By MELINDA J. OVERSTREET
for Glasgow News 1
The City of Glasgow has filed its response to the civil complaint brought against it by Jennifer Arbogast, the city’s most recent former police chief, essentially denying any wrongdoing.
The lawsuit filed in Barren Circuit Court alleges gender discrimination, a hostile work environment and disparate treatment in violation of state law.
Arbogast, who began working for the GPD Sept. 27, 2002, according to the court document, told Glasgow News 1 in mid-February 2023 that she had been asked by Mayor Henry Royse – then less than three months into that role – to resign from her position at the top of the Glasgow Police Department, but she was then allowed to retire effective April 1 instead.
According to the civil action filed recently on Arbogast’s behalf in Barren Circuit Court, “[t]hroughout the tenure of her employment at GPD, Arbogast was promoted numerous times as she rose through the ranks. In July 2019, Arbogast was promoted to the position of Police Chief. Arbogast was the City’s first female Police Chief.”
Harold “M.D.” Armstrong was the mayor who appointed Arbogast following the departure of Guy Howie, whom Royse then later brought back as chief to replace Arbogast.
The lawsuit continues that Arbogast “experienced great success in her tenure …, although she had to deal with routine comments of gender discrimination.”
The city claims a total of 21 “defenses,” starting with broad statements such as that the complaint fails to state a claim up
on the city upon which relief may be granted and that any allegation not specifically admitted to denied, then, taking each paragraph of the complaint at a time, stipulating to the factual nature of certain statements in the complaint, while denying others or stating that the city has insufficient information to respond to the allegations, constituting a denial, or that the allegations “improperly” call for a legal conclusion that does not require an admission or denial from the city.
For example, the city agreed that the GPD is an agency of the city, which is a municipality in Barren County, Kentucky, and that “Arbogast, a female, is a former employee of the GPD.”
Where Arbogast’s complaint says, “On Feb. 14, 2023, Royse called Arbogast, specifically issuing her an ultimatum that either she could retire or he was going to terminate her employment.”
In the city’s response regarding that paragraph, “the Defendant admits that Mayor Royse made the legal determination to change police chiefs and informed [Arbogast] of the same. In response, [Arbogast] inquired whether she could retire as opposed to resigning. The mayor did not object and the Plaintiff subsequently did elect to retire.”
The city flat-out denies that, “[D]uring the conversation, Arbogast asked Royse the reason behind her being forced out of her job unwillingly, to which Royse was unable to provide any legitimate reason.”
Moving on from the paragraph-by-paragraph responses, the city also asks for sovereign immunity, governmental immunity, qualified immunity and or immunity allowable by certain state laws and also names specific laws such as the Kentucky Civil Rights Act as a defense.
The city claims as defenses that Arbogast did not exhaust administrative remedies, that her claim(s) may be barred by the statute of limitations, and that her employment was “at will” at all relevant times, among other issues.
“The Defendant states and pleads as a defense that all decisions made and actions taken by the Defendant with respect to Plaintiff’s employment, and the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment, were for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons and were taken in good faith and with reasonable grounds for believing that said actions were not in violation of federal or state law. In addition, all actions were taken without any malice and without any intent to injure or harm the Plaintiff …,” the response from the city states. “The Defendant states and pleads as a defense subject to proof, that any alleged injury or harm to the Plaintiff was caused, if at all, by persons acting outside the course and scope of their employment, in a manner and/or under circumstances that prohibit the attachment of liability to the Defendant.”
The city asks that Arbogast’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice; that it be awarded any costs, including attorney’s fees, it incurs related to the process; for a trial by jury as necessary; and any and all other relief to which it may be deemed entitled.
Comments