The lawsuit alleges Beth Prall, an employee since 1998, was treated differently than her male counterparts and that she and her husband have faced retaliation because of her complaints.
Attorneys for the defendants filed answers with the court denying most of the Pralls’ allegations.
Sheriff Gene Fischer, who is not named as a defendant, said he is concerned about the allegations in the lawsuit but would not comment extensively about it.
“This is an issue that it’s unfortunate it’s got to this position,” he said. “Even though I’m not personally named, when it says Greene County, I’m representing Greene County. Do I have strong feelings on this? Absolutely.”
Lawyer Dawn Frick, with the firm Surdyk, Dowd & Turner in Miamisburg, has been retained by the county and Prindle to handle their cases. Greene County Prosecutor’s Office Civil Division Chief Elizabeth Ellis said she’s confident the claims will be found to be unsubstantiated.
The others lawyers contacted either declined to comment or were unable to be reached.
Outlining allegations
In the suit, Beth Prall claims she was removed as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) during a shift when the standing order was for deputies to name themselves OIC if another deputy was not designated.
The suit said Barrett removed Prall as OIC on June 26, 2009, and named a less-senior male deputy to the position. That deputy said he did not want to be OIC and Beth Prall assumed the duties. For that, she claims she was given an oral reprimand reduced to writing for trying to “resist, argue or defy” an order.
She grieved through her union, but the reprimand was upheld. The suit said Prindle indicated her punishment was lenient for “insubordination” and that he would recommend a serious length of suspension or (job) separation.
The suit alleges another male deputy “threw a temper tantrum” when he was not designated as OIC after a less-senior deputy was. The next night, Barrett allegedly changed the schedule to put the more senior deputy in charge. Pralls’ attorney, Jill May, with Flanagan, Lieberman, Hoffman, & Swaim in Dayton, said other deputies did not face disciplinary action.
Another incident involved a cell phone text message she sent a friend where she mentioned it was priceless to get paid overtime to watch an Ohio State Buckeyes football game. Beth Prall said she was on an approved lunch break at her home and left immediately when a call came in. The text got to the sheriff’s office, which led to an internal investigation.
The suit said Barrett accused Beth Prall of altering the video records from her vehicle and called for her dismissal. A letter about the incident was sent to the Greene County Commissioners. After conducting his own research and collecting information about the video system from Shawn Prall, Fischer exonerated Beth Prall.
The suit claims male deputies frequently use their meal breaks to watch sporting events on television at home. It references an OSU party one deputy had at his home in which most of the 4 p.m.-to-12 a.m. shift was there while on-duty.
Outside report
An open records request and the suit show the law firm Clemans, Nelson & Associates reviewed complaints against Barrett. Their report said, “While Sergeant Barrett’s behavior and neglect to detail looks to be inappropriate on several layers, it does not appear to amount to unlawful discrimination.”
The report said Barrett’s actions may be construed as condescending and inappropriate and recommended Barrett possibly be moved to a different shift and that he should issue a letter of apology to Beth Prall. Barrett receive also a written reprimand for neglect of duty.
The sheriff’s office did not require Barrett to write a letter of apology. Barrett has retained a different attorney, Lawrence Barbiere, to handle his case.
Ellis said while the Ohio Civil Rights Commission did find probable cause that the sheriff’s office was being discriminatory, there was never a finding that there actually was discrimination.
Ellis said complaints by the Pralls to the Civil Rights Commission and Ohio Attorney General’s Office have been either withdrawn or dismissed.
In another alleged incident, Barrett is accused of placing his arm around Beth Prall and saying, “I love you,” and “All is well that ends well, right?” in what Prall took to be not a romantic act but an intimidation tactic.
The suit also says Shawn Prall has been ostracized by other sergeants because Barrett has rallied that group against his wife.
The suit demands a jury trial and judgement of compensatory and punitive damages both in excess of $25,000 and legal fees.
Barrett’s attorney called for the suit to be dismissed, while the attorney for the sheriff’s administration and Prindle demand a jury trial. A court date has not been scheduled.
Contact this reporter at (937) 225-6951 or mgokavi@DaytonDaily News.com.
About the Author