Most of the claims made in a federal sexual discrimination lawsuit filed by a Limestone County Sheriff’s Office investigator against Sheriff Mike Blakely and Chief Deputy Fred Sloss were denied this week in a response filed by attorneys.

The lawsuit filed Jan. 14 by Leslie Ramsey accuses Sloss of inappropriate behavior, including groping, while she was visiting Sloss’ home. Her lawsuit also accuses Blakely of demoting her from investigator to a patrol deputy when she reported the incident.

The incident that sparked the suit allegedly occurred Jan. 14, 2017, when Ramsey and her boyfriend at the time, Bobby Joe Ruf, visited Sloss’ residence. Ramsey claims she was alone with Sloss in the driveway of the residence when Sloss touched her inappropriately. She also claims Sloss promised her a promotion if she consented to his advances.

Ramsey said she told Ruf about the incident on their car ride home.

In the response filed this week, the defendants acknowledge Ramsey and Ruf “invited themselves” to his home. They deny all of Ramsey’s other claims related to the alleged assault.

Criminal investigation claim

One seemingly new claim addressed in the defendants’ response relates to a possible criminal investigation conducted into the claims against Sloss. Paragraph 39 of the complaint said the “investigation into the alleged sexual assault was concluded with no charges being brought.”

Ramsey’s original lawsuit claims “no proper law enforcement investigation was undertaken regarding the sexual assault” as of Sept. 12, 2017. The News Courier reached out to attorney Mark Maclin, one of the attorneys representing Blakely, Sloss and the Limestone County Commission — which is also named in the lawsuit — to ask about the criminal investigation referenced in the response.

Specifically, Maclin was asked when the investigation began, when it was concluded, who conducted the investigation and if Sloss was placed on administrative leave during the course of the investigation. Maclin was also asked about Sheriff’s Office protocol when a deputy is accused of wrongdoing. He issued the following statement:

“As those questions go to the pending litigation and issues of the lawsuit I have no comment on them at this time.”

Other claims and assertions

The response acknowledges Ramsey filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in November 2017. However, it says because Ramsey’s complaint with the EEOC is pending, she has not been issued a “Right to Sue letter.”

Also acknowledged in the response is Blakely’s meeting with Ramsey on or about May 22, 2017, to discuss her involvement in the annual Limestone Sheriff’s Rodeo. The response also admits Ramsey’s father contacted Blakely on or about the same day.

Ramsey’s lawsuit claims her meeting that day, at which Sloss was also present, resulted in a reprimand regarding her involvement with the rodeo. Her lawsuit claims her father called Blakely later that day to report the January assault.

The response acknowledges Ramsey filed a grievance on or about May 24 but deny it concerned the alleged sexual assault. Ramsey’s lawsuit claims the grievance addressed both the assault and the rodeo reprimand.

Two days later, Ramsey’s lawsuit claims, Blakely demoted Ramsey from investigator to patrol duty. Blakely further ordered her to vacate her office and assigned her to second-shift patrol for approximately one week.

On or about June 2, 2017, Capt. Guy Simmons told Ramsey she was being further demoted to third-shift patrol. He also gave her a letter of reprimand, dated May 30, for allegedly losing her sheriff’s department-issued cellphone and for insubordination, which Ramsey disputed.

The response acknowledges Ramsey submitted a letter dated June 6, 2017, to then-Commission Chairman Mark Yarbrough, which mentioned the sexual assault allegation, the demotion and Blakely’s alleged retaliatory conduct.

Due to the ongoing harassment and retaliation relating to Ramsey and her grievances with the sheriff’s department, she requested leave on or about June 26, 2017. She was required to use her accrued paid leave, then she was on unpaid leave for approximately three pay periods.

The commission held a closed-door hearing with Ramsey on Aug. 7, 2017, regarding the grievance. Ramsey claims she was never issued a ruling but did receive back pay on Sept. 14, 2017. She was then placed on paid leave.

The defendants’ response disputes Ramsey was never issued a ruling but acknowledges she was converted from unpaid to paid administrative leave. It also makes the following claims:

• Ramsey was paid for all hours of unpaid leave as if she had been on paid leave as she requested;

• Ramsey’s accrued leave time she used while on leave was restored, save for hours she had already scheduled to take off; and

• She was allowed to remain on paid leave, pending the “criminal investigation into her allegations against Defendant Sloss”; and

• Ramsey was requested to return to work Feb. 19, 2018.

The response claims all decisions concerning Ramsey’s employment “were based on legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons.” It also says Ramsey’s gender “was not a motivating factor” in any employment action or decision and the defendants “exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any discriminatory behavior.”

It also says Ramsey cannot “provide future pecuniary losses, emotional pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life or other non-pecuniary damages so as to justify an award of compensatory damages.”

New orders

An order filed Wednesday added defense attorney Robert Lockwood to the case. Lockwood and Maclin both practice for Athens-based firm Wilmer & Lee. Ramsey is being represented by Rebecca McKinney of Huntsville-based Watson McKinney LLP.

Another order set a telephone status conference in the case for 9:30 a.m. Thursday, March 7.