods’s offensive sexual conduct continued.
33. The offensive and vulgar sexual comments about women that
Woods made in PLAINTIFF’s presence include but are not limited to:
(a) While PLAINTIFF and Jessica Elsmore, a CID analyst,
were viewing evidence in a case of a sexual nature, then-Lt.
Woods came into Ms. Elsmore’s office and said: “You know,
all pussies and clits look different”;
(b) When several officers, including then-Lt. Woods and
PLAINTIFF, were at a residence serving a search warrant,
after seeing photographs of the defendant’s girlfriend, in
front of all the officers and PLAINTIFF, then-Lt. Woods (i)
-6-
commented how “hot” she (the girlfriend) was, (ii)
commented on the woman’s breasts, saying “she carries
basketballs on her chest”; and (iii) commented about a pile
of photographs found at the scene, “Oh, let’s see if there are
naked pics of her in here”;
(c) He talked about wanting to have sex with Jillian Owenby,
a secretary in CID;
(d) He commented about Jillian Owenby having sex, stating: “I
don’t know how her husband gets out of bed; I’d stay in bed
all day”;
(e) He talked about Jillian Owenby’s body and how her body
looked in a uniform, including her buttocks, stating to a
group of employees: “I like the way Jillian’s ass looks in the
new uniform”;
(f) He talked about wanting to get Jillian Owenby drunk and
stated in a sexually suggestive way that “I’m sure she’d be
fun”;
(g) He commented how “hot” Jillian Owenby’s mother is and
how he would “love” to have a massage by her;
(h) He commented how he wished his wife looked like Jillian
Owenby;
-7-
(i) He often leered at Jillian Owenby, looking up and down at
her body with elevator eyes;
(j) In December 2017, when PLAINTIFF told Woods that her
husband had been deployed to Florida with the Army
Reserve until September 2018, Woods told PLAINTIFF
that “oh, you’re free to do whatever you want now,”
suggesting that she could have a sexual affair while her
husband was away;
(k) He talked about how he likes going to the gym so he can
watch women’s buttocks while they exercised on bicycles;
(l) He criticized the fact that female employees of the WCSO
would take time off to care for their children;
34. The offensive and vulgar sexual comments about women that
Woods made that were conveyed to PLAINTIFF by other WCSO employees,
including supervisors, include but are not limited to the following:
(a) Woods talked about wanting to have sex with Jillian
Owenby, a secretary in CID, including stating that he
wanted to “fuck” Ms. Owenby, and asking how she would
“taste”;
-8-
(b) He commented about Jillian Owenby having sex, stating: “I
don’t know how her husband sleeps next to her every night
and he doesn’t fuck her every night”;
(c) He talked about Jillian Owenby’s body, including her
buttocks;
(d) He made comments to Jillian Owenby about her body,
weight, appearance and hair in a flirtatious and sexual
way;
(e) He talked about wanting to have sex with other women;
(f) He called a vagina a “lunch box” and joked that he would go
home and eat out of his “lunch box”;
(g) After a young female delivered a Chick-fil-A nugget tray to
a meeting, he stated, “I wonder if she comes with the
nugget tray”;
(h) He stated that he felt women should not have positions in
law enforcement.
35. PLAINTIFF found Woods’s sexually offensive conduct to be
humiliating, intimidating, and threatening—and it interfered with her ability
to perform her job.
-9-
36. Whenever PLAINTIFF was in Woods’s presence, PLAINTIFF
was always tense because she feared he would make a vulgar and sexually
inappropriate comment about women.
37. PLAINTIFF dreaded coming to work knowing that she would
have to interact with Woods.
38. Woods’s sexually offensive behavior depressed PLAINTIFF,
caused PLAINTIFF to lose sleep, and caused PLAINTIFF to gain weight
because of the stress his behavior caused her.
39. During the period PLAINTIFF worked in CID with Woods, other
female employees who had worked under Paul Woods—including women who
worked in CID—told PLAINTIFF that they resigned from their positions or
transferred out of CID because of Woods’s sexually offensive, inappropriate,
and disrespectful behavior toward women, including them.
40. In March 2017, after PLAINTIFF returned to work after
recovering from a leg injury, Lt. Woods treated PLAINTIFF differently than
other similarly situated male deputies.
41. In January 2017, after Lt. Woods became a supervisor in CID,
PLAINTIFF suffered a leg injury and remained out of work until on or about
March 2017.
42. On PLAINTIFF’s return to work, her doctor required that she
work light duty.
- 10 -
43. But Lt. Woods assigned PLAINTIFF to work in the records
department instead of the evidence office—which is where she usually
worked and where the work is far more interesting and challenging than in
the records department.
44. Prior to assigning PLAINTIFF to work in the records
department, Lt. Woods and other supervisors had assigned male deputies
with light duty work requirements to work in the evidence office—not the
records department.
45. PLAINTIFF complained to Lt. Woods that he was treating
PLAINTIFF differently than other male deputies who had similar light duty
work requirements.
46. Only after two days had passed did Lt. Woods allow PLAINTIFF
to return to the Evidence Section.
47. In or about May 2017, Lt. Woods notified PLAINTIFF and her
male counterpart, Deputy Jason Cooley, who also worked as an Evidence
Technician/Crime Scene Investigator in the Evidence Section of CID, that
they would rotate responsibilities.
48. Under Woods’s new plan, whoever between PLAINTIFF and
Deputy Cooley had on-call duties—which they had every other week (and
which involved responding to crime scene and evidence issues in the field
after their normally scheduled shift, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.)—would work in
- 11 -
the field during the day (which included providing extra patrolling in
neighborhoods, backing up patrol officers, and assisting patrol officers with
collecting evidence). And whoever did not have on-call duties that week
would work in the evidence office, performing general evidence duties.
49. In or about June 2017, Lt. Woods asked Deputy Cooley and
PLAINTIFF how they felt if Woods changed both their schedules from 8:00
a.m. - 4:00 p.m. from Monday to Friday to 12:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. from Monday
to Friday.
50. Deputy Cooley and PLAINTIFF told Woods that they both
already made a sacrifice being on-call every other week, that they were on-
call more than any other person in CID, and that the proposed new hours
would not work for them because they both had children at home.
51. PLAINTIFF further told Lt. Woods that her husband would be
working the evening shift at the Dalton Police Dept. starting July 2017, and
because her husband and she had a 10 year-old daughter at home, it would
be impossible for PLAINTIFF to work those hours.
52. Woods responded to PLAINTIFF: “She’s not your biological child,
why should you have to worry about her. Let your husband worry about her.”
53. Lt. Woods also told PLAINTIFF she should find a daycare for her
child—but she informed Woods that daycares do not accept children who are
10 years-old and there are no daycares open until 8:00 p.m.
- 12 -
54. Lt. Woods told PLAINTIFF that he would advise then-CID’s
Capt. Swiney about the so-called conflict.
55. The next day, Lt. Woods told PLAINTIFF that “Swiney was your
saving grace” and that Capt. Swiney decided that the working hours for
PLAINTIFF and Deputy Cooley would not change.
56. In September 2017, Lt. Woods became angry at PLAINTIFF after
she complained to him about a vulgar and sexually offensive comment he
made in the presence of PLAINTIFF and a female colleague.
57. In September 2017, PLAINTIFF was in the office of Jessica
Elsmore, a CID Crime and Intelligence Analyst. PLAINTIFF and Elsmore
were watching a video of a sexual nature, which was evidence in a case.
58. Woods walked in Elsmore’s office—while she and PLAINTIFF
were watching the video—and stated to the two women: “You know, all
pussies and clits look different.”
59. PLAINTIFF and Elsmore were shocked by Woods’s outrageously
inappropriate comment.
60. PLAINTIFF immediately confronted Woods and complained to
him, saying that kind of talk is not okay.
61. Woods was visibly angered by PLAINTIFF complaining about his
outrageous and offensive sexual comment—and Woods left the office without
apologizing.
- 13 -
62. After PLAINTIFF complained to Lt. Woods, he initiated a
pattern of retaliation against her—culminating in her constructive discharge
in February 2018.
63. In November 2017, Woods directed PLAINTIFF to work in the
evidence office full-time to assist Shannon Brewer, who was recently hired as
a clerk.
64. Woods required PLAINTIFF to work in the office assisting Ms.
Brewer until mid-February 2018.
65. Woods did not require Jason Cooley, her male counterpart, to
work in the evidence office during this period assisting Ms. Brewer.
66. In December 2017, PLAINTIFF notified Lt. Woods that her
husband, who is in the Army Reserve, had been deployed to Tampa, Florida,
where he would remain until September 2018.
67. PLAINTIFF also told Woods that she alone would be caring for
her now 11 year-old daughter while her husband was away.
68. In early February 2018, the WCSO promoted Woods to Captain
over CID, replacing the retiring Capt. Swiney.
69. On Friday, February 9, 2018, DEFENDANT denied
PLAINTIFF’s request for intermittent leave under the Family and Medical
Leave Act.
- 14 -
70. PLAINTIFF requested intermittent leave to ensure she had the
flexibility to care for her daughter unexpectedly during the period her
husband was away on deployment.
71. On or about February 12, 2018, now-Capt. Woods directed
PLAINTIFF to return to the field, no longer requiring PLAINTIFF to work in
the office assisting Shannon Brewer.
72. Woods directed PLAINTIFF to work in sector one, which is the
Westside area, which was known to be the slowest and least productive sector
to work.
73. Sgt. Jose Rivera notified PLAINTIFF of this assignment.
74. Sgt. Rivera told PLAINTIFF that the Westside area was
experiencing a rash of burglaries and that she was to be productive by
patrolling neighborhoods, investigating suspicious people and suspicious cars,
and performing traffic stops.
75. Maliciously, after having ordered PLAINTIFF to perform traffic
stops, Capt. Woods declined to provide PLAINTIFF with the proper
equipment to perform those duties: (a) Woods did not issue PLAINTIFF a
taser; Woods did not equip PLAINTIFF’s vehicle with proper exterior lights;
and Woods did not equip her vehicle with a dashboard camera.
76. PLAINTIFF brought Woods’s purposeful deficiencies to Sgt.
Rivera’s attention.
- 15 -
77. It was not until the next day that she was issued a taser.
78. But Woods never equipped PLAINTIFF’s vehicle with proper
exterior lights and never equipped her vehicle with a dashboard camera.
79. On February 21, 2018, Capt. Woods threatened to change
PLAINTIFF’s hours to 12:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m., unless she met an illegal
quota of a specific number of traffic stops per day.
80. On February 21, 2018, Sgt. Rivera told PLAINTIFF that Capt.
Woods said he was not happy with her productivity—even though, in fact,
PLAINTIFF had made more arrests from February 12 to February 20 than
anyone on patrol, including her male counterpart, Jason Cooley.
81. Moreover, one of PLAINTIFF’s arrests was one of the burglary
suspects from the Westside.
82. Sgt. Rivera told PLAINTIFF that Capt. Woods was not happy
with the number of car stops she had made and wanted PLAINTIFF to stop
five cars per day—which was patently illegal conduct by a law enforcement
officer.
83. No other member of CID was given a similar quota by Woods,
including her male counterpart, Jason Cooley.
84. Sgt. Rivera told PLAINTIFF that Capt. Woods said if she did not
stop at least five cars per day, Woods would punish her by changing hours to
12:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
- 16 -
85. On February 22, 2018, Capt. Woods changed her hours from 8:00
a.m. - 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. purportedly and, disingenuously,
because she spoke to a patrol supervisor whom Capt. Woods did not like.
86. On February 22, 2018, Sgt. Rivera told PLAINTIFF that Capt.
Woods was upset she spoke to Sgt. Darren Pierce earlier that day while she
was on patrol.
87. PLAINTIFF explained to Sgt. Rivera that Sgt Pierce directed
PLAINTIFF to speak to him about two warrants that she and two deputies
attempted to serve on a suspect.
88. In fact, several months before, then-Lt. Woods directed
PLAINTIFF and Jason Cooley to answer to the patrol supervisor when they
were in the field.
89. Sgt. Rivera told PLAINTIFF that Capt. Woods was not happy
that she spoke to Sgt. Pierce, whom Capt. Woods did not like.
90. Sgt. Rivera told PLAINTIFF that because she spoke to Sgt.
Pierce, Capt. Woods was changing her hours from 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. to
12:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
91. This change in PLAINTIFF’s hours was Woods’s first
opportunity to change PLAINTIFF’s hours since he became Captain over
CID—because Capt. Swiney, now retired, had expressly prohibited Woods
from changing PLAINTIFF’s hours.
- 17 -
92. Moreover, Capt. Woods’s decision to change PLAINTIFF’s hours
impacted only her and not her male counterpart, Jason Cooley—even
though Deputy Cooley and PLAINTIFF had previously rotated their on-call
hours.
93. On February 23, 2018, PLAINTIFF spoke to Sgt. Rivera and
explained to him that there was no way she could work the 12:00 p.m. - 8:00
p.m. shift because—as he and Capt. Woods well knew—PLAINTIFF’s
husband was deployed in the Army Reserve and she had to be home after
4:00 p.m. to watch her now 11 year-old daughter.
94. Sgt. Rivera stated that he and Capt. Woods understood
PLAINTIFF’s situation, but Capt. Woods wanted PLAINTIFF to work those
hours effective March 12, 2018.
95. PLAINTIFF told Sgt. Rivera that unless there was another
position she could transfer to in the WCSO, she would have to turn in a two-
week notice.
96. Sgt. Rivera claimed he did not know about any other available
positions in the WCSO.
97. One week earlier, however, PLAINTIFF was told by Lt. Angie
Lowry in the Patrol Division that there were day-shift patrol positions
available.
- 18 -
98. No effort was made by Sgt. Rivera or Capt. Woods to determine if
there were other positions in the WCSO that PLAINTIFF could perform,
given her responsibilities to her daughter after 4:00 p.m.
99. In the past, however, the WCSO created positions for male
deputies who had conflicts with their existing positions.
100. No such effort was made by WCSO to give PLAINTIFF a similar
accommodation.
101. PLAINTIFF told Sgt. Rivera that Jason Cooley, her male
counterpart, offered to work those hours in her place.
102. Sgt. River told PLAINTIFF he would let Capt. Woods know about
Jason’s offer, but did not think Capt. Woods would let Jason work the hours
instead of PLAINTIFF.
103. On February 26, 2018, PLAINTIFF met with Sgt. Rivera and told
him that if there were no other positions in the WCSO she could transfer to,
she would have no choice but to submit her resignation.
104. Sgt. Rivera told PLAINTIFF he had an “idea” that might avoid
PLAINTIFF having to resign and that he would propose his idea to Capt.
Woods.
105. About 30 minutes later, Sgt. Rivera visited PLAINTIFF’s office
and told PLAINTIFF he had met with Capt. Woods—but that Woods had
rejected Sgt. Rivera’s idea.
- 19 -
106. Sgt. Rivera told PLAINTIFF that Capt. Woods refused to change
his mind regarding her new hours and that Woods had accepted her
resignation, effective immediately.
107. Sgt. Rivera told PLAINTIFF to pack up her belongings, turn in
the office property in her possession, and leave the premises.
108. On February 26, 2018, after Sgt. Rivera told PLAINTIFF that
Capt. Woods accepted her resignation, she later met with Jackie Carlo, the
Human Resource Director for DEFENDANT.
109. PLAINTIFF reported to Ms. Carlo that Capt. Woods had made
offensive sexual comments about women in her presence and that other
employees heard many of these offensive sexual comments.
110. PLAINTIFF told Ms. Carlo that Capt. Woods hated women in law
enforcement and is sexist.
111. PLAINTIFF told Ms. Carlo that PLAINTIFF had confronted
Capt. Woods about one of his offensive sexual comments and that he
subsequently retaliated against PLAINTIFF by changing her hours from 8:00
a.m. - 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m., knowing full well that she would be
forced to resign because of her responsibilities to her 11 year-old daughter.
112. PLAINTIFF told Ms. Carlo that Capt. Woods did not change the
hours worked by Jason Cooley, her male counterpart, to 12:00 p.m. - 8:00
p.m.
- 20 -
113. PLAINTIFF told Ms. Carlo that PLAINTIFF had no choice but to
submit her resignation.
114. When PLAINTIFF met with Ms. Carlo, PLAINTIFF identified a
job opening for an administrative assistant in the Whitfield County Superior
Court Clerk’s Office.
115. That position, however, paid less than what PLAINTIFF earned
in the WCSO.
116. PLAINTIFF interviewed for the position and was hired, and
began work on or about March 12, 2018.
117. On or about March 12, 2018, PLAINTIFF met with WCSO Sheriff
Scott Chitwood and reported Capt. Woods’s offensive sexual behavior and
retaliation.
118. Sheriff Chitwood told PLAINTIFF he had just recently learned
she left the WCSO.
119. PLAINTIFF told the Sheriff that Capt. Woods is a problem for
the WCSO because he engages in offensive sexual behavior toward women.
120. PLAINTIFF told Sheriff Chitwood that Capt. Woods retaliated
against PLAINTIFF after she complained to Woods about inappropriate
sexual behavior and that Capt. Woods forced PLAINTIFF to resign by
changing her hours from 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
- 21 -
121. Sheriff Chitwood admitted being puzzled by Capt. Woods’s
decision because the Sheriff knew that PLAINTIFF had always worked from
8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and either Deputy Cooley or she would provide
coverage after 4:00 p.m., as one of them was always on call.
122. PLAINTIFF told Sheriff Chitwood that she had complained to
Ms. Carlo, head of DEFENDANT’s HR department, about Capt. Woods’s
offensive sexual behavior and his retaliation and discrimination against
PLAINTIFF.
123. DEFENDANT never conducted an investigation into Woods’s
sexually offensive comments in the presence of other WCSO supervisors or in
response to PLAINTIFF’s February 26, 2018 complaints about Woods
sexually offensive behavior toward women—thereby ratifying Woods’s
outrageous conduct.
124. DEFENDANT never conducted an investigation in response to
PLAINTIFF’s February 26, 2018 complaints that Capt. Woods retaliated
against PLAINTIFF and discriminated against PLAINTIFF by forcing
PLAINTIFF to resign after changing her hours from 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. to
12:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
125. In or about March 2018, Captain Woods hired a female, named
Maria Pack, to replace PLAINTIFF.
- 22 -
126. Through at least as of July 3, 2018, after having hired Maria
Pack in or about March 2018 to replace PLAINTIFF, Woods had not assigned
Ms. Pack to work the 12:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. shift that Woods had required
PLAINTIFF to work.
127. Through at least as of July 3, 2018, after having forced
PLAINTIFF to resign on February 26, 2018, Capt. Woods had not assigned
Jason Cooley to the 12:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. shift that Woods had required
PLAINTIFF to work.
128. PLAINTIFF loved her job in CID, fulfilling her dream to work in
law enforcement.
129. PLAINTIFF had always hoped she would remain with the WCSO
for her entire career.
130. Not only did Woods destroy PLAINTIFF’s career with the WCSO
because of his discriminatory and retaliatory animus—but Woods also
irresponsibly wasted thousands of dollars of training that DEFENDANT had
already invested in PLAINTIFF, money that DEFENDANT needlessly had to
spend on her replacement.
131. Woods also irresponsibly wasted the nearly eight years of
institutional and community knowledge and law enforcement expertise that
PLAINTIFF accumulated during her tenure with the WCSO.
- 23 -
132. DEFENDANT, through Paul Woods, constructively discharged
PLAINTIFF by forcing PLAINTIFF to resign from her job because she was
not able to work the hours Paul Woods required PLAINTIFF to work given
her responsibilities to her daughter.
133. DEFENDANT discriminated against PLAINTIFF because of her
sex with respect to creating a hostile work environment, giving PLAINTIFF
certain job assignments, terminating PLAINTIFF, and other terms,
conditions and benefits of employment, in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §
2000e et seq.
134. PLAINTIFF’s sex was a motivating factor in the decision of
DEFENDANT to give PLAINTIFF certain job assignments and to terminate
PLAINTIFF.
135. DEFENDANT retaliated against PLAINTIFF because she
complained of sex discrimination with respect to giving PLAINTIFF certain
job assignments, terminating PLAINTIFF, and other terms, conditions and
benefits of employment, in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
136. PLAINTIFF’s complaints about sex discrimination was a
motivating factor in the decision of DEFENDANT to give PLAINTIFF certain
job assignments and to terminate PLAINTIFF.
- 24 -
CLAIMS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT
Count 1
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1)
(Sex Discrimination - Constructive Discharge)
137. Paragraphs 1-136 above are re-alleged and incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
138. By engaging in the conduct described above in Paragraphs 18-
136, DEFENDANT unlawfully discriminated against PLAINTIFF because of
her sex with respect to constructively discharging PLAINTIFF and other
terms, conditions and benefits of employment, all in violation of Title VII.
139. As a result of DEFENDANT’s unlawful actions, PLAINTIFF has
suffered and is continuing to suffer injury including, but not limited to,
incurring pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, humiliation,
inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-
pecuniary losses.
140. PLAINTIFF seeks compensatory, punitive, and nominal
damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of this action, all
through the date of entry of a final non-appealable judgment, all pursuant to
Title VII, and all in an amount to be determined as specified by law.
- 25 -
141. PLAINTIFF’s sex was a motivating factor in DEFENDANT’s
decision to constructively discharge PLAINTIFF and other terms, conditions
and benefits of employment.
142. Alternatively, DEFENDANT, motivated in part by PLAINTIFF’s
sex and motivated in part by other reasons, discriminated against
PLAINTIFF in violation of Title VII with respect to failing or refusing to hire
PLAINTIFF and other terms, conditions and benefits of employment.
Count 2
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1)
(Sexually Hostile Work Environment)
her sex with respect to creating a sexually hostile work environment for
PLAINTIFF and other terms, conditions and benefits of employment, all in
violation of Title VII.
pecuniary losses.
- 26 -
decision to create a sexually hostile work environment for PLAINTIFF and
other terms, conditions and benefits of employment.
PLAINTIFF in violation of Title VII with respect to creating a sexually
hostile work environment for PLAINTIFF and other terms, conditions and
benefits of employment.
Count 3
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1)
(Sex Discrimination - Change in Work Conditions)
her sex with respect to changing PLAINTIFF’s shift hours from 8:00 a.m. -
- 27 -
4:00 p.m. to 12:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. and other terms, conditions and benefits of
employment, all in violation of Title VII.
pecuniary losses.
decision with respect to changing PLAINTIFF’s shift hours from 8:00 a.m. -
4:00 p.m. to 12:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. and other terms, conditions and benefits of
employment.
PLAINTIFF in violation of Title VII with respect to changing PLAINTIFF’s
shift hours from 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. and other
terms, conditions and benefits of employment.
- 28 -
Count 4
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)
(Retaliation)
136, DEFENDANT unlawfully retaliated against PLAINTIFF for
complaining about Paul Woods’s sexually inappropriate and vulgar comments
by changing PLAINTIFF’s shift hours from 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 p.m.
- 8:00 p.m. and other terms, conditions and benefits of employment, all in
violation of Title VII.
pecuniary losses.
- 29 -
159. PLAINTIFF’s complaint about Paul Woods’s sexually
inappropriate and vulgar comments was the reason DEFENDANT changed
PLAINTIFF’s shift hours from 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
and other terms, conditions and benefits of employment, all in violation of
Title VII.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiff KAYLA FRANKS respectfully prays that this
Court enter judgment in favor of PLAINTIFF and against DEFENDANT for:
A. Lost wages, employment benefits, and other compensation to
which PLAINTIFF is entitled, pursuant to Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.
B. Compensatory damages including, but not limited to, pecuniary
losses, emotional pain, suffering, and inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of
enjoyment of life, loss of dignity, and any other non-pecuniary losses or
intangible injuries to which PLAINTIFF is entitled, pursuant to Title VII and
42 U.S.C. § 1981a.
C. Punitive damages to which PLAINTIFF is entitled, pursuant to
Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.
D. All reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of the action through
entry of a final non-appealable judgment, pursuant to Title VII and 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981a, including all reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for:
- 30 -
(1) the time spent plus costs reasonably incurred throughout
this action relating to the claims of PLAINTIFF under Title VII;
(2) the time spent litigating both the entitlement to and
amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred throughout this action plus costs
of investigation and litigation reasonably incurred relating to the claims of
PLAINTIFF under Title VII, whether in connection with any settlement,
compromise, any accepted offer of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 68, or any
other form of judgment entered pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54-58;
(3) the time spent litigating the fairness and reasonableness of
any settlement, compromise, or accepted offer of judgment under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 68, or any other form of judgment entered pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54-
58, and
(4) the time spent explaining to PLAINITFF any settlement,
compromise, or accepted offer of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 68, or any
other form of judgment entered pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54-58.
E. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all amounts
awarded pursuant to Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, including lost
compensation, litigation expenses including attorney’s fees, costs, and costs of
investigation and litigation of this action.
- 31 -
F. A declaration that DEFENDANT engaged in unlawful
employment practices in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m), and 42
U.S.C. § 1981a with respect to PLAINTIFF.
G. All such other legal and equitable relief to which PLAINTIFF is
entitled as a matter of law and equity.
H. All such other and further relief as is deemed just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues triable of right by a jury.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Marc Garber

ALAN H. GARBER
Georgia Bar No. 283840
ahgarber@garberlaw.net
MARC N. GARBER
Georgia Bar No. 283847
mngarber@garberlaw.net
THE GARBER LAW FIRM, P.C.
4994 Lower Roswell Rd Ste 14
Marietta, GA 30068-5648
(678) 560-6685
(678) 560-5067 (facsimile)
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
- 32 -

Whitfield Sheriff

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Whitfield Sheriff

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Case 4:19-cv-00096-HLM-WEJ Document 1 Filed 05/14/19 Page 1 of 32

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

(“Title VII”), on the grounds stated below.

Jurisdiction and Venue

1. The Court has original subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to (a)

regulating commerce, and (c) 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) because this action is

brought under Subchapter VI of Title VII.

2. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b),

in this action occurred in the Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division.

3. Plaintiff KAYLA FRANKS (“PLAINTIFF”) is a female citizen of

4. Defendant WHITFIELD COUNTY, GA. (“DEFENDANT”) is a

and be sued under Georgia law.

5. DEFENDANT can be served with process by service on Lynn

Laughter, Chairman of the Whitfield County Board of Commissioners, 301 W

Crawford St, Dalton, GA 30720.

6. DEFENDANT is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court.

Compliance With Administrative Prerequisites

7. PLAINTIFF has timely complied with all legally required

administrative prerequisites before filing this action.

8. On or about July 3, 2018, PLAINTIFF filed a Charge of

Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(“EEOC”) alleging discrimination by DEFENDANT on account of

PLAINTIFF’s sex and unlawful retaliation by DEFENDANT.

9. On or about March 13, 2019, the United States Department of

Justice Civil Rights Division issued to PLAINTIFF a notice of dismissal and

right to sue DEFENDANT.

Grounds for this Action

10. At all relevant times, DEFENDANT was an “employer” within

the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) of Title VII.

11. At all relevant times, DEFENDANT had more than 500

12. At all relevant times, DEFENDANT provided from its general

for hiring and compensating employees of the WCSO—including specifying

their minimum qualifications, requiring drug tests, paying salaries, and

14. At all relevant times, DEFENDANT had the authority to hire,

transfer, promote, discipline, or discharge employees of the WCSO.

15. PLAINTIFF is a white female.

16. At all relevant times, PLAINTIFF was an “employee” of

DEFENDANT within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(f) of Title VII.

17. From on or about 2010 to on or about February 26, 2018,

DEFENDANT employed PLAINTIFF to work in the WCSO.

18. On or about February 26, 2018, DEFENDANT, acting through

position as a Deputy: Evidence Technician/Crime Scene Investigator in the

Evidence Section of the WCSO’s Criminal Investigation Division (“CID”)—

thereby constructively discharging PLAINTIFF.

19. Throughout the period Capt. Woods supervised PLAINTIFF in

CID, he made offensive and sexually vulgar comments about women—

creating a sexually hostile work environment for PLAINTIFF.

20. Throughout the period Capt. Woods supervised PLAINTIFF in

demonstrating his discriminatory animus toward women.

21. On or about February 26, 2018, Capt. Woods discriminated

PLAINTIFF could not perform those hours because of her responsibilities to

her 11 year-old daughter, thereby forcing PLAINTIFF to resign from her

position with the WCSO.

22. On or about February 26, 2018, Capt. Woods retaliated against

PLAINTIFF because she complained to him about his sexually offensive

hours because of her responsibilities to her 11 year-old daughter, thereby

forcing PLAINTIFF to resign from her position with the WCSO.

23. During PLAINTIFF’s employment with DEFENDANT, she held

various positions in the WCSO:

(a) In 2010, DEFENDANT hired PLAINTIFF as a Deputy -

Correctional Officer in the jail;

(b) In or about 2011, DEFENDANT promoted PLAINTIFF to

Deputy - Patrol Officer; and

(c) In or about September 2015, DEFENDANT promoted