An officer’s complaint, an outside investigation and a captain’s firing produced nine years of litigation and a settlement paid on the last day of 2012.
By Staff Reports
More than two decades ago, an internal complaint inside the Seagoville Police Department set off a legal fight that outlasted the careers of the officers at its center. The complaint accused a ranking officer of sending offensive and sexually explicit material to a subordinate. It ended nine years later with a $45,000 payment from the city.
A complaint filed in July
The dispute began on July 3, 2003. On that day Sgt. Kimberly Bustos filed a written complaint against Capt. David Lytle, one of her superior officers.
According to a later opinion from a Texas appellate court, Bustos accused Lytle of violating the city policies on internet use and workplace harassment. She alleged that he sent emails containing offensive and sometimes pornographic images. She said his conduct also violated the city policy prohibiting sexual and other unlawful harassment.
What started as a personnel matter did not remain one. It grew into an outside investigation and a termination. Competing accusations followed and the litigation stretched across nearly a decade.
An outside investigator steps in
Seagoville Police Chief I.D. Smith asked David Landers to conduct an internal affairs investigation. Landers was then an assistant chief with the Hutchins Police Department. Bringing in an investigator from another agency placed the inquiry outside Seagoville’s own chain of command.
Landers concluded that Lytle had sent inappropriate emails. His report also described the two officers as having once shared a friendship that extended beyond their working relationship.
Landers believed Bustos no longer wanted that friendship to continue, according to the appellate opinion. He also believed she might not have communicated that to Lytle in a way he understood.
The report drew one important distinction. Landers said a document describing the allegation as sexual harassment contained a typographical error. He wrote that the conduct he actually investigated was harassing conduct.
Landers did not recommend that Lytle be fired. He proposed a written reprimand in the captain’s personnel file and the removal of Lytle as Bustos’ immediate supervisor. He also recommended relocating the two officers so they no longer shared an office area and requiring Lytle to write Bustos a formal apology.
Chief Smith imposed a far heavier penalty.
The chief orders a termination
Smith notified Lytle on Sept. 11, 2003 that the department was sustaining charges of internet misuse and harassing conduct. The chief also informed him of an additional alleged violation of the city computer and email policy. He requested a written response.
Three days later Smith reviewed that response and ended Lytle’s employment. The termination letter said his conduct violated city policies against sexual harassment and improper use of government internet and email systems.
The internet policy barred employees from using municipal systems to send or receive material that could be considered offensive or harassing. Sexual comments and images were listed among the examples.
The harassment policy prohibited actions and words and jokes based on sex or other legally protected characteristics. Both policies permitted discipline up to and including termination.
The city manager upholds the finding
Lytle appealed to Interim City Manager Denny Wheat. After a hearing Wheat reached a divided conclusion.
He found that the allegations of improper internet use had not been conclusively demonstrated. He also determined that Lytle had violated the city sexual harassment policy, and he upheld the termination.
That finding carried weight beyond an unresolved workplace dispute. The outside investigator had described the matter as harassing conduct and recommended discipline short of firing. The chief fired Lytle under the sexual harassment policy and the city manager sustained that decision on appeal.
Competing accounts
The publicly available appellate opinion does not reproduce every email or image involved in the case. It does state that Bustos submitted notes and cartoons and a drawing along with emails and cards. She said the materials contained sexually explicit images and offensive messages sent to her by Lytle.
Lytle disputed her account. In later court filings he accused Bustos of making false and malicious statements to secure a more favorable position within the department. He submitted responses that he said told a different story about their interactions.
The dispute moves to court
Lytle filed suit on Feb. 4, 2004. He named the City of Seagoville along with Bustos and Wheat. He also named council members Sid Sexton, Malcolm Thomas, John Cunningham and James Suddeth.
Lytle argued that Seagoville had failed to follow Texas laws governing complaints against police officers. Those laws required a complaint to be written and signed before the head of a law enforcement agency could consider it. They also required an officer to receive a copy within a reasonable time.
The statute further barred termination based on a complaint unless the allegations were investigated and supported by evidence. Landers wrote in his report that Lytle complained he had never received a copy of the Bustos complaint. Landers said he responded by asking Lytle to discuss the allegations and give his side of the story.
Lytle asked the court to withdraw the disciplinary action. He sought reinstatement to his former position and pay grade along with back pay and benefits. He also sued Bustos personally for libel and slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The case was filed in the 86th Judicial District Court in Kaufman County. The defendants then moved it into federal court.
A federal magistrate judge dismissed Lytle’s federal constitutional claims in April 2005. The court found that he had not shown a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment with the department. The judge declined to rule on the remaining state law claims and returned them to Kaufman County.
Immunity protects the sergeant
The case eventually reached the Fifth District Court of Appeals in Dallas. In an opinion issued June 13, 2007 the court ruled that Bustos was protected by official immunity from Lytle’s personal claims against her.
The judges considered sworn affidavits from Bustos and Seagoville Human Resources Director Shareese Weaver. Bustos said her complaints described incidents of inappropriate conduct directed at her. She said city policy required employees to report possible violations and that she had not discussed her allegations outside the official investigation and the legal proceedings.
Weaver told the court that employees were required to report suspected misconduct to a supervisor or to the Human Resources Department. Reports of potentially unlawful conduct were treated as part of an employee’s official responsibilities.
The appellate court found that Bustos acted in good faith while performing a discretionary duty within the scope of her employment. It ordered the libel and slander and emotional distress claims against her dismissed.
The ruling was not a jury verdict settling every factual dispute between the two officers. The court held only that Bustos had met the legal requirements for official immunity. Lytle’s competing version of events was not enough to overcome that protection.
A mixed ruling for the city
The appellate court split its decision on the claims against Seagoville. It dismissed Lytle’s demands for back pay and any benefits that would require a monetary judgment.
The judges concluded that governmental immunity shielded the city from those claims. The Legislature had not clearly authorized that type of lawsuit for damages.
Other portions of the case were allowed to proceed. Those included his requests for reinstatement and for withdrawal of the disciplinary action and future compliance with the law.
Reinstatement was classified as an equitable remedy rather than an award of money. That distinction meant governmental immunity did not automatically bar the claim.
The decision removed Bustos from personal liability and blocked Lytle from recovering back pay. It did not end the lawsuit.
Years pass before a settlement
City Council records show the Lytle case remained active for several more years. Agendas and minutes document private discussions about the lawsuit and possible settlement offers during 2012. Those discussions took place under the provision of the Texas Open Meetings Act that allows elected officials to consult privately with their attorneys about pending litigation.
The council met behind closed doors with its attorney on Dec. 17, 2012. That was more than nine years after Bustos filed her original complaint.
After returning to open session the council voted unanimously to authorize a settlement. The agreement provided for a full release and dismissal of the lawsuit. The public minutes did not disclose the amount and stated only that payment could not exceed the figure discussed in executive session.
What the city checkbook shows
Seagoville’s financial records supply the number the minutes withheld. The December 2012 accounts payable register lists check No. 44630 in the amount of $45,000. The check is dated Dec. 31, 2012.
The vendor entry begins with the words “Attorney John Weddle and” before the remainder of the payee name is cut off in the published register. Weddle was the attorney who represented Lytle in the litigation.
The city budget for the following year offers further confirmation. In an accounting of General Fund expenditures that occurred only once, Seagoville listed a $45,000 legal settlement for fiscal year 2013.
The matching amount and timing and attorney name together establish that the $45,000 check resolved the Lytle case. The available records do not show how much of that money Lytle personally received after attorney fees and litigation expenses.
The settlement should not be read as a reversal of the city’s harassment finding. Public records describe a full release and a dismissal of the lawsuit. They do not show that Seagoville rescinded the termination or withdrew the administrative finding or admitted wrongdoing.
A lasting public record
What remains is an unusually detailed public account of a misconduct complaint inside a small municipal police department. A sergeant accused a captain of sending sexually explicit and offensive communications. An outside investigator confirmed that inappropriate emails had been sent but recommended discipline short of dismissal.
The chief fired the captain anyway. The city manager upheld that decision after finding a violation of the Seagoville sexual harassment policy.
Lytle denied the accusations and challenged the way the city handled the complaint. His lawsuit ran for nearly nine years and forced Seagoville to defend its actions in both federal and state courts.
Bustos received legal protection for reporting the conduct. Lytle was blocked from recovering back pay through the claims the appellate court considered. Other parts of his lawsuit survived long enough to produce a $45,000 settlement.
A complaint filed inside the Seagoville Police Department in the summer of 2003 remained a legal and financial burden for the city until the final days of 2012.
