Allegations that a female police officer, unlike male police officers, was denied paid administrative leave, to provide the officer with additional time to investigate and to formulate a response to citizen complaints, without suffering loss of pay, can be sufficient to allege an adverse employment action. Allegedly, the plaintiff, a female police officer, was not treated the same as male police officers, because she was not immediately informed about citizen complaints, and she was not granted administrative leave. The plaintiff also alleged that she was subjected to a hostile-work environment, because a female chief of police allegedly referred to her as "that chick cop," in conversations with other police officers, and questioned her eligibility for time off. The defendant moved to dismiss and argued the plaintiff failed to allege a prima facie case. To prevail on disparate treatment, the plaintiff must prove the plaintiff: 1.) belongs to a protected class; 2.) performed her job adequately; and 3.) suffered an adverse employment action in circumstances that led to an inference of discrimination. Allegations that the plaintiff, unlike male police officers, was denied paid administrative leave, to furnish additional time to investigate and to formulate a response to citizen complaints, without suffering loss of pay, were sufficient to allege an adverse employment action. Allegations that male officers were granted administrative leave, that their eligibility for time off was not questioned and that sexually derogatory words were not used to refer to them, were sufficient to allege an inference of discrimination. "[E]vidence of this differential treatment coupled with the use of this gender-based, derogatory description by a police chief to refer to a female officer," wrote the court, "could connote the chief's inferior view of Plaintiff in a traditionally male position." The plaintiff adequately alleged she was similarly situated to male police officers who were treated differently. The phrase "chick cop" could indicate a lesser status and contribute to a hostile-work environment. The plaintiff adequately alleged that the defendant chief violated her right to equal protection and that she was subjected to a hostile-work environment. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss.

VIEW FULL CASE