University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Semsroth v. City of Wichita EE-KS-0027
Docket / Court 6:04-cv-01245 ( D. Kan. )
State/Territory Kansas
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Case Summary
On July 28, 2004, female police officers filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, against the police chief, the Wichita Police Department, and the City of Wichita in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The plaintiffs alleged that ... read more >
On July 28, 2004, female police officers filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, against the police chief, the Wichita Police Department, and the City of Wichita in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The plaintiffs alleged that they were discriminated against and asked the court for relief in the form of damages and an injunction against future discriminatory actions. Specifically, the plaintiffs contended that they were subjected to a hostile work environment, denied promotions or the ability and opportunity to be meaningfully considered for promotions, denied proper training opportunities, and denied terms and conditions of employment that are commonly granted to similarly situated or less qualified males.

In October of 2004, the court (Judge Monti L. Belot) dismissed claims against the police chief in his official capacity and claims against the Wichita Police Department. Semsroth v. City of Wichita, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30727 (D. Kan. 2004). The plaintiffs continued with their claims against the police chief personally and against the City of Wichita. According to the PACER docket, the court (Judge Belot) denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification on September 29, 2005. On April 27, 2007, the court (Judge Belot) granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Semsroth v. City of Wichita, 2007 WL 1246223 (D. Kan. 2007).

On December 22, 2008, the appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgement with respect to the hostile work environment and retaliation claims of one of the plaintiffs but upheld the judgement against the other plaintiffs. Semroth v. City of Wichita 304 Fed.Appx. 707 (10th Cir. 2008). The parties jointly stipulated to dismissal of the case with prejudice on June 1, 2009. The case is now closed.

Andrew Kline - 04/06/2008
Kenneth Gray


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Defendant-type
Law-enforcement
Discrimination-area
Discipline
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)
Pay / Benefits
Promotion
Training
Discrimination-basis
Sex discrimination
General
Pattern or Practice
Retaliation
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
42 U.S.C. § 1983
42 U.S.C. § 1981
Defendant(s) Wichita Police Department
Plaintiff Description Four female police officers employed by the City of Wichita filing on behalf of themselves and similarly situated individuals
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Mixed
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Unknown
Source of Relief Unknown
Form of Settlement Voluntary Dismissal
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year 2009
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Megacases, Diversity, and the Elusive Goal of Workplace Reform
Written: Mar. 01, 2008
By: Nancy Levit (University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law)
Citation: 49 B.C. L. Rev. 367 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach
By: Susan Sturm (Columbia Law School)
Citation: 101 Colum. L. Rev. 458 (2001)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
6:04−cv−01245 (D. Kan.) 07/03/2007
EE-KS-0027-9000.pdf | Detail
General Documents
Opinion 10/14/2004 (2004 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 30726) (D. Kan.)
EE-KS-0027-0007.pdf | LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: LexisNexis
Opinion 10/25/2004 (2004 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 30727) (D. Kan.)
EE-KS-0027-0006.pdf | LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: LexisNexis
Complaint 03/31/2005
EE-KS-0027-0001.pdf | Detail
Opinion 10/21/2005 (2005 WL 2708337 / 2005 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 26001) (D. Kan.)
EE-KS-0027-0005.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Opinion 09/05/2006 (2006 WL 2570557 / 2006 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 63294) (D. Kan.)
EE-KS-0027-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Opinion 11/15/2006 (239 F.R.D. 630) (D. Kan.)
EE-KS-0027-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Opinion 04/27/2007 (2007 WL 1246223 / 2007 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 31733) (D. Kan.)
EE-KS-0027-0004.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Judges Belot, Monti L. (D. Kan.)
EE-KS-0027-0004 | EE-KS-0027-0005 | EE-KS-0027-0006 | EE-KS-0027-9000
Bostwick, Donald W. (D. Kan.) [Magistrate]
EE-KS-0027-0002 | EE-KS-0027-0003 | EE-KS-0027-0007
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Williamson, Lawrence W. Jr. (Kansas)
EE-KS-0027-0001 | EE-KS-0027-0002 | EE-KS-0027-0003 | EE-KS-0027-0004 | EE-KS-0027-0005 | EE-KS-0027-0006 | EE-KS-0027-0007 | EE-KS-0027-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Rundell, Kelly J. (Kansas)
EE-KS-0027-0001 | EE-KS-0027-0002 | EE-KS-0027-0003 | EE-KS-0027-0004 | EE-KS-0027-0005 | EE-KS-0027-0006 | EE-KS-0027-0007 | EE-KS-0027-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -