Heath v. Bullitt County Board of Education et al, No. 3:2011cv00199 - Document 35 (W.D. Ky. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 5/23/12; Plaintiffs remaining causes of action are DISMISSEDWITH PREJUDICE. This is a final order.cc:counsel, Sharon R. Heath - pro se (DAK)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-199-H SHARON R. HEATH PLAINTIFF V. BULLITT COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION and BULLITT COUNTY DETENTION CENTER AND ADULT LEARNING CENTER DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On May 18, 2012, the Court held a conference with Plaintiff and counsel for the remaining Defendant, Bullitt County Board of Education. The parties and the Court thoroughly discussed the remaining claim. In February 21, 2012, the Court dismissed Plaintiff s age and gender discrimination claims as barred by the statute of limitations. That decision turned on the facts of that first EEOC complaint which was dismissed January 11, 2011, and that Plaintiff did not file her federal complaint until August 1, 2011. As it turns out, that first EEOC complaint also contained Plaintiff s only reference to her sexual harassment claim. Therefore, the sexual harassment is barred based upon the same statute of limitation grounds analysis. At the conference, Plaintiff explained that employees of the Bullitt County Detention Center were responsible for the harassment alleged in the complaint. Plaintiff was an employee of the Board of Education. It cannot be held responsible for alleged sexual harassment perpetrated by a third party. For all of these reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has no grounds to pursue a viable sexual harassment claim against the Board of Education. Being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff s remaining causes of action are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This is a final order. May 23, 2012 cc: Sharon R. Heath, Pro Se Counsel of Record

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.