LOGAN — On Monday, defendants in the sex discrimination suit against Ryan Black jointly filed an answer to the complaint, as well as a partial motion to dismiss.
Along with Black, Hocking County is named as a defendant. So is the county’s new prosecutor, Jennifer Graham, due to a federal rule of civil procedure: “When a public official is sued in his official capacity and departs,” in this case via Black’s resignation, “during the pendency of the lawsuit, the public official’s successor automatically assumes the role in litigation.”
Plaintiffs Kate Ricketts, a former office assistant, and Kelsey Vanscyoc, a former victim’s advocate in the prosecutor’s office, filed a slightly amended complaint last week, after their initial suit was filed back in February.
The original version of the complaint included claims of sex discrimination; retaliation; violation of First and Fourteenth Amendments; and failure to pay overtime. It alleged that while the two worked in the prosecutor’s office, Black subjected them to a constant, unsolicited stream of “demeaning, degrading, sexist and offensive comments and conduct,” creating a work environment akin to that of a “frat house.” Along with “constant, unpredictable outbursts” and screaming tirades, the suit alleges that he used his position of authority to coerce one of his employees into sex.
The two women claim they were ultimately forced to resign after they complained about his behavior. They also claim that the county and/or its agents were aware of the ongoing discrimination because of its “open and notorious nature,” but did not take sufficient action to end it.
“Plaintiffs believe their careers and reputations as government employees and victim advocates staff… have been destroyed by Mr. Black,” the amended complaint reads.
Aside from a few exceptions, including records of sexually explicit text messages, the defendants’ response roundly denies most of the accusations leveled by Ricketts and Vanscyoc.
It admits that Black and Vanscyoc engaged in sex on two occasions, one of which was while she was intoxicated; that he kept a shotgun in his office; that he remarked that “It’s my office, I’ll run it the way I want”; and that he referred to County Commissioner Sandra Ogle by a sexist and degrading epithet.
Critically, the response denies the claim by Ricketts and Vanscyoc that they were effectively forced to resign in retaliation for complaints made about Black’s behavior.
They were “never treated less favorable than similarly situated employees of a different gender,” the answer claims; ”did not make a verbal or written report” regarding harassment or discrimination in the office, and “failed to adequately perform their jobs” while employed in the office.
“Defendants did not act with deliberate indifference, malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner,” the response claims.
Also on Monday, the defendants released a document asking for partial dismissal of the lawsuit, variously against either Black or the county as a whole.
The partial motion to dismiss begins with Black’s alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying overtime to the plaintiffs. It requests dismissal because Black “cannot be sued, in his individual capacity,” for said violation.
On count 2, violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the county and Jennifer Graham seek dismissal because “a municipality cannot be held responsible for a constitutional deprivation unless there is a direct causal link between a municipal policy or custom” and said deprivation.
The county goes on to claim that no such custom or policy existed that permitted constitutional violations.
The defendants further asked that any alleged violation of the Fourteenth Amendment be summarily dismissed, as the plaintiff did not “plead and prove that available state procedures for redressing the wrong are not adequate.”
On counts 3 and 4, addressing employment discrimination on the basis of gender, the defendants have asked for dismissal against Black, based on the principle that “an individual cannot be held personally liable under Title VII, and as a result, can only be sued in his or her official capacity as an employer.”
Finally, on count 5, which seeks damages based on the likelihood of future harm, the defendants have asked that it be dismissed for all of them.
“Although plaintiffs claim that they will ‘continue to suffer irreparable, financial, reputational, and psychological injury,’” the answer states, “it is unclear how plaintiffs are being injured if they are no longer employed by the Hocking County Prosecutor’s Office.”
Meanwhile, Black is also facing a professional conduct complaint against him for his behavior while in office, filed by the Ohio Supreme Court’s disciplinary counsel, and echoing some of the allegations made in the lawsuit. Black has answered that complaint, denying many of its allegations, but also claiming that his mental health issues and alcohol use contributed to any misconduct he displayed.
A formal hearing on the complaint has been scheduled in Columbus on Sept. 11-12.
Email at rmorris@logandaily.com
Most Popular
Comments / 0