ILNews

7th Circuit affirms crime-lab ruling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court's decision of summary judgment in favor of Indianapolis and Marion County in an appeal filed by a former employee of the county's Forensic Services Agency, or Crime Lab.

In Kelly S. Coolidge v. Consolidated City of Indianapolis and Marion County, 06-3587, Coolidge appealed the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, ruling, saying pornography she found created a hostile work environment and that she was fired from her job in retaliation for her previous lawsuit against her Crime Lab supervisor, David Willoughby, for sexual harassment.

Coolidge sued Indianapolis and Marion County, claming that Willoughby continued to sexually harass her after his retirement by leaving behind pornographic tapes where she would find them. She found two pornographic videos in the Crime Lab's videotape cabinet that were unlabeled, so she watched them to determine what was on the tape. She found they contained pornography, took the tapes to her attorney to copy for evidence, and several weeks later, notified her supervisor of the incident. Willoughby denied any knowledge of the tapes.

The 7th Circuit ruled Coolidge's finding of the tapes does not create a hostile work environment because her discovery and viewing of the tapes was brief and not particularly severe. There was no evidence to show the tapes were Willoughby's and that he left them behind to harass Coolidge.

Coolidge argued in her appeal that she was passed over for Willoughby's position and that it was given to a lesser-qualified candidate who did not have the education needed for the job. The successful job candidate was, in fact, more qualified in education and experience than Coolidge, and there is no proof to show she was passed over because of her previous lawsuit.

Finally, Coolidge contended she was reprimanded and subsequently fired in retaliation for her lawsuit. Her two reprimands and a third incident were cited as the basis for her firing. The reprimands included taking Crime Lab evidence from the premises to copy and for failing to take a blood sample from a rape kit exam.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT