Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Moody v. Salt Lake County

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division

July 8, 2019

VIRGINIA MOODY, Plaintiff,
v.
SALT LAKE COUNTY, CAPTAIN RICHARD CHURCH, JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-5, Defendant.

          Judge Clark Waddoups

          REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 55)

          EVELYN J. FURSE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Virginia Moody filed the present Title VII civil rights action in December 2016. (Compl., ECF No. 2.) At that time, counsel represented Ms. Moody. However, in October 2017, the assigned Magistrate Judge permitted Ms. Moody's counsel to withdraw, (Order Granting Mot. to Withdraw as Counsel, ECF No. 16), and Ms. Moody now proceeds pro se. (Notice of Appearance, ECF No. 25.) Ms. Moody asserts a claim for retaliation under Title VII against her former employer, Salt Lake County, and Captain Richard Church, her former supervisor, in both his individual and official capacities (collectively “Salt Lake County Defendants”). (Compl. 2, ECF No. 2.) Ms. Moody claims that while working at the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office (“Sheriff's Office”) she filed a sexual harassment claim against Captain Church and that he retaliated against her by filing an Internal Affairs (“IA”) complaint against her relating to conduct involving her husband that had occurred months earlier. (Id., ¶¶ 17-22, 39- 40.) Ms. Moody also asserts a retaliatory constructive discharge claim, alleging that the Sherriff's Office “continued the [IA] investigation without disposition to pressure [Ms.] Moody to leave, ” that the Sheriff's Office refused to provide or provided her with false information concerning the investigation, and that the “Sheriff's Office continued to allow Captain Church to visit the workplace” after his retirement “despite complaints from [Ms.] Moody.” (Id., ¶ 45-47.) She claims that “[a]s a result of [Captain] Church's repeated appearances and the IA investigation that continued without disposition, [Ms.] Moody terminated her employment with the Sheriff's Office.” (Id., ¶ 34.) Finally, Ms. Moody appears to assert a retaliatory failure to rehire claim, apparently claiming that Salt Lake County failed to rehire her in retaliation for her filing a sexual harassment complaint. (Id., ¶ 36.) Specifically, Ms. Moody alleges that after leaving the Sheriff's Office, she “was designated as unhireable solely on the basis that she previously filed a sexual harassment complaint.” (Id., ¶ 48.)

         The Salt Lake County Defendants now move the Court for summary judgment on Ms. Moody's retaliation claims. (Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. (“Mot.”), ECF No. 55.) Ms. Moody asked for an extension of time until February 15, 2019 to file an Opposition to the Salt Lake County Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Mot. to Extend Time for Mot. for Summ J. Response, ECF No. 57.) The Court granted this request, (Order Granting Pl.'s Mot. to Extend Time for Mot. for Summ J. Response, ECF No. 58), but Ms. Moody did not file an Opposition on that date or at any time thereafter.

         After considering the Motion for Summary Judgment and the undisputed facts, the undersigned[1] RECOMMENDS that the District Judge grant the Salt Lake County Defendants summary judgment on all claims. First, the law prevents Ms. Moody from asserting a Title VII claim against Captain Church in his personal capacity. Second, with the exception of Ms. Moody's claim that Captain Church retaliated against her by filing an IA complaint, Ms. Moody failed to exhaust administrative remedies on her claims. Specifically, Ms. Moody's Utah Anti-Discrimination and Labor Division (“UALD”) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) Charge of Discrimination does not include any allegations or facts supporting her retaliatory constructive discharge or retaliatory failure to rehire claims. Third, the undisputed facts defeat Ms. Moody's claim that Captain Church retaliated against her by filing an IA complaint against her. The undisputed facts show that the IA investigation Ms. Moody claims Captain Church initiated predates Captain Church's alleged sexual harassment-and therefore her protected complaints concerning any alleged sexual harassment. The undisputed facts also show that Captain Church did not initiate the IA investigation, and the individual who did initiate the investigation-Lieutenant April Morse-had no knowledge of Ms. Moody's sexual harassment complaint until after she completed the IA investigation. Accordingly, Ms. Moody cannot show the existence of a materially adverse action or any causal connection between her protected activity-filing a sexual harassment complaint against Captain Church-and the initiation of the IA investigation against her. Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the District Judge GRANT the Salt Lake County Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         The Court grants summary judgment when the evidence shows “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “[A] party's failure to file a response to a summary judgment motion is not, by itself, a sufficient basis on which to enter judgment against the party.” Reed v. Bennett, 312 F.3d 1190, 1195 (10th Cir. 2002). “If the nonmoving party fails to respond, the district court may not grant the motion without first examining the moving party's submission to determine if it has met its initial burden of demonstrating that no material issues of fact remain for trial and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. at 1194-95.

         The party moving for “summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the record], which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). Thus, a court can grant summary judgment only “when the moving party has met its burden of production” under Rule 56. Reed, 312 F.3d at 1194. “If the evidence produced in support of the summary judgment motion does not meet this burden, ‘summary judgment must be denied even if no opposing evidentiary matter is presented.' ” Id. (emphasis in original) (quoting Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 160 (1970)).

         By failing to respond to a motion for summary judgment, “the nonmoving party waives the right to respond or to controvert the facts asserted in the summary judgment motion, ” and “[t]he court should accept as true all material facts asserted and properly supported in the summary judgment motion.” Reed, 312 F.3d at 1195; see also DUCivR 56-1(c). “But only if those facts entitle the moving party to judgment as a matter of law should the court grant summary judgment.” Reed, 312 F.3d at 1195.

         Courts generally construe pro se pleadings broadly. Jenkins v. Currier, 514 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir. 2008). However, courts cannot act as advocates for pro se litigants who must comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (indicating that the district court may not “assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant”); Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007) (stating that pro se parties must “ ‘follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants' ”) (quoting Garrett v. Selby, Connor, Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005)).

         In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the Court reviews “the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and draw[s] all reasonable inferences in the nonmovant's favor.” Jones v. Norton, 809 F.3d 564, 573 (10th Cir. 2015). The Court therefore focuses on whether reasonable jurors can “ ‘properly proceed to find a verdict for the party . . . upon whom the onus of proof is imposed.' ” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 251 (1986) (quoting Schuylkill & Dauphin Imp. Co. v. Munson, 81 U.S. 442, 448 (1871)).

         FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         The following facts come from the Salt Lake County Defendants' Motion. (Mot. 3-17, ECF No. 55.) Ms. Moody did not respond to the Salt Lake County Defendants' Motion and consequently, does not dispute these facts or set forth any additional facts.

         A. Ms. Moody's Employment with Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office

         Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office employed Ms. Moody[2] as a Corrections Specialist from August 9, 2010 until she resigned on April 2, 2015. (Mot., Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“Facts”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 55; Ex. A to Mot., Personnel File, SLCo Moody 000091, SLCo Moody 000001, ECF No. 55-2; Ex. Q to Mot., Decl. of Carita Lucey (“Lucey Decl.”) ¶ 6, ECF No. 55-18.) Ms. Moody successfully completed her six-month probationary period in February 2011 and became a merit employee at that time. (Mot., Facts ¶ 4, ECF No. 55; Ex. A to Mot., Personnel File, SLCo Moody 000072, ECF No. 55-2.) While employed by Salt Lake County, Ms. Moody generally met or surpassed expectations in her performance evaluations. (Mot., Facts ¶¶ 3, 5, ECF No. 55; Ex. A to Mot., Personnel File, SLCo Moody 000002-000004, SLCo Moody 000039-000041, SLCo Moody 000053-000055, SLCo Moody 000060, SLCo Moody 000073, SLCo Moody 000077-000080, ECF No. 55-2.) However, in December 2012 Ms. Moody received a verbal warning for incorrectly entering information into an offender database. (Mot., Facts ¶ 6, ECF No. 55; Ex. A to Mot., Personnel File, SLCo Moody 000058-000059, ECF No. 55-2.) In addition, in December 2013 Ms. Moody received a verbal warning and in January 2014 a written warning for failing to complete mandatory training. (Mot., Facts ¶ 6, ECF No. 55; Ex. A. to Mot., Personnel File, SLCo Moody 000029-000030, SLCo Moody 000047-000049, ECF No. 55-2; Ex. P. to Mot., Pl.'s Interrog. Responses, Response Packet No. 9 (11/22/13 Letter from Gleason to Moody), ECF No. 55-17; Ex. S to Mot., Decl. of Richard Church (“Church Decl.”) ¶ 10, ECF No. 55-20.)

         B. IA Investigation

         On or about November 23, 2013, the Internal Affairs (IA) Unit of the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office opened an investigation against Officer Jeff Moody after receiving a complaint from his ex-wife, Miken Baca, concerning the welfare of their children when in his custody. (Mot., Facts ¶ 9, ECF No. 55; Ex. R to Mot., Decl. of April Morse (“Morse Decl.”) ¶ 6, ECF No. 55-19.) Lieutenant April Morse of the IA Unit investigated that complaint. (Mot., Facts ¶ 10, ECF No. 55; Ex. R. to Mot., Morse Decl. ¶¶ 3-6, ECF No. 55-19.) After opening the IA case file concerning Officer Moody, Lieutenant Morse received an additional complaint from Ms. Baca about an incident that took place on November 27, 2013. (Mot., Facts ¶ 11, ECF No. 55; Ex. R. to Mot., Morse Decl., ¶ 7, ECF No. 55-19.) On November 27, 2013, Officers from the West Valley City and Unified Police Departments responded to Officer Moody's home on a report of domestic violence, which culminated in a physical altercation between Officer Moody and Ms. Baca's boyfriend. (Mot., Facts ¶ 11, ECF No. 55; Ex. R. to Mot., Morse Decl., ¶ 7, ECF No. 55-19; Ex. B to Mot., Police Reports, SLCo Moody 000095-000120, ECF No. 55-3.) After receiving this complaint, Lieutenant Morse broadened the scope of her investigation to include both incidents. (Ex. R to Mot., Morse Decl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 55-19.)

         On December 2, 2013, consistent with IA procedures, Lieutenant Morse interviewed Ms. Baca. (Mot., Facts ¶ 12, ECF No. 55; Ex. R to Mot., ECF No. 55, Morse Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 55-19.) During that interview Ms. Baca provided Lieutenant Morse with a copy of the 911 call that captured the November 27, 2013 events. (Id.) After listening to the audio, Lieutenant Morse realized that Officer Moody's then-spouse, Virginia Moody, the Plaintiff, participated in the incident. (Id.) The incident occurred outside the Moodys' apartment, and the recording revealed Ms. Moody yelling and swearing. (Mot., Facts ¶ 13, ECF No. 55; Ex. B to Mot., Police Reports, SLCo Moody 000098, SLCo Moody 000100-000101, SLCo Moody 000111, ECF No. 55-3; Ex. C. to Mot., IA Unit Investigation Report, Case No. INV-13-0146, SLCo Moody 000188, SLCo Moody 0000191, SLCo Moody 000193, SLCo Moody 000196-000197, SLCo Moody 000211, ECF No. 55-4.) Lieutenant Morse believed Ms. Moody's behavior potentially violated Sheriff's Office policy 2-2-03.07(3), which requires members to act professionally and be respectful, courteous, and civil with each other and the public, and Sheriff's Office policy 2-2-03.07(4), which prohibits the use of profane and indecent language to intimidate or incite a person to violence. (Mot., Facts ¶ 14, ECF No. 55; Ex. R to Mot., Morse Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 55-19; Ex. 1 to Ex. R to Mot., Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office Policy Manual, 2-2-03.07(3) & (4), ECF No. 55-19.)

         Before broadening the scope of her investigation to include Ms. Moody, Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office policy required Lieutenant Morse to notify Ms. Moody's commander or higher ranking officer. (Mot., Facts ¶ 15, ECF No. 55; Ex. R to Mot., Morse Decl. ¶ 10, ECF No. 55-19; Ex. I, Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office Policy Manual, 2-5-02.02(5), SLCo Moody 000244, ECF No. 55-10.) Consistent with this policy-and prior to Captain Church's alleged interactions with Ms. Moody in late December 2013-Lieutenant Morse contacted Ms. Moody's Division Commander, Captain Church, in early December to inform him of Ms. Moody's conduct and her intent to investigate the behavior she felt warranted review. (Mot., Facts ¶ 16, ECF No. 55; Ex. R to Mot., Morse Decl. ¶ 11, ECF No. 55-19; Ex. S to Mot., Church Decl. ¶ 17, ECF No. 55-20; Ex. C. to Mot., IA Unit Investigation Report, Case No. INV-13-0146, SLCo Moody 000197, ECF No. 55-4.) Captain Church gave his approval to Lieutenant Morse. (Id.)

         On December 10, 2013, Lieutenant Morse contacted Ms. Moody to apprise her of the investigation and to ask her to participate in an interview. (Mot., Facts ¶ 17, ECF No. 55; Ex. M to Mot., Pl.'s Responses to First Set of Admis. (Morse & Moody e-mail chain from 12/10/13 to 12/13/13), ECF No. 55-14.) Ms. Moody agreed to meet with Lieutenant Morse. (Id.) On December 16, 2013, Lieutenant Morse traveled to the jail to meet with Ms. Moody. (Mot., Facts ¶ 18, ECF No. 55; Ex. R to Mot., Morse Decl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 55-19.) At the outset of the interview, Lieutenant Morse explained the interview process to Ms. Moody, reviewed forms with her, and informed her that in addition to the conduct of her husband, Officer Moody, Lieutenant Morse wished to speak to Ms. Moody about her own conduct during the November 27, 2013 incident. (Id.) Ms. Moody indicated that she wanted to reschedule the interview so she could have a legal representative present. (Mot., Facts ¶ 19, ECF No. 55; Ex. R to Mot., Morse Decl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 55-19.) Lieutenant Morse agreed and terminated the interview. (Id.)

         On January 3, 2014, Lieutenant Morse met with Ms. Moody for the rescheduled interview. (Mot., Facts ¶ 20, ECF No. 55; Ex. R to Mot., Morse Decl. ¶ 13, ECF No. 55-19.) Lieutenant Morse again explained the interview process to Ms. Moody, reviewed forms with her, and again indicated that she intended to evaluate Ms. Moody's November 27, 2013 conduct for potential personal conduct violations in addition to that of her husband. (Id.) Ms. Moody verbally acknowledged that she understood the interview process and signed the forms related to the interview process, including the Recorded Interview and Garrity Warning Form and Member Notification Form. (Mot., Facts ¶ 21, ECF No. 55; Ex. R to Mot., Morse Decl. ¶ 14, ECF No. 55-19; Ex. B to Mot., Interview Forms, SLCo Moody 000121-000123, ECF No. 55-3.)

         On January 15, 2014, Lieutenant Morse completed her IA Report concerning Officer Moody and Ms. Moody. (Mot., Facts ¶ 22, ECF No. 55; Ex. R to Mot., Morse Decl. ¶ 15, ECF No. 55-19; Ex. C. to Mot., IA Unit Investigation Report, Case No. INV-13-0146, SLCo Moody 000186-000211, ECF No. 55-4.) Lieutenant Morse concluded that Officer Moody's conduct on November 27, 2013 violated numerous Sheriff's Office policies. (Mot., Facts ¶ 23, ECF No. 55; Ex. R to Mot., Morse Decl. ¶ 16, ECF No. 55-19; Ex. C. to Mot., IA Unit Investigation Report, Case No. INV-13-0146, SLCo Moody 000210-000211, ECF No. 55-4.) Lieutenant Morse also concluded that Ms. Moody's conduct on November 27, 2013 violated Sheriff's Office policies 2-2-03.07(3) and 2-2-03.07(4). (Mot., Facts ¶ 24, ECF No. 55; Ex. R to Mot., Morse Decl. ¶ 17, ECF No. 55-19; Ex. C. to Mot., IA Unit Investigation Report, Case No. INV-13-0146, SLCo Moody 000211, ECF No. 55-4.) Upon completing her Report, Lieutenant Morse notified Officer Moody's Division Commander and Ms. Moody's Division Commander, Captain Church. (Mot., Facts ¶ 25, ECF No. 55; Ex. R to Mot., Morse Decl. ¶ 15, ECF No. 55-19.)

         Lieutenant Morse did not make any disciplinary recommendations because the IA Unit does not handle the decision as to whether to discipline an employee as a result of an IA investigation. (Mot., Facts ¶ 26, ECF No. 55; Ex. R to Mot., Morse Decl. ¶ 19, ECF No. 55-19; Ex. I, Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office Policy Manual, 2-5-02.07(2)-(6), SLCo Moody 000246, ECF No. 55-10.) Lieutenant Karen Werner reviewed Lieutenant Morse's report and recommended that Salt Lake County impose no discipline against Ms. Moody. (Mot., Facts ¶¶ 27-28, ECF No. 55; Ex. R to Mot., Morse Decl. ¶ 20, ECF No. 55-19; Ex. O to Mot., Def's Responses to Pl.'s First Set of Discovery Requests (Ans. to Interrog. No. 1), ECF No. 55-16.) The Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office followed Lieutenant Werner's recommendation, and Ms. Moody received no discipline for her conduct during the November 27, 2013 incident. (Mot., Facts ¶ 28, ECF No. 55; Ex. O to Mot., Def's Responses to Pl.'s First Set of Discovery Requests (Ans. to Interrog. No. 1), ECF No. 55-16.) On the other hand, Officer Moody's Division Commander recommended termination for his role in the November 27, 2013 incident. (Mot., Facts ¶ 29, ECF No. 55; Ex. O to Mot., Def's Responses to Pl.'s First Set of Discovery Requests (Ans. to Interrog. No. 1), ECF No. 55-16; Ex. D to Mot., 2/24/14 Winder Letter to Moody, SLCo Moody 000262-000265, ECF No. 55-5.) Officer Moody received a letter from then-Sheriff Jim Winder stating that Salt Lake County intended to terminate his employment. (Mot., Facts ¶ 30, ECF No. 55; Ex. D to Mot., 2/24/14 Winder Letter to Moody, SLCo Moody 000262-000265, ECF No. 55-5.) Officer Moody acknowledged receipt of the letter and verbally resigned. (Mot., Facts ¶ 30, ECF No. 55; Ex. D to Mot., 2/25/14 Harris E-mail, SLCo Moody 000261, ECF No. 55-5.)

         C. Failure to Complete Mandatory Training

         From early September 2013 to October 30, 2013, the Sheriff's Office required all civilian employees to complete an online mandatory block of training by October 30, 2013. (Mot., Facts ¶ 32, ECF No. 55; Ex. A to Mot., Personnel File, SLCo Moody 000031-000032, ECF No. 55-2; Ex. S to Mot., Church Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 55-20.) Ms. Moody did not complete the mandatory training before she went on maternity leave in late October 2013. (Id.) On November 8, 2013, Captain Church received an e-mail informing him of employees, including Ms. Moody, who did not complete the training by the October 30, 2013 deadline. (Mot., Facts ¶ 33, ECF No. 55; Ex. A to Mot., Personnel File, SLCo Moody 000048-000049, ECF No. 55-2; Ex. S to Mot., Church Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 55-20.) On November 13, 2013, Captain Church indicated in his response to the email that Ms. Moody was present at work during the training period and would receive a verbal warning when she returned from maternity leave. (Mot., Facts ¶ 34, ECF No. 55; Ex. A to Mot., Personnel File, SLCo Moody 000047-000048, ECF No. 55-2; Ex. S to Mot., Church Decl. ¶ 10, ECF No. 55-20.) He also forwarded his e-mail to Ms. Moody's civilian chain of command, Marcie Atkinson and Mindy Gleason, with a carbon copy to Lieutenant Werner, asking them to prepare verbal warnings for all staff members, including Ms. Moody, who failed to complete this required training. (Mot., Facts ¶ 35, ECF No. 55; Ex. A to Mot., Personnel File, SLCo Moody 000047-000048, ECF No. 55-2; Ex. S to Mot., Church Decl. ¶ 10, ECF No. 55-20.)

         On December 17, 2013, after Ms. Moody returned from maternity leave, Ms. Gleason met with her for a year-end performance review and gave her the verbal warning for failing to complete the required training. (Mot., Facts ¶ 36, ECF No. 55; Ex. A to Mot., Personnel File, SLCo Moody 000039-000041, ECF No. 55-2; Ex. P. to Mot., Pl.'s Interrog. Responses, Response Packet No. 9 (11/22/13 Letter from Gleason to Moody), ECF No. 55-17.) Ms. Moody received an extension of time until December 23, 2013 to complete the training. (Mot., Facts ¶ 37, ECF No. 55; Ex. A. to Mot., Personnel File, SLCo Moody 000029-000030, ECF No. 55-2; Ex. T to Mot., EEO Compl., SLCo Moody 000177, ECF No. 55-21.)

         On December 31, 2013, Captain Church approached Ms. Moody during a shift change after she failed to complete the required training by December 23, 2013. (Mot., Facts ¶ 37, ECF No. 55; Ex. S to Mot., Church Decl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 55-20.) During the conversation, Ms. Moody attempted to explain that she failed to complete the training because of technical difficulties. (Mot., Facts ¶ 38, ECF No. 55; Ex. S to Mot., Church Decl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 55-20; Ex. T to Mot., EEO Compl., SLCo Moody 000184-000185, ECF No. 55-21.) Captain Church instructed Ms. Moody to submit a memorandum to her supervisor explaining why she did not complete the training; on January 1, 2014 she submitted the memorandum. (Mot., Facts ¶ 38, ECF No. 55; Ex. S to Mot., Church Decl. ¶ 13, ECF No. 55-20; Ex. A to Mot., Personnel File, SLCo Moody 000031- 000032, ECF No. 55-2; Ex. T to Mot., EEO Compl., SLCo Moody 000184-000185, ECF No. 55-21.) Ms. Moody also claims that during this encounter, Captain Church “invad[ed] [her] personal space” and said "What do I need to do, give you a spanking?" (Mot., Facts ¶ 38, ECF No. 55; Ex. T to Mot., EEO Compl., SLCo Moody 000184- 000185, ECF No. 55-21.) Captain Church does not recall making that remark. (Mot., Facts ¶ 38, ECF No. 55; Ex. S to Mot., Church Decl. ¶ 14, ECF No. 55-20.)

         On January 8, 2014, Lieutenant Werner sent Ms. Moody an e-mail informing her that her supervisor would issue a written warning because she failed to complete the mandatory training in December. (Mot., Facts ¶ 40, ECF No. 55; Ex. T to Mot., EEO Compl., SLCo Moody 000183, ECF No. 55-21.) Ms. Gleason issued Ms. Moody a written warning the same day. (Mot., Facts ¶ 40, ECF No. 55; Ex. A. to Mot., Personnel File, SLCo Moody 000029-000030, ECF No. 55-2.) Subsequently, Ms. Moody filed a grievance appeal, which Salt Lake County denied, upholding the written warning. (Mot., Facts ¶ 7, ECF No. 55; Ex. P. to Mot., Pl.'s Interrog. Responses, Response Packet No. 9 (2/10/14 Letter from Gleason to Moody), ECF No. 55-17.)

         D. Sexual Harassment Complaint and Investigation

         Also in early January 2014, Ms. Moody contacted Linda Hill, an EEO Analyst in Salt Lake County's Human Resources Department to make a report of sexual harassment.[3] (Mot., Facts ¶ 39, ECF No. 55; see Ex. P. to Mot., Pl.'s Interrog. Responses, Response Packet No. 8, ECF No. 55-17.) On January 14, 2014, Ms. Moody completed an Equal Opportunity Complaint form, indicating she wanted to discuss the complaint before filing a charge of discrimination. (Mot., Facts ¶ 41, ECF No. 55; Ex. T to Mot., EEO Compl., SLCo Moody 000176, ECF No. 55-21.) In a summary also dated January 14, 2014, Ms. Moody described her December 31, 2013 interaction with Captain Church, claiming that he “invad[ed] her personal space” and said "What do I need to do, give you a spanking?, ” as well as a related encounter January 6, 2014 in which she claims he “invaded [her] personal space” again while discussing her Gold's Gym membership. (Mot., Facts ¶ 41, ECF No. 55; Ex. T to Mot., EEO Compl., SLCo Moody 000184-000185, ECF No. 55-21.)

         On January 21, 2014, Ms. Moody followed up with Ms. Hill and Nilsa Carter, another EEO Analyst, stating she wished to “file charges of Discrimination/Sexual Harassment.” (Mot., Facts ¶ 39, ECF No. 55; Ex. P. to Mot., Pl.'s Interrog. Responses, Response Packet No. 8, ECF No. 55-17.) Ms. Hill acknowledged receipt of the complaint the same day. (Mot., Facts ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.