Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06184/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06184-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

FI JED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United State::t c_,, 'It\: oi.' l.p1,Gd8 

Tf'rth d :·e-1.1 it 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT APR 2 21991 

VERNA STEWART, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

O'DONOGHUE REHABILITATION INSTITUTE, 

an Oklahoma Agency; JOHN Q. DOE, 

individually and as an unknown party; 

OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, 

an Oklahoma Agency, 

Defendants, 

and 

PAMELA F. TROUP, individually and as 

Administrator; MARIA GLENN, 

individually and as Interim Director 

of Nursing; MARY OVERALL, 

individually and as Assistant 

Administrator, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) No. 90-6184 

) (D.C. No. CIV-88-1592-A) 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, Circuit Judges, and KANE,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable John L. 

District Court for 

designation. 

* 

Kane, Senior District Judge, United States 

the District of Colorado, sitting by 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-6184 Document: 010110034275 Date Filed: 04/22/1991 Page: 1 
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff, a black female, commenced this action in district 

court alleging racial discrimination in employment as evidenced by 

her demotion from the position of head nurse at the defendant 

O'Donoghue Rehabilitation Institute (ORI). She also alleged 

retaliation for having filed an EEOC complaint alleging racial 

discrimination. She sought declaratory and injunctive relief and 

damages. Following the completion of discovery, defendants filed 

motions for summary judgment. 

The court granted the motions in part. The court held that 

plaintiff had conceded both her 42 u.s.c. § 1981 claim and her 

claim of retaliation as against all defendants. The court also 

held that petitioner had conceded her 42 u.s.c. §§ 1983 and 1985 

claims against defendant Oklahoma Department of Human Services 

(OOHS). The court granted ODHS's motion on plaintiff's claim of 

pattern or practice discrimination under Title VII, Glenn's motion 

on plaintiff's 42 u.s.c. § 1985(3) conspiracy claim, and held that 

plaintiff could not sue defendants Troup, Overall, and Glenn in 

their official capacities. 

The court denied the defendants' summary judgment motions on 

plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief under 42 u.s.c. § 1983 and 

her Title VII claim for disparate treatment. The court held that 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-6184 Document: 010110034275 Date Filed: 04/22/1991 Page: 2 
defendants Troup, Overall, and Glenn were not entitled to 

qualified immunity from damages in their individual capacities on 

plaintiff's section 1983 claims. These three defendants appeal 

the court's denial of qualified immunity. 1 

"Our task in such an appeal is not to determine liability on 

a battle of affidavits, but to determine whether, on the basis of 

the pretrial record, there exists a conflict sufficiently material 

to defendants' claim of immunity to require them to stand trial." 

Devargas v. Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., 844 F.2d 714, 719 

(10th Cir. 1988). we must determine "not whether defendants 

violated plaintiffs' rights, but whether defendants "violate[d] 

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a 

reasonable person would have known." Id. at 723 (quoting Harlow 

v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). 

Here, in order to determine the objective reasonableness of 

defendants' conduct for qualified immunity purposes, we must 

consider "whether the defendant[s) acted with an impermissible 

motive or intent--a highly 'subjective' factual element." Lewis 

v. City of Ft. Collins, 903 F.2d 752, 755 (10th Cir. 1990). The 

objective and subjective aspects of our inquiry are accommodated 

in the following manner. As a threshold matter, defendants "must 

make a prima facie showing of the 'objective reasonableness' of 

the challenged conduct." Id. (citing to Losavio, 847 F.2d at 649; 

and Martin v. District of Columbia Metro. Police Dep't., 812 F.2d 

1 The denial of "defendants' motion for summary judgment on 

qualified immunity grounds constitutes an appealable decision 

within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291." Pueblo Neighborhood 

Health Centers, Inc. v. Losavio, 847 F.2d 642, 644 (10th Cir. 

1988). 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-6184 Document: 010110034275 Date Filed: 04/22/1991 Page: 3 
1425, 1434 (D.C. Cir. 1987)). "Once a showing of objective 

reasonableness is produced, 'the plaintiff may avoid summary 

judgment only by pointing to specific evidence that the official's 

actions were improperly motivated,' Losavio, 847 F.2d at 649, 

thereby establishing the existence of a genuine issue of fact for 

trial." Lewis, 903 F.2d at 758. 

The undisputed facts show that plaintiff began her employment 

at ORI in 1981. In 1985, plaintiff was promoted to the position 

of head nurse with twenty-four hour responsibility for the 

operation of her unit. In 1988, plaintiff was demoted to the 

position of Infection Control and Quality Assurance Coordinator. 

In her complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendants Troup, 

administrator of ORI, and Glenn, Interim Director of Nursing at 

ORI, harassed her. She alleged that defendants Troup and Overall, 

assistant administrator of ORI, condoned the harassment and that 

Overall demoted plaintiff because of her race. Plaintiff further 

alleged that employee complaints against her were racially 

motivated and were inadequately investigated, thus providing a 

sham basis for her demotion. 

Defendants contend they have met their burden of establishing 

the objective reasonableness of their actions. Defendants point 

to the high turnover rate on plaintiff's unit, low morale, and 

complaints by employees. In conjunction with this, they note 

plaintiff's admission in her deposition that she had corrected or 

reprimanded 

employees. 

staff in the presence of patients, visitors, or other 

Defendants allege they tried to help plaintiff correct 

her problems, but note that plaintiff admitted in her deposition 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-6184 Document: 010110034275 Date Filed: 04/22/1991 Page: 4 
• 

she had made no changes in her behavior because she felt the 

problems were caused by defendant Glenn. In her brief on appeal, 

plaintiff admits that defendants appear to have met their burden 

of showing the objective reasonableness of their actions. 

Plaintiff's Reply Brief on Appeal at 11. 

To meet her burden of showing defendants' improper motives, 

plaintiff submitted affidavits of two fellow nurses stating she 

was a "good head nurse" and an affidavit of one nurse stating she 

overheard another nurse saying they had to help defendant Glenn, 

who wanted to get rid of plaintiff. Rec. Vol. 1., No. 50. 

Plaintiff submitted by affidavit that a high turnover rate existed 

on the unit before she became the head nurse and that she was not 

the only black nurse harassed. Rec. Vol. 1, No. 51. Plaintiff 

submitted that a former black head nurse told plaintiff she quit 

after experiencing harassment. (This nurse apparently was not 

deposed because she was working in Saudi Arabia.) Plaintiff's 

evaluation of July 1988, before her demotion, indicated a 

performance level of 177 or successful in her position although 

the problems submitted by defendants as the reason for plaintiff's 

demotion were noted in the evaluation. Rec. Supp. Vol. II, No. 

12. 2 Plaintiff also argues that defendants submitted no evidence 

as to how employee complaints were investigated or determinations 

as to racial motivation were made. 

2 The parties did not include defendants' briefs in support of 

their motions for summary judgment, the addendum, or plaintiff's 

response as part of the record on appeal. Consequently, we have 

had the record supplemented. See 10th Cir. R. 11.1.1. 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-6184 Document: 010110034275 Date Filed: 04/22/1991 Page: 5 
"If material factual disputes exist with regard to the 

actions of the official, summary judgment on the basis of 

qualified immunity is not possible." Campbell v. Mercer, 

926 F.2d 990, 992 (10th Cir. 1991)(citing Devargas, 844 F.2d at 

718-20). We hold that plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence 

to set forth an issue of fact as to whether defendants' actions 

were improperly motivated. "While plaintiff's claims may not 

prevail at trial, they are sufficient to overcome defendants' 

motion[s] for summary judgment." Garrett v. Rader, 831 F.2d 202, 

205 (10th Cir. 1987). 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John L. Kane 

Senior District Judge 

6 

Appellate Case: 90-6184 Document: 010110034275 Date Filed: 04/22/1991 Page: 6