A jury trial has been set for July 26, 2010, for a case that was filed in federal court in 2008. The case is one of alleged sexual harassment and discrimination against the Daviess-DeKalb Regional Jail District and its administrator, Larry Hadley. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri St. Joseph Division.
This website brought to you in part by the following sponsor:
The plaintiffs are Amy Sue Curtis of Maysville, Kayci Porter of Hamilton, and Cassie Brown of Bethany. Each of the three plaintiffs allege they were sexually harassed while employed with the jail district. Kayci Porter and Amy Sue Curtis also claim they were fired from their jobs because they complained about the sexual harassment. The attorney for the plaintiffs is Matthew J. Gist of Ensz & Jester P.C. of Kansas City.
According to Doug Harpool, attorney for the regional jail, the jail district and Hadley deny all of the allegations. Harpool said Porter and Curtis were fired because of bad performance and blatant insubordination. Two of the plaintiffs worked as security guards; one worked in the control center of the jail.
The Plaintiffs’ Complaint
The plaintiffs filed a four-count complaint on Aug. 11, 2008.
According to the preliminary factual statement in the plaintiffs’ complaint, the plaintiffs began working at the jail in 2006. The statement claims that all the plaintiffs satisfactorily performed their job duties throughout their employment with the Daviess-DeKalb Regional Jail District.
During employment at the jail, each plaintiff alleges to have been discriminated against by being subjected to a hostile work environment based upon their female gender. Without mention of specific dates or events, they allege they were repeatedly subjected to unwelcome offensive touching and offensive behavior by defendant Hadley. Plaintiff Porter claims that after she complained about sexual harassment, defendants retaliated by terminating her.
The plaintiffs assert that the Daviess-DeKalb Regional Jail District is liable for damages caused by the defendants’ intentional and/or wrongful and/or reckless acts. The complaint states that the offenses took place under circumstances where defendants are liable as government entities and as officials and individuals, respectively.
The plaintiffs claim to have suffered economic loss in the form of lost wages and lost benefits; vocational-professional losses in the form of a detrimental job record, loss of employment, career damage, damage to reputation and a diminished career potential; and inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life; and mental distress in the form of embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, emotional pain and suffering.
The plaintiffs also claim the Daviess-Dekalb Regional Jail District failed to take reasonable care to prevent the sexually harassing conduct, failed to exercise reasonable care to correct that conduct, failed to properly train its jail administrator about issues concerning sexual harassment in the work place, and failed to adopt and/or enforce an adequate policy against sexually harassing conduct in the work place.
The complaint states that the plaintiffs are seeking judgment in their favor for all compensatory and punitive damages awarded by a jury, for their costs including reasonable attorney fees, and such additional affirmative relief as the court may deem proper.
The Defendants’ Answer
In summary, the Daviess-DeKalb Regional Jail District and Larry Hadley, defendants, are denying any and all alleged offenses. The defendants also assert that the plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and they are barred in whole or in part by the statute of limitations.
The defendants claim that any and all actions with respect to the plaintiffs and their employment were non-discriminatory, were taken for legitimate reasons with good cause, and were taken in good faith exercising defendants’ reasonable business judgment.
The defendants state that the plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages are barred, because the defendants did not act with malice or reckless indifference to the plaintiffs’ rights, and the defendants made good faith efforts to comply with the applicable laws.
The above information has been obtained from online court documents, as well as statements from the defendants’ attorney. Jail Administrator Larry Hadley has refused comment and referred all questions to the jail’s attorney. The plaintiffs’ attorney has not responded to phone calls from this newspaper.