A jury recently awarded $2.6 million in damages to a highly decorated police officer because of discriminatory behavior premised on her gender and sexual orientation.  How did this happen?

Stacey Yerkes, who identifies as gay, filed suit against her employer, the Ohio State Highway Patrol (“OSHP”), where she worked from 1994 to 2018, and four of her direct supervisors. During her employment with OSHP, Yerkes was promoted to Criminal Interdiction Training Sergeant, a special role created for her and her work partner. In this role, Yerkes was tasked with representing OSHP by training law enforcement officers in Ohio and throughout the country on criminal interdiction. Yerks also received numerous awards throughout her career at OSHP.

Yerkes alleged that during her employment, she was targeted and criticized for minor infractions that other male officers were not penalized for, such as leaving her vehicle on and unattended during an arrest, failing to wear her hat during a traffic stop, arriving one minute late to her shift when other officers did without reprimand, wearing civilian attire when driving her patrol car on the way to a work conference as did other male officers including two of her supervisors, and having a tattoo in violation of OSHP’s policy when other officers did without reprimand. Yerkes also alleged that she was subject to sexual comments as to her sexual identity as gay and to hostile and inappropriate comments from her fellow officers and supervisors.  According to the suit, Yerkes was also required to perform “demeaning” tasks that were not assigned to straight men.

In 2017, Yerkes filed a complaint to her supervisor regarding discriminatory and hostile behavior and no action was taken. In 2018, Yerks filed a complaint with the EEOC regarding the hostile behavior and alleged sex discrimination based upon gender, gender stereotypes, and sexual orientation.  Yerkes immediately told her supervisor of the complaint with the EEOC and was terminated shortly afterwards.

Yerkes brought suit under several federal statutes including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, alleging that OSHP and her supervisors unlawfully terminated her employment (1) because of her sex; (2) because of her sexual orientation; and/or (3) because she engaged in the protected activity of opposing unlawful sex discrimination and filing a charge of discrimination.

The jury found that OSHP constructively discharged Yerkes and discriminated against her on the basis of her gender and her sexual identity, and found that OSHP retaliated against her for filing an employment discrimination claim.  The jury awarded Yerkes $1.3 million in compensatory damages, $624,108 in back pay and $684,815 in front pay.

Although this verdict was issued in Ohio, it has newfound resonance in Texas.  In August of this year, the United Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ended the long-time precedent of limiting actionable adverse employment actions under Title VII to so called “ultimate employment decisions.” This change in precedent expanded the latitude of Title VII, meaning that in Texas, the discriminatory practices that Yerkes in her lawsuit could be considered “terms and conditions of employment.”

The Yerkes verdict underscores the importance for employers to document their policies well in the employee handbook and/or policy/procedure book. In addition, best practices include employers documenting an employee’s pay, performance, incidents and/or time at a company from the start through the end of their employment. The EEOC also provides tools for employers to use in order to stay in compliance with anti-harassment, discrimination, disability and other federal protection statutes.

The attorneys in our Austin and Dallas offices handle a variety of employment related matters. Please contact us at info@gstexlaw.com if you have any questions.

Legal Disclaimers

This blog is made available by Gerstle Snelson, LLP for educational purposes and to provide general information about the law, only.  Neither this document nor the information contained in it is intended to constitute legal advice on any specific matter or of a general nature.  Use of the blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with Gerstle Snelson, LLP where one does not already exist with the firm.  This blog should not be used a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney.

©Gerstle Snelson, LLP 2023.  All rights reserved.  Any unauthorized reprint or use of this material is prohibited.  No part of this blog may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system without the express written permission of Gerstle Snelson, LLP.