United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
D. Crabtree United States District Judge
Tiffany Dahlquist brings this employment discrimination
action against the City of Wichita, City Manager Robert
Layton, Chief of Police for the Wichita Police Department
(“WPD”) Gordon Ramsey, and WPD Detective Lance
Oldridge. In her First Amended Complaint (Doc. 13), plaintiff
asserts sex discrimination and harassment claims under Title
VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17, against the City
of Wichita, and various claims under Kansas state law against
matter is before the court on defendants' Motions to
Dismiss (Docs. 16 & 18) and plaintiff's Motion for
Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 47). On
February 1, 2019, plaintiff filed a two-page motion seeking
leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Doc. 47.
Plaintiff's motion provides no substantive argument for
why the court should grant her leave to file her proposed
pleading. On February 14 and 15, 2019, defendants timely
filed Responses opposing plaintiff's Motion for Leave.
Docs. 48 & 49. Plaintiff never has filed a Reply. And her
time for doing so has expired. See D. Kan. Rule
6.1(d)(1) (requiring parties to file and serve Replies within
14 days of Response).
reasons explained below, the court denies plaintiffs Motion
for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 47). The
court concludes that plaintiffs proposed Second Amended
Complaint fails to state plausible Title VII claims. The
court thus finds that plaintiffs proposed amendments-at least
as they would affect her federal claims-are futile. So, for
reasons explained below, the court denies plaintiffs Motion
for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint to the extent it
seeks to amend her federal Title VII claims. The court
declines to decide the portion of plaintiff s Motion for
Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint seeking to amend her
state law claims. And the court denies this portion of
plaintiff s motion without prejudice.
the court concludes that plaintiffs First Amended
Complaint-the operative Complaint, currently-fails to state
viable Title VII claims. Thus, the court reaches the
• The court grants City of Wichita, Robert Layton, and
Gordon Ramsey's Motion to Dismiss Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
18) in part and denies it in part. The court dismisses
plaintiffs federal Title VII claims against defendant City of
Wichita under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) because they fail to
state a plausible claim for relief. The court declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining
state law claims, and thus dismisses the state law claims
asserted against defendants City of Wichita, Robert Layton,
and Gordon Ramsey without prejudice.
• The court denies defendant Lance Oldridge's Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. 16) without prejudice. Plaintiff asserts
only state law claims against defendant Oldridge, and the
court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
those claims. The court thus dismisses plaintiffs state law
claims against defendant Oldridge without prejudice.
court explains how it reaches these rulings, below.
following facts come from plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint-the operative Complaint in the case. Doc. 13.
Plaintiff asserts these same factual allegations in her
proposed Second Amended Complaint. Doc. 47-1.
January 18, 2011, to February 13, 2017, plaintiff worked for
the WPD as a Police Officer for Patrol. The majority of the
WPD's law enforcement officers are male.
September 11, 2016, the WPD received a traffic report from a
driver who alleged that plaintiff had struck the other
driver's vehicle while plaintiff was driving her personal
vehicle and had failed to stop. The driver reported
plaintiff's license plate number to WPD officers as the
license assigned to the vehicle that struck her. A WPD
officer contacted plaintiff (who was off-duty), and asked her
to come to the police station. Plaintiff complied with the
request. When plaintiff arrived at the police station, the
WPD officer told plaintiff that a driver had identified her
vehicle as one that had struck the driver's vehicle
earlier in the day. Plaintiff denied striking another
vehicle, and told the officer she would have stopped if she
had hit another vehicle.
allowed the WPD officer to inspect her vehicle.
Plaintiff's vehicle had no damage suggesting it had
struck another vehicle. Nevertheless, the WPD officer asked
plaintiff to complete a Motor Vehicle Accident Report
(“MVAR”). Plaintiff refused to fill out the MVAR
because, she believed, she had not had an accident. Later,
the Fraternal Order of Police (“FOP”) advised
plaintiff that she should fill out the MVAR. Plaintiff
reluctantly filled out the MVAR, reporting that she was
informed she hit another vehicle but neither vehicle had any
September 12, 2016, the WPD assigned the matter to Detective
Mike Amy for criminal investigation. Also, plaintiff learned
that the WPD had initiated an internal investigation into the
matter. Plaintiff asserts that Detective Amy conducted an
aggressive criminal investigation. Among other things,
Detective Amy interviewed employees of a restaurant that
plaintiff patronized on September 11, 2016, and asked them
about plaintiff's alcohol consumption at the restaurant.
He interviewed the driver who made the traffic report,
inspected her car, and showed her a photo lineup. He
subjected plaintiff's vehicle to more inspection. And,
Detective Amy and Detective Oldridge secured surveillance
video and a copy of a receipt from a liquor store showing
that plaintiff had purchased alcohol.
September 15, 2016, Detective Oldridge called plaintiff and
asked her to meet with him. When she arrived at the meeting,
Detective Oldridge gave plaintiff a document titled Official
Notification of Administrative Internal Investigation and
informed her of her Garrity rights. Plaintiff asked a
FOP representative to attend the meeting with her. The FOP
representative told Detective Oldridge that it was highly
unusual to commence an internal investigation before a
criminal investigation's conclusion. Detective Oldridge
responded that he needed to initiate the internal
investigation that day because plaintiff was scheduled to
leave town the next weekend.
September 28, 2016, plaintiff learned that Detective Amy had
presented the results of the criminal investigation to the
district attorney. The district attorney declined to
prosecute plaintiff because there wasn't sufficient
October 12, 2016, Detective Oldridge sent an email to
plaintiff asking to interview her again. Plaintiff's FOP
representative told plaintiff that the interview was
scheduled for October 25, 2016, but later the FOP
representative told plaintiff the interview was cancelled. On
October 25, 2016, Detective Oldridge called plaintiff and
asked why she wasn't at the interview. When plaintiff
explained that her FOP representative had told her that the
interview was cancelled, Detective Oldridge became angry and
combative. He told plaintiff that the Professional Standards
Board controls internal investigations, not the FOP.
November 4, 2016, two WPD officers interviewed plaintiff as
part of an investigation into Detective Oldridge's
conduct. During the interview, plaintiff complained that
Detective Oldridge had violated her constitutional rights in
the criminal matter by commencing an aggressive internal
investigation during a criminal investigation. Also,
plaintiff complained, Detective Oldridge had spoken with her
in an unprofessional manner.
January 3, 2017, plaintiff learned from her FOP
representative that, based on the results of its internal
investigation, the Professional Standards Board was planning
to serve her with an F Penalty-discipline that is punishable
by termination. The FOP representative also told plaintiff
that the WPD would give her a due process hearing before
termination. Plaintiff met with the FOP on January 10, 2017,
to review some of the evidence collected in the internal
investigation. During the review, plaintiff found several
errors in a WPD officer's report about his investigation.
January 11, 2017, plaintiff attended a due process hearing.
No. disciplinary action was taken at the hearing. Instead,
the WPD decided to postpone disciplinary action until it
could clarify information contained in a WPD officer's
February 13, 2017, plaintiff received a letter from the WPD
informing her that it was terminating her employment
effective February 13, 2017, at 5:00 p.m. The letter recited
that: “[o]n September 11, 2016, you were reported to be
involved in a hit and run accident. During the subsequent
investigation it was determined that you departed from the
truth.” Doc. 13 at 10 (Am. Compl. ¶ 71). On
February 16, 2017, plaintiff met with WPD Human Resources.
And, on February 17, 2017, plaintiff's FOP representative
told plaintiff that WPD Human Resources had overturned her
termination and reinstated her employment with the WPD.
plaintiff returned to work, she was the subject of false
rumors and harassment. Specifically, plaintiff contends, WPD
officials released false information to news outlets. And,
the Wichita Eagle newspaper allegedly ran stories
that falsely accused her of drinking and driving and being
involved in a hit-and-run accident. Plaintiff contends that
the hostile circumstances she ...