Range v. Douglas
878 F. Supp. 2d 869
S.D. Ohio2012Background
- Plaintiffs are family members of Karen Sue Range, Charlene Appling, and Angel Hicks.
- Kenneth Douglas, Morgue Attendant, had sex with dead bodies while employed at the Hamilton County Morgue (1982–1992).
- Douglas' supervisors included Bernard Kersker (Morgue Director), Dr. Frank Cleveland (Coroner), and other officials; Douglas had documented attendance and tardiness issues.
- Douglas had alcohol and drug problems; he admitted drinking at work and using cocaine, with prior DUI history.
- Chavis (Douglas’ wife) and others alerted supervisors about Douglas’ conduct and alcohol problems, but actions were limited or delayed.
- Douglas resigned in 1992; years later, he was convicted of Gross Abuse of a Corpse (2008).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kersker and Cleveland are entitled to qualified immunity on §1983 claims | Plaintiffs allege due process violations from failure to supervise. | Defendants contend no clearly established rights were violated and immunity applies. | Qualified immunity granted on substantive and procedural due process claims against Kersker and Cleveland. |
| Whether the County can be held liable under §1983 for supervisory failures | County policy/supervision failures caused rights violations. | No Monell liability without a policy or custom causing the deprivation. | County not liable under §1983; no underlying constitutional violation found against individuals. |
| Whether state-law claims against the County survive immunity analyses | County liability under Ohio Rev. Code Chapter 2744 for negligent supervision. | Immunity defenses shield the County for certain acts; defenses may apply to individual claims. | State-law negligent supervision and retention claims by Range, Appling, and Hicks partially survive initial immunity analysis; summary judgment denied as to those claims the court recognizes factual issues remain. |
| Whether the Range plaintiffs’ intentional infliction of emotional distress claims are time-barred or meritorious | Claims timely under 2- or 4-year statutes for intentional torts; mis-handling may cause distress. | Argument about timeliness and immunity; some claims time-barred. | Intentional infliction of emotional distress timely; claims survive to be adjudicated on the merits. |
| Whether punitive damages are available | Punitive damages may be recoverable against individually named defendants. | §2744 bars punitive damages against political subdivisions; individual capacity may allow some recovery. | Punitive damages not available against the County or officials in official capacity; potential for punitive damages in individual capacity remains under the 2744.03(A)(6)(b) framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chesher v. Neyer, 477 F.3d 784 (6th Cir.2007) (duty to hold bodies in safe, respectful manner; conscience-shocking theory analyzed)
- Barrett v. Outlet Broadcasting, Inc., 22 F. Supp. 2d 726 (S.D. Ohio 1997) (barrier to due process liability under severe mishandling; display of body was conscience-shocking in Barrett)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (establishes municipal liability for unconstitutional official policy or custom)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1998) (conscience-shocking standard; ends of culpability spectrum; emergency vs. deliberateness)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-step qualified immunity framework (preferred approach); later modified by Pearson)
- Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115 (U.S. 1992) (due process limits on government actions; not a font of tort law)
- Brotherton v. Cleveland, 923 F.2d 477 (6th Cir.1991) (recognizes next-of-kin property-like interests in decedents' bodies under Ohio law)
- Albrecht v. Treon, 617 F.3d 893 (6th Cir.2010) (Ohio Supreme Court holding no protected property right in autopsy tissues; limits Brotherton scope)
- Zagorski v. South Euclid-Lyndhurst Bd. of Educ., 15 Ohio St.3d 10 (Ohio 1984) (retroactive abolition of governmental immunity for certain acts)
- Elston v. Howland Local Sch., 865 N.E.2d 845 (Ohio 2007) (policies and discretion under 2744.03(A)(3) involve policy-making duties)