ILNews

Court deputy alleges discrimination

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Marion County deputy sheriff is suing her employer, claiming the sheriff's department discriminated against her when it selected male deputies for open positions within the court system.

Rita Smith filed suit Wednesday in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. In her suit, Smith v. Marion County Sheriff's Department, No. 1:09-CV-1058, she claims the Marion County Sheriff's Department violated the Family Medical Leave Act, discriminated against her because of her sex, and retaliated in violation of Title VII when she complained about discriminatory practices.

Smith joined the department in October 2005 and was transferred to the position of "court line" deputy in Marion County courts in August 2006. After one day of working in Marion Superior Court 9 in 2007, she was replaced by a male deputy. Smith alleges the MCSD falsified information stating the judge asked she be removed from the court.

Smith also alleges that she was constantly passed over for open deputy positions within the court system and those jobs were given to other male candidates with less seniority. She was also removed from a court line deputy position in Court 17 in March 2007 after conflict with her male partner. She believes he should have been removed because he instigated the conflict and she had seniority.

She also had been told deputies wouldn't be allowed to move with their judges if the judge is relocated to another court, although several male deputies who wished to move with their assigned judges were allowed.

Smith claims the MCSD harassed her about not showing up for roll call even though she was on approved Family and Medical Leave Act leave and that the department retaliated against her for vocalizing her objections to sexist, discriminatory practices.

Smith wants the court to enjoin MCSD from engaging in further acts of discrimination and retaliation, and to promote her immediately to a position in a major felony court. She also wants payment of any lost wages and money suffered as a result of the department's alleged unlawful actions, punitive damages, payment of her attorneys' fees, and any other relief to which she may be entitled.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT