On Jan. 15, U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ordered the case of former Police Chief Melvin E. Turner vs. Sumpter Township to be referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan for a settlement conference.
On Feb. 1, Judge Diggs Taylor signed a notice to appear for the settlement conference before Judge Morgan in Ann Arbor. The conference will be held at 9:30 a.m. March 3 for the clients and the clients’ representatives.
The jury trial had been set for Jan. 19.
Court documents say Turner is seeking $75,000 and an informed source reported that a settlement is close to being agreed upon by both sides.
Turner claimed he was forced to resign his position as Sumpter Township Chief of Police because he is African-American. He also claims retaliation for filing a Civil Rights complaint.
He claimed the resignation was forced and constituted “a constructive discharge.” He said at the time of his termination he was earning a salary of over $71,000 per year along with valuable benefits of employment.
A motion for summary judgment, filed by Sumpter Township was denied by Judge Diggs Taylor on Jan. 12, 2009.
Cary S. McGehee of the law firm of Pitt, McGehee, Palmer, Rivers & Golden in Royal Oak is attorney for Turner. Thomas J. McGraw and Stacy J. Belisle of McGraw Morris P.C. represent Sumpter.
In the 2009 motion for summary judgment, attorney McGraw said, “Plaintiff does not have a complaint of any race discrimination. The complaint in this case is retaliation.
“There is no race discrimination claim here because plaintiff being African-American and a police chief followed I believe if my memory is correct at least two prior African-American police chiefs, and was followed by an African-American police chief. There are numerous African-American employees in Sumpter Township,” McGraw continued.
“If I’m not mistaken, my last employment case with Sumpter Township was a Caucasian individual who didn’t get the police chief job,” he said referring to Paul Davis.
“So although plaintiff argues like this is a race-discrimination case, that is not the case,” McGraw said.
McGraw said that while Turner said he was retaliated against for making his EEOC complaint on Dec. 13, 2006, back in 2005 there were three board members who investigated whether or not he was doing his job as chief of police and they came out with a memo in August in 2005, seeking his termination.
McGraw said this is 16 months prior to the Department of Civil Rights complaint.
“These individuals wanted to terminate him and believed he wasn’t doing his job,” McGraw said.
“This never changes at the township. These individuals obviously didn’t feel he was doing his job back in 2005, and at some point in time after the Department of Civil Rights complaint, at least one of these individuals felt he wasn’t doing his job,” McGraw said.
“But this isn’t something that plaintiff [Turner] can establish changed after the department of Civil Rights complaint because to the contrary we have the investigation, the memo seeking termination, and numerous other issues that arrived with this individual and these board members well prior to the complaint.”
McGraw stated that the majority of their disagreements arose from the contracts that Turner had. When the current board was elected, Turner already had a four-year contract for $60,000 a year. Turner wanted to make more money and the board wasn’t happy being stuck with a four-year contract so there was an agreement that something had to be done.
“So, in order to substantiate plaintiff’s raises the board, number one, said you cannot continue to take your police vehicle to and from Chesterfield Township from Sumpter Township. Plaintiff had a police vehicle to go back and forth.
“They also said if you’re going to have a new contract, we’re going to attach a list of expectations and a job description. When plaintiff eventually got a new contract, he got substantial raises. He was paid retroactive raises as bonuses and, in turn, he couldn’t take his vehicle to and from Chesterfield Township and he had a list of expectations attached to the contract.”
McGraw denied that the list was “laborious” as Turner’s attorney claimed, but “a very simple list of expectations of the police chief…”
But, McGraw said, Turner considered the requirements – not being able to drive his township vehicle an hour away and attacking the expectations of the police chief – completely improper and filed the Department of Civil Rights complaint.
McGraw said Turner can point to absolutely nothing that occurred that didn’t happen before the complaint. He said Turner claims he was forced to resign, “and that isn’t what happened in this case.”
McGraw said two things happened.
“There was going to be a board meeting held and this is February ’07. It was testified that somebody heard a board member, Alan Bates, say something to the effect that plaintiff should withdraw his Department of Civil Rights complaint or he might be terminated. That’s hearsay.
“Plaintiff will then testify that board member, Peggy Morgan, said to him, you need to either resign or you are going to be terminated. She never said anything about the Department of Civil Rights complaint. This is the same Peggy Morgan that said she was going to fire him back in August of 2005, but apparently didn’t get the votes or didn’t get around to it. Well, now in February of ’07, she apparently said before this meeting happens, resign or you’re going to be fired,” McGraw said.
Turner went into the meeting and Ms. Morgan said she wants to add the item of the police chief’s termination to the agenda and the item was approved an agenda item, McGraw continued.
He said Turner’s job had been an agenda item numerous times, including in August of 2005 when there was a memo to terminate him. It happened before Turner’s Department of Civil Rights complaint and now it happened again in 2007.
He said the board never got to address the agenda item, since Turner stood up and said he resigned and then read a prepared statement.
McGraw said that Turner also submitted a breach of contract claim, but there is no evidence of a breach of contract because in Turner’s contract there’s a “termination without cause provision.” This would include liquidated damages of 60 days [pay] in full settlement of any claim the employee may have against the employer.
McGraw reiterated that there was no retaliation in this case because nothing happened after the Department of Civil Rights complaint that hadn’t happened in the year and a half before the Civil Rights complaint.
“Individuals felt plaintiff wasn’t doing his job, didn’t deserve a high amount of pay. They actually paid him more, a lot more and then a day later got a retaliation complaint but still nothing happened that hadn’t happened in the year and a half prior,” McGraw said.
After further arguments by Turner’s lawyer and rebuttal by McGraw, Judge Taylor denied the township’s motion for summary judgment, stating, “There is apparently a question of fact on almost every point you’ve raised…”
Now, Magistrate Judge Morgan will handle the settlement conference that should bring the litigation to a close. The suit was filed in November 2007.