Friday, June 23, 2006

Luttrell harassing Employees

In light of the recent Supreme Court ruling on "hostile work environment", it appears maybe the Sheriff's Office may get a "review" for some of it's, nah let's call it like it is. Mark Luttrell may get a review for some of his shenanigans.

Touting himself as an excellent manager, he has issued the proclamation that all square pegs will be plugged into square holes. No law enforcement personnel are supposed to be assigned to non enforcement duties.

Well, the Report Center was closed down last week, and Capt Bobby Simmons was left with no assignment. It seems he has run afoul of Sheriff Luttrell and is being given the "treatment". I spoke with him a few days ago and asked where he had been assigned. He says the latest he has been told was that he would be reviewing work orders at the garage. Yep, I'd say he needs to look at the latest Supreme Court ruling in Burlington RR V. White. Here's an excerpt:

"Applying the standard to the facts of this case, there was a sufficient evidentiary basis to support the jury's verdict on White's retaliation claim. Contrary to Burlington's claim, a reassignment of duties can constitute retaliatory discrimination where both the former and present duties fall within the same job description. Almost every job category involves some duties that are less desirable than others. That is presumably why the EEOC has consistently recognized retaliatory work assignments as forbidden retaliation. Here, the jury had considerable evidence that the track laborer duties were more arduous and dirtier than the forklift operator position, and that the latter position was considered a better job by male employees who resented White for occupying it. Based on this record, a jury could reasonably conclude that the reassignment would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee. Burlington also argues that the 37-day suspension without pay lacked statutory significance because White was reinstated with backpay. The significance of the congressional judgment that victims of intentional discrimination can recover compensatory and punitive damages to make them whole would be undermined if employers could avoid liability in these circumstances. Any insufficient evidence claim is unconvincing. White received backpay, but many reasonable employees would find a month without pay a serious hardship. White described her physical and emotional hardship to the jury, noting that she obtained medical treatment for emotional distress. An indefinite suspension without pay could well act as a deterrent to the filing of a discrimination complaint, even if the suspended employee eventually receives backpay. Thus, the jury's conclusion that the suspension was materially adverse was reasonable."

This also would apply to a certain female inspector at the Sheriff's Office who was moved after she filed an EEOC complaint. I believe she may have a couple of attorneys salivating at the opportunity to file the suit for her!

You know, come to think of it, I was moved from the Computer Section to the midnight shift of the Fugitive Bureau after it was common knowledge that I intended to run for Sheriff. There were three lieutenants assigned to the Bureau at the same time and I was put on the midnight shift and given the oldest equipment and worst office. (Non perks are a subliminal way of establishing the pecking order at the SCSO). I think I'll have to speak with an attorney on this one myself.

1 comment:

Frustrated Deputy said...

I am a deputy too and I know that Satan was the most subtle beast in the forest. These devils get away with this because nobody challenges them, until you came along. I can't reveal who I am because I need my job, but you are on the money! Shine the light and watch the cockroaches run for cover. You've got Luttrell and his henchmen worried, keep up the good work!