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.

Lisenby v. Lowndes County Sheriff's Department

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division

April 13, 2017

MARY E. LISENBY, Plaintiff,
v.
LOWNDES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          W. HAROLD ALBRITTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This cause is before the court on a Motion for Partial Dismissal filed by Defendant, Lowndes County Sheriff John Williams (“Sheriff Williams”) (Doc. # 13) and a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants, the Lowndes County Commission, the Lowndes County Sheriff's Department, Lowndes County Deputy Chris West (“Deputy West”), and Lowndes County Warden Marc Green (“Warden Green”) (collectively, the “Defendants”) (Doc. # 15), and supporting memoranda at law (respectively, Docs. # 14 and 16). Plaintiff filed a response (Doc. # 19) and Defendants filed replies (Docs. # 21 and 22-1).

         Plaintiff, Mary Lisenby (“Lisenby”) filed a Complaint in this case on January 27, 2017, alleging Title VII claims in two counts against all Defendants for racial/gender harassment, hostile work environment and retaliation.[1] For the reasons discussed below, the Defendants' Motions are due to be GRANTED.

         II. MOTION TO DISMISS

         The court accepts the plaintiff's factual allegations as true, Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), and construes the complaint in the plaintiff's favor, Duke v. Cleland, 5 F.3d 1399, 1402 (11th Cir. 1993). In analyzing the sufficiency of pleading, the court is guided by a two-prong approach: one, the court is not bound to accept conclusory statements of the elements of a cause of action and, two, where there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to entitlement to relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). “[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations, ” but instead the complaint must contain “only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. The factual allegations “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555.

         III. FACTS

         The allegations of the Plaintiff's Complaint are as follows:

         Plaintiff, Lisenby, a Caucasian female, began working for the Lowndes County Sheriff's Department on June 4, 2015 as a Deputy Sheriff. Sheriff Williams, locally known as “Big John” Williams, an African-American male, is the elected sheriff for Lowndes County. Sheriff Williams is the supervisor for all Lowndes County Sheriff's Department employees, including, formerly, Lisenby. In addition, Lisenby was supervised by Defendant Chief West.[2]

         On August 5, 2016, Lisenby was out on patrol when she made a routine traffic stop of a citizen who ran a stop sign. After pulling the citizen over, the citizen exited his vehicle and approached Lisenby in an “aggressive manner.” (Doc. 1, p. 3, ¶ 19). Lisenby advised the citizen to return to his vehicle.

         When Lisenby approached the citizen's vehicle, the citizen stated “I know Big John . . . and I am getting him on the phone.” Lisenby informed the citizen that it did not matter whether the citizen knew Sheriff Williams, or not. Nevertheless, the citizen continued trying to make contact with Sheriff Williams and, eventually, began talking to him on the phone. Soon thereafter, the citizen handed his phone over to Lisenby.

         Sheriff Williams ordered Lisenby not to ticket the citizen. Lisenby responded that she would, at least, give the citizen a written warning. Sheriff Williams “informed her that there was to be no traffic enforcement in his county without his permission, ” and then hung up the phone. (Doc. # 1, p. 4, ¶ 21) (emphasis added). At that point, abandoned by her supervisor and stripped of her authority to give a ticket to the citizen, Lisenby was left to take further verbal abuse from the citizen.

         Lisenby returned to the Sheriff's Department and was ordered by her supervisor[3] to draft a written report, detailing the traffic stop.

         A week later, Lisenby was informed that an investigator had been sent to the citizen's house to obtain a statement about the incident. However, Lisenby was never advised that she was under ...


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.