Opinion
5:97-CV-1880
August 6, 2003
RENE S. OUDERKIRK, Plaintiff, Pro Se, 428 Old State Road, Redfield, N.Y. 13437.
Kimberly A. Lehtonen Pritchard, Plaintiff Pro Se, 65 March Road, Oswego, N.Y. 13126.
ROEMER WALLENS MINEAUS, ELENA M.R. DeFIO, ESQ., Attorneys for Defendants, 13 Columbia Circle, Albany, N.Y. 12203.
Richard C. Mitchell, Esq., Oswego County Attorney, 46 E. Bridge Street, Oswego, N.Y. 13126.
Copies to: Mary Ann Drabczyk, Investigator, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 6 Fountain Plaza, Suite 350, Buffalo, N.Y. 14202.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
In this action based upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that their constitutional rights were violated by defendants. Consistent with the pleading requirements of that statute, plaintiffs claimed that "the defendants maintain[ed] a policy of assigning female correction officers to housing duty only in the housing unit designated for female inmates and the male correction officers only in the housing units designated for male inmates." Co. at ¶ 16. They likewise alleged that the defendants maintained the exact same "practice." See id. at ¶ 16. Significantly, plaintiffs did not allege a policy and/or practice relating to the defendants' seniority system as it pertains to shift bidding. Furthermore, although the plaintiffs listed a number of "detrimental effects" as a result of those alleged discriminatory assignments, they did not allege any such policies and practices arising from defendants' failure to follow its own seniority system regarding shift bidding.
On July 2, 1999, this court issued a decision granting partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. In essence, the court found that defendants' gender-based staffing policy was based upon "an errant view of state law" in violation of section 1983. See Sheriff's Silver Star Association of Oswego County, Inc. v. County of Oswego, 56 F. Supp.2d 263, 270 (N.D.N.Y. 1999). The court further held that such "[a] misunderstanding of state law cannot be a constitutional justification for violation of the [Fourteenth Amendment's] Equal Protection Clause." Id.
Several months later the parties entered into a Stipulation of Dismissal "with prejudice[.]" Stip. of Dis. (Doc. # 36). That Stipulation further provided that "this Court shall retain jurisdiction to resolve any issues concerning compliance with its Decision and Order of July 2, 1999." Id. Evidently, until very recently the parties were living amicably under the terms of the court's order and subsequent stipulation of dismissal.
In early May 2002, however, two of the eight individual named defendants in this action, Ms. Ouderkirk and Ms. Lehtonen, brought charges of discrimination before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Ouderkirk and Lehtonen, female corrections officers with the Oswego County Sheriff's Department ("the Department"), allege that the Department has engaged in the following:
established a policy/practice where it will only fill vacancies with females when the vacancy was created by a female, thus, making it impossible for a female officer to get assigned to the b-line shift[;] . . . is failing to follow the seniority policy and giving preference to male officers when selecting for these positions.
Charge of Discrimination at 1-2 (emphasis added). These two women further allege that they:
Each officer brought a charge of discrimination, but the charges are identical except for the names.
were not assigned/selected for the b-line shift because of [their] gender, female, in willful violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended because [they] are as qualified or better qualified than the person(s) selected and [they] each have more seniority than the person(s) selected, who were males."
Id. at 2 (emphasis added).
On May 13 of this year, the EEOC issued its determination finding, inter alia, that each time there was a vacancy on the day shift, and Ouderkirk and Lehtonen applied for it, the vacancy was "filled with a male officer who had less seniority than the Charging Party and/or another female applicant." Determination at 1. In addition, even though the Department made the EEOC aware of this action, the EEOC unequivocally stated the issue before this court, the State law requiring minimum staffing of female correction officers in a female prison, "is not the issue in this charge." Id. at 2 (emphasis added). Given the evidence before it, the EEOC found "there is reasonable cause to believe that the [Department] has violated Title VII . . . by not selecting the Charging Party for the day shift even though she had more seniority than the male(s) who were selected." Id. Shortly thereafter an EEOC Investigator contacted the Department requesting a meeting to "provide compliance with . . . Title VII requiring efforts to conciliate[.]" Drabczyk Letter to Mitchell (County Atty.) (May 20, 2003) at 1. Included with that letter was a "conciliation invitation" setting forth what the EEOC "believes is required to ensure full relief . . . and future compliance with the law: . . . [Department] to assign the Charging Party to a permanent position on the . . . day shift[.]" Id. at 2.
Reasoning that "[t]he issues that are being addressed by the EEOC are identical to the issues resolved by this Court in 1999[,]" in a June 30, 2003 letter, defense counsel "request[ed] that the court assume jurisdiction" over this newly developed matter "and have a conference" on same. After being contacted by defense counsel, the EEOC Investigator agreed not to proceed until this court has decided whether this is a matter over which it retained jurisdiction. After carefully reviewing the complaint and comparing it to the various EEOC filings currently before the court, as well as reviewing the July 1999 decision, this court determines that it should not assume jurisdiction over the issues which are currently before the EEOC. First of all, the statutory basis for the two are different. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit invoked section 1983 as a basis for vindicating their constitutional right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, whereas now two of those individual plaintiffs are seeking compliance with Title VII which essentially prohibits discrimination in the workplace. The second important distinction between this lawsuit and the pending EEOC matter is that the issues presented are very different. The primary issue litigated herein was whether the Department's policy of prohibiting cross-gender assignments of correctional officers violated the constitution's equal protection clause. Now, however, the issue is whether the Department's failure to assign certain shifts based upon seniority violates Title VII. Given those differences, it cannot be said that the new shift bidding issue as it relates to seniority is an "issue concerning compliance with [this court's] Decision and Order of July 2, 1999[,]" and hence is not an issue over which this court retained jurisdiction under the terms of the Stipulation of Dismissal. Thus, at this juncture, the court declines to exercise its jurisdiction and allows the EEOC to proceed in the normal course of events.
If this matter is not resolved through the EEOC process, Ouderkirk and Lehtonen will, of course, be free to take whatever other action them deem necessary to protect their rights under Title VII.
IT IS SO ORDERED.