ILNews

Judge: IFD discrimination suit can go to trial

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A federal district judge is allowing a sexual discrimination suit against an Indianapolis Fire Department chief to proceed to trial.

U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker in Indianapolis issued an order Tuesday in Morrison v. Indianapolis Fire Department Chief James Greeson, denying the chief's motion for summary judgment.

Filed in January 2006, the suit comes from what 10-year department veteran Ruth Morrison, a fire captain, describes as routine and repeated discrimination because she is female, including her not getting a promotion to chief in 2005. She accuses Greeson and the department of making her follow an order of hygiene and personal appearance when male employees are not required to do so, for reprimanding her for following similar practices that others use and don't get in trouble for, and for changing promotion procedure to adversely affect her application. Morrison wants a jury trial, compensation and damages, and promotion to chief with retroactive pay to December 2005.

In her 39-page order, Judge Barker points to several incidents that are later summed up as "serious and disturbing mistreatment alleged by Morrison."

Those include a "hair grooming incident" where Morrison was reprimanded in front of her crew for not pulling back her hair into a ponytail; the "missing radio incident" where she was reprimanded for a radio that went missing while she was on vacation; a "fuel run incident" where she was punished for sending a lone engineer to get fuel as her male counterparts often do without trouble; and several allegations of discrimination and retaliations involving the chain of command.

"Morrison has provided more than enough evidence of a hostile work environment at the IFD to withstand Greeson's motion for summary judgment," Judge Barker wrote. "The discriminatory treatment Morrison alleges is frequent and substantially severe and could certainly be understood to alter the conditions of her employment. Morrison has clearly met her burden here and has the right to present her hostile work environment claim at trial."

While neither party devoted much space in briefings to the failure to promote claim, and little caselaw is offered by the parties, Judge Baker cited the overall evidence presented as sufficient to allow it to go forward despite it being "far from watertight."
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

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT