Photo by Madoline Markham.
Homewood Police Department
The Homewood Police Department is located on 29th Avenue in downtown Homewood.
The Homewood Police Department filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging discrimination and racism within the department on March 2, 2022.
Victor Sims II, a Homewood police officer, filed the lawsuit claiming he was demoted to the rank of detective based on race on Feb. 10, 2022.
According to Sims' lawsuit, in August 2021, Sims was told by fellow police officer, Lieutenant Greg Brundage, he was being reassigned from HPD’s Special Investigation Unit, primarily a drug unit, to be either a school resource officer or a patrolman, due to a rule requiring HPD officers to be reassigned after serving a “special assignment” for five years.
Sims' lawsuit claims HPD routinely ignored the “Five Year Rule” with its Caucasian officers but is “following it to the letter [with] a Black detective.”
“This case should be dismissed,” the department's motion proclaimed. “To show liability, Sims must show that the disparate treatment and retaliation was because of a policy and custom of the City of Homewood. The alleged facts do not support that conclusion. He has failed to state a legally recognizable claim.”
According to the motion, the alleged act of discrimination - the transfer from the Special Investigations Unit - never occurred and a Caucasian female officer was also affected by the disbandment of the unit, per Sims’ lawsuit, thus he wasn’t treated differently.
The motion submits that the lawsuit failed to state facts necessary to impose municipal liability.
“A municipality is not a subject to Section 1983 liability under the doctrine of respondent superior based on the alleged unconstitutional conduct of its employees,” read the lawsuit.
The motion also claims “all Sims does is make random, unrelated accusations about unnamed officers, asserts conclusory allegations and then claims a ‘culture’ problem. He does not point to an official policy or custom.”
“These allegations - random conclusory assertions coupled with an acknowledgement of an anti-discrimination policy - cannot state a proper claim,” per the lawsuit.
According to the motion, in order for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must “state a claim to relief that is plausible ‘on its face,’ per Bell Atl. Corp. v Twombly.
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,” per Ashcroft v. Iqbal, according to the motion.
The Supreme Court has “two working principles,” per the motion, for facial plausibility. The first being that while the court evaluates dismissal motions, the court “must assume veracity of well-pleaded, factual allegations, but the court does not have to accept conclusions when they are couched as…factual allegations,” per Ashcroft v. Iqbal, according to the lawsuit.
The second is that “only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss,” according to the motion.
The motion claims Sims’ accusation of HPD’s failure to train its officers as well as deliberately doing so is “bare.”
“For the City of Homewood to be liable for a failure to train, Sims must ‘show that the city adopted a policy of failing to adequately train its officers,’” according to the Arnold Rogers v. City of Orlando court case, per the motion.
“A plaintiff establishes deliberate indifference by showing that the municipality knew of its inadequate training yet made a ‘deliberate choice not to take any action,’” according to the motion. “An imperfect system, which is all Sims alleges, does not equate to deliberate indifference.”
The motion claims Sims fails to “state valid employment discrimination claims” in his lawsuit.
“Even if Sims had stated a valid basis to impose liability against a municipality like Homewood, which he has not, he still would have to state a valid claim for the alleged discrimination,” according to the motion. “To state a claim for relief under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that an act of omission by a person acting under color of state law deprived him of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or other United States laws,” per the Hale v. Tallapoosa County court case, according to the motion.
The same ruling applies to claims of retaliation, the motion submits. “To make out a prima facie case of discrimination a plaintiff must show (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he was qualified to do the job; (3) he was subjected to adverse employment action; and (4) his employer treated similarly situated employees outside her class more favorably,” per the Knight v. Baptist Hosp. of Miami Inc. ruling, according to the motion.
According to the motion, the plaintiff also has to establish that they were engaged in statutorily protected conduct, suffered adverse employment action and there is “some casual relation” between the two events, per the ruling in the Alvarez v. Royal Alt. Developers Inc.
“Sims admits that one of the ‘adverse actions’ never took place,” per the motion. “Sims’s allegations make clear that when he was informed that he was being transferred from the Special Investigation Unit after five years, and complained that white officers were not being transferred, the transfer never took place. Instead, the decision was made to go another route entirely with the unit. Thus, the alleged discriminatory act, the transfer when others were not transferred, never took place.”
The motion also submits that when the Special Investigation Unit was dissolved, other officers experienced the same impact as Sims.
“Although Sims alleges that, after the Special Investigation Unit was disbanded, two white officers kept their pay and rank because of other assignments, he also alleges that another white officer was treated just like he was,” according to the lawsuit. “The third white officer likewise had a pay and rank change after the Special Investigation Unit was done away with. That alleged and actual fact is fatal to Sims’s claim.”
Per the ruling of EEOC v. Tex Instruments, Inc., according to the motion, “an action taken ‘across the board’ applying to all employees is not an adverse employment action.”
The Homewood Star will continue to follow this story as it develops.
