Fort Smith officer’s race-bias suit lacks evidence, judge rules

FORT SMITH — A federal court judge has ruled that a city police officer did not have enough evidence to go to trial on charges of race discrimination and retaliation against the Fort Smith Police Department.

Western Arkansas Chief U.S. District Judge P.K. Holmes III granted a summary judgment Thursday and dismissed the 2015 lawsuit brought by Wendall Sampson Jr. against Fort Smith, a city official and several members of the Police Department.

The lawsuit was scheduled to go to trial before a jury June 19. Holmes dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, meaning it is dismissed permanently.

In the lawsuit, Sampson alleged the city and department violated his civil rights by discriminating against him because he is black and by retaliating against him for engaging in protected activity, Holmes wrote in the 34-page opinion.

Sampson claimed he was investigated and disciplined when white officers were not investigated for the same conduct, and he was not promoted while other similarly or less-qualified white officers received promotions, according to the opinion. He also claimed he was retaliated against for complaining about discrimination against him.

Defendants in the case were listed as the city of Fort Smith, City Administrator Carl Geffken, former Police Chief Kevin Lindsey and officers or former officers Jarrard Copeland, Levi Risley, Mark Hallum, Dean Pitts, Anthony Bowers, Doug Brooks, Daniel Grubbs, Austin Collins and Dawn Sprayberry.

Holmes wrote that the defendants argued Sampson failed to make the case for his claims and that, even if he did, the defendants had legitimate, reasonable explanations for each of their actions. They also argued they were covered by qualified immunity.

Holmes wrote in a footnote that while Fort Smith’s summary judgment evidence amounted to 850 pages, the response from Sampson’s attorney, Matthew Campbell of Little Rock, was 24 pages and relied heavily on two affidavits totaling five pages.

Holmes pointed out the department employed only one black officer out of a department of 165 officers for the eight years before Sampson filed his lawsuit.

“To the extent that Officer Sampson has relied on speculation, denials or allegations, without a proper basis in fact or clear citation of facts already in the record, the court will view such facts [from Fort Smith] as undisputed,” a portion of the footnote said.

Holmes wrote that to establish a case of unlawful race discrimination, Sampson had to show that he was a member of a protected class, he was meeting his employer’s job expectations, he suffered an adverse employment action, and similarly situated employees outside the protected class were treated differently.

Holmes analyzed each of the four issues over 24 pages and found Sampson’s evidence in each insufficient or absent.

He agreed, though, that the Police Department’s failure to hire, promote or retain black officers is evidence of discrimination.

“A casual review of the demographics of this community leaves the court with the impression that African-American representation in the Fort Smith Police Department is disproportionately low,” he wrote.

Holmes pointed out the department employed only one black officer out of a department of 165 officers for the eight years before Sampson filed his lawsuit, and that Sampson was only the 10th black officer in the department’s history.

With the exception of automatic seniority promotions, no black officer has been promoted in almost two decades prior to Sampson’s lawsuit, Holmes wrote.

He also noted in the opinion the fact that Sampson was the only black officer on the force was not proof of discrimination against him.