 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Judge's order has a warning
By LEANORA MINAI © St. Petersburg Times, published January 18, 2001 ST. PETERSBURG -- A federal judge who threw out a lawsuit by a former St. Petersburg police officer said in a final written order that the court heard "troubling evidence" about police Chief Goliath Davis III and his department. The jury could have found that former Officer Karen Lea was a victim of retaliation, wrote U.S. District Judge Ann Aldrich. "No one should regard the court's decision in this case as an endorsement of the Police Department or the manner in which it ended the career of a 24-year veteran of the force," Aldrich wrote. She took "no pleasure" in dismissing Lea's lawsuit Jan. 8, Aldrich wrote. The case was thrown out because Lea could not meet strict legal standards to prove retaliation based on her complaint of sexual harassment. Davis said that the judge's order is based on just one side of the story. The city never had the opportunity to put on its case because the judge dismissed the suit. "A trial usually has two sides to it," Davis said. "All she heard was their side of the story, and their side of the story was never contested by us." Aldrich also wrote in her finding that a jury could conclude that Officers Tonia Nave and Linda Perez were stripped of their positions because they testified in support of Lea at a separate city hearing. Nave and Perez since have sued the city, but their cases have not gone to trial. Last year, Lea sued the city of St. Petersburg, saying Davis had it in for her. She said she was unfairly disciplined because she complained about a subordinate officer who made sexually suggestive remarks to her. Eight months after the remarks by Officer James McConaughey, Lea lost her temper when a computer manager inadvertently deleted a file she had worked on for two hours. She made profane remarks about the employee's sexual orientation. She was suspended for 30 days and demoted from sergeant to officer. Aldrich wrote that Lea got "worse than she deserved" for the remarks to the computer manager. In her lawsuit, Lea said McConaughey was given considerably lighter discipline from Davis for incidents of misconduct resulting from McConaughey's drinking problem. The judge agreed with Lea, calling the disparity "shocking." The court ruled the behavior by McConaughey, while "distasteful, offensive and inappropriate," was not sexual harassment or severe enough to constitute a hostile work environment. To establish a successful retaliation case, Lea had to prove that she complained about McConaughey because she genuinely believed she was being sexually harassed. The court was not convinced of that and favored the city's position that Lea reported McConaughey's acts in the context of getting him help for a drinking problem, not discipline. Aldrich was out of the country and could not be reached for comment. Lea, 49, said Wednesday that she is considering an appeal. Recent coverageJudge stops former officer's lawsuit (January 9, 2001) City official says he urged leniency (January 6, 2001) Attorney disputes officer's allegations (January 5, 2001) Former police officer: Discipline was biased (January 4, 2001) Chief conflicts (December 3, 2000) Judge removes police chief from lawsuit (May 3, 2000) Ex-officer's lawsuit alleges retaliation by the brass (March 11, 2000) Attorney to give statement on chief (September 10, 1999) One more chapter in the saga of the police chief (August 31, 1999) Davis brings change, spawns controversy (May 30, 1999) Defender of chief is also his inquisitor (May 15, 1999) Investigators: Testimony led to punishment (May 8, 1999) Ex-officer's lawsuit claims retaliation (February 23, 1999) Who truly gets dignity, respect at police station? (February 9, 1999) St. Petersburg chief walks tightrope (June 14, 1998)
 © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 
|
From the Times South Pinellas desks |
