Warner Robins faces lawsuit for mishandling sex misconduct claim. Will a judge dismiss it?
A former Warner Robins city employee has sued the city alleging officials mishandled a sexual harassment and sexual assault complaint, but a federal judge has to decide if the case should carry on after a hearing Wednesday.
The victim alleged in her lawsuit filed May 23, 2022, that the city of Warner Robins and her superiors did not respond property to her sexual misconduct complaints against a traffic light technician, and then retaliated against her. In the Wednesday afternoon hearing, lawyers for the city of Warner Robins and her superiors argued that they did all they could to address her complaint, did not retaliate against her and requested for the case against them to be dismissed.
Judge Marc Treadwell didn’t issue a ruling Wednesday, and instead asked attorneys to address some facts that may be useful for him before he decides whether to dismiss the case against the city.
The allegation
Lawyer Robert Marx filed the lawsuit on behalf of the victim, who previously worked for the city of Warner Robins as an administrator for their building and transportation department. The Telegraph doesn’t identify alleged victims of sexual assault or harassment. The victim had allegedly experienced multiple instances of sexual harassment from a traffic light technician, Joel Davenport, the lawsuit says.
There are four defendants in the lawsuit:
- Warner Robins
- Randy Toms, the mayor during the alleged events
- City Marshal Terry Wood
- Bill Mulkey, the victim’s immediate supervisor
All are being accused of not enforcing the victim’s “right to be free of sexual harassment, sexual assault, retaliation and constructive discharge under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” according to the lawsuit.
Around March 2020, when the city paused many of its services due to COVID, the victim was the only administrative employee present in the building alongside Davenport. Starting in April 2020, Davenport allegedly started harassing the victim by making repeated comments about having an open marriage, saying she was attractive and suggesting they have sex.
On June 10 that year, Davenport’s behavior allegedly escalated when he grabbed her by her left wrist and physically dragged her toward the door of her office telling her that he wanted to have sex with her in the bathroom, saying that “nobody would miss her or notice that she was gone,” according to the lawsuit.
The victim fought him off and was able to get out of his grasp.
The victim later reported Daveport’s behavior to Wood and Mulkey, but they avoided addressing the specifics, citing the “tricky situation” regarding Davenport, considering he is the son-in-law of Toni Graham, the director of the human resources department, according to the lawsuit.
Toms hired an outside investigator to look into the allegations in July 2020. The victim met with the investigator along with Julia Mize, the city attorney, and was interviewed on the allegations.
The lawsuit alleges the investigator found her statements credible, that “it was concerning that there was no female to whom she could report the situation,” and, although the city’s sexual harassment policy required a report to be made to the victim’s immediate supervisor, the director of human resources or the mayor, the victim felt like she couldn’t report the allegations.
The investigator allegedly told Mize and Toms that the substance of the city’s sexual harassment training needed “revamping,” the lawsuit says.
After the investigation, Davenport was suspended for less than a week without pay, the lawsuit said. But even so, the victim alleged in her lawsuit that Davenport harassed her a couple of months after his suspension. On one occasion, when Davenport went inside her office and was inches away from her, she suffered a panic attack.
The victim was diagnosed as a sexual assault victim with anxiety, depression and PTSD, according to the lawsuit. She was “medically directed not to return to work at Warner Robins if it could not guarantee that Mr. Davenport would stay away from her.”
The lawsuit argued she was retaliated against for reporting on Davenport’s alleged sexual harassment by being reminded she was on her probationary period when she was at work and not being paid while on sick leave. Further, a Warner Robins police officer also told her that she was being monitored “so Mr. Wood would have a reason to fire her,” the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit said that when she attempted to file criminal charges or a restraining order with the Houston County Sheriff’s Office or the Warner Robins Police Department, both entities declined to investigate Davenport’s conduct further.
Davenport later resigned after he had allegedly sexually assaulted another female employee. The victim suing was asked by her superiors if she would want to come back to the job now that he was no longer there, but she declined. He was not criminally charged.
Contention over police comments
On Wednesday, both sides appeared in front of a judge to argue whether or not the lawsuit should be dismissed.
Laure Denton, the attorney representing Wood, Mulkey, Toms and the city of Warner Robins, argued that city officials followed their anti-harassment policy by handling the incidents and telling Davenport to be cordial.
And after the investigation results were disclosed, Davenport was “discipline(d) but not terminated,” Denton told Treadwell.
She further argued that Davenport did not engage after the complaint and that the city did not know of any actions on Davenport’s part after the investigation against him.
Denton contended there was no evidence of the victim being retaliated against with unpaid leave, monitoring or prevention of getting restraining order.
Because of this, and considering Wood, Mulkey and Toms are government employees potentially entitled to immunity, Denton argued that they should be dismissed from the lawsuit.
But Marx said the victim’s superiors knew about Davenport’s repeated misconduct after the investigation. He was instructed not to be in the victim’s office at all, and yet he could walk inside when the victim was alone, said Marx. Further, he didn’t need to say anything sexual toward her, since “metaphorically, if he went to the office, it would be harassment,” Marx told Treadwell.
The victim complained to Wood, but he would laugh about it, Marx said.
Marx said he believed the victim’s superiors were waiting for her to leave. He said she was allegedly being monitored and force into unpaid leave. When she complained to law enforcement, officials admitted that body camera footage from those complaints contradicted a written report.
“If her complaint had been investigated, she could have gotten a restraining order and he could have been indicted,” Marx said.
However, Denton argued that Davenport’s “mere presence does not constitute sexual harassment,” but the city still investigated. She also challenged that the police officer who told the victim she was being monitored was hearsay, but Treadwell said that, since he is a police officer, his statements are not hearsay.
At the end of the hearing, Treadwell said that they’ve “made some progress,” and ordered both parties to elaborate on their arguments about the police officer who told the victim that she was being monitored. Treadwell also wanted more information about how the police department and sheriff’s office played a role and whether the city employees sued in the lawsuit are entitled to immunity.
Marx and Denton must turn in documents detailing their side of these arguments by Jan. 10.
