Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cottrell v. Clinton County

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

September 22, 2014

CLINTON COUNTY, IN, and SKIP EVANS in his personal and official capacity, Defendants.



This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 32) filed by Defendants Clinton County, Indiana ("the County"), and Skip Evans, in both his individual and official capacities ("Mr. Evans") (collectively, "Defendants"), as well as a Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Filing No. 39) filed by Plaintiff Tina Cottrell ("Ms. Cottrell"). Ms. Cottrell brought claims against the Defendants under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983, alleging that Defendants violated her rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution by disciplining her for openly criticizing the Clinton County Commissioners at public meeting.[1] For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED, and Ms. Cottrell's Motion is DENIED.


The material facts in this case are not in dispute, and are viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion under consideration. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 176 v. Balmoral Racing Club, Inc., 293 F.3d 402, 404 (7th Cir. 2002). Ms. Cottrell served as the Superintendent of Parkview Home ("Parkview"), which is a County owned assisted-living residential facility for handicapped and elderly individuals in Clinton County, Indiana. The Superintendent of Parkview reports to the County Commissioners, and the Commissioners appoint the Superintendent on an annual basis.

The Superintendent is responsible for directing and coordinating all operations at Parkview. The duties include directing personnel, preparing the annual budget, monitoring expenditures, maintaining financial records, monitoring resident trust funds, and ensuring the safety and well-being of residents and staff. Some of the Superintendent's essential duties, found in an official job description, include directing and coordinating operations of Parkview, answering the telephone and responding to inquiries and complaints, providing information or routing calls as appropriate, receiving complaints and mediating problems for residents and employees as needed, serving as liaison between Parkview and residents, family members of residents, civic groups, church groups and the general public in order to ensure good public relations to the community, and consulting with County officials and the general public as needed to exchange information, provide expertise, coordinate activities, discuss problems, or receive advice and direction. (Filing No. 34-2.)

Ms. Cottrell served as the Assistant Administrator for 14 years, prior to her appointment by the Clinton County Commissioners to serve as the Superintendent of Parkview in 2001. She was reappointed as the Superintendent each year thereafter until January 3, 2014. As Superintendent, Ms. Cottrell was a non-exempt salaried employee and was not required to clock in or clock out at the start or end of each workday. She typically maintained a regular work schedule of Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., and remained on-call as needed 24 hours a day.

In 2011, the County Commissioners became aware of surplus County property located at Parkview and they decided to dispose of the property using a private bidding auction process. Ms. Cottrell's only duties with respect to the auction were to place items on display and provide bid forms to inquiring bidders.

During her service as both Assistant Administrator and Superintendent of Parkview, Ms. Cottrell attended many County Commissioners' meetings. One such meeting that she attended was on May 20, 2013. On that date, Ms. Cottrell arrived at work at 7:00 a.m., and at approximately 8:00 a.m. she left Parkview and traveled to the Clinton County Courthouse to deliver some paperwork related to Parkview to the County Auditor. After turning in the paperwork, Ms. Cottrell stopped at the County Commissioners' meeting, which was already underway. Ms. Cottrell was not included on the meeting agenda, but walked into the Commissioners' meeting because she saw a County Councilman with whom she wanted to speak about donations for Parkview. She sat down in the gallery and motioned to the Councilman from across the room, indicating that he should call her. Ms. Cottrell then remained in the meeting because the Commissioners began asking her questions about the status of a gentleman who had recently been admitted to Parkview. The gentleman had no income and did not want to apply for any benefits. Following this discussion, the Commissioners began addressing a separate issue regarding certain farm equipment at Parkview that had become old and obsolete. There was discussion on whether insurance on the equipment was necessary and how much the equipment might be worth. Ms. Cottrell explained what each piece of equipment was and advised which items were still used at Parkview and gave her opinion that the items had minimal value. The discussion then turned to whether the equipment should be sold. When Mr. Evans, one of the Commissioners, mentioned the option of holding an auction to dispose of the equipment, Ms. Cottrell responded, "Oh Lord, please whatever you guys do when it comes to another auction do better than the first time. You wouldn't believe the calls we got." (Filing No. 34-3, at ECF p. 15). The discussion then addressed what happened at the previous auction of Parkview equipment held in 2011, and Ms. Cottrell commented that members of the community were upset because the auction was rushed, and because all of the items went to one individual.

On May 22, 2013, the Commissioners issued a written warning to Ms. Cottrell for her comment at the Commissioners' meeting. The written warning stated:

... you made a comment regarding the possible auction of equipment to the effect of I hope you do better that [sic] the last time.'... This type of comment is goes [sic] against the Code of Conduct adopted by the Board earlier this year where personal attacks made publicly are not permitted.

(Filing No. 34-4). The warning advised that future violations of the Code of Conduct or other inappropriate behavior could result in further disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Specifically, the warning stated that additional disciplinary action would be in the form of a final warning. (Filing No. 34-4, at ECF p. 2.)

According to Ms. Cottrell, she made the comment at issue because she had received numerous telephone calls and had personal face-to-face conversations with members of the public following the 2011 auction, about their dissatisfaction with the process. Ms. Cottrell believed people called her and spoke to her because they knew she was the Superintendent at Parkview. Ms. Cottrell did not formally inform the Commissioners about these complaints at the time they occurred in 2011, and the only time she advised the Commissioners about the calls and complaints was her commentary at the May 20, 2013, meeting. Additional facts will be addressed below as necessary.


Summary judgment is only appropriate by the terms of Rule 56 where there exists "no genuine issue as to any material facts and... the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. This notion applies equally where, as here, opposing parties each move for summary judgment in their favor pursuant to Rule 56. I.A.E., Inc. v. Shaver, 74 F.3d 768, 774 (7th Cir. 1996). Indeed, the existence of cross-motions for summary judgment does not necessarily mean that there are no genuine issues of material fact. R.J. Corman Derailment Serv., Inc. v. Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs., 335 F.3d 643, 647 (7th Cir. 2003). Rather, the process of taking the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, first for one side and then for the other, may reveal that neither side has enough to prevail without a trial. Id. at 648. "With cross-motions, [the Court's] review of the record requires that [the Court] construe all ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.