A civil rights lawsuit has been filed against Union County and a jury trial is scheduled for November.
Last December, former Union County employee Steven Charles filed suit against the county in the Circuit Court of Union County, Division 6, claiming that the county discriminated against him due to his race, violating his rights under the state and U.S. constitutions.
The case was transferred to federal court in January and the local case was closed.
Also named as a defendant in the suit is Jeff Orr, who Union County Judge Mike Loftin said works as a solid waste supervisor for the county.
Charles, who is African-American, claims in the suit that he began working for the Union County road department in December 2020, at which time he met all the qualifications for the job.
On Dec. 9, 2020 when Charles left the county shop in a county-owned truck, it "started shaking and pulling hard to the left," at which point he returned to the shop and reported the issue to the head mechanic, to whom he explained the truck's issue and told "it was not safe," according to the suit.
Charles claims the mechanic looked at the truck for an hour before returning it to him, at which point he left in it again.
Five miles outside of El Dorado, "the pulling to the left and shaking were so bad that he turned around and went back to the shop" a second time, again reporting the issue to another worker and telling them he would return after lunch "to see if they could fix it," according to the suit.
Upon his return, a second supervisor was at the shop, and Charles explained the truck's issues to him, telling him "it was unsafe and there could be an accident," before the supervisor left, according to court documents.
Charles was sent out to work again in the same malfunctioning truck even though another truck was available, according to the suit.
Charles claims that after he returned a third time after experiencing the same issues "some way out of town" and reported "what the truck was doing and that it was not safe," Orr fired him "saying he had not done enough loads for the day."
The suit goes on to claim that a white driver who encountered safety problems in a similar truck "has complained about the safety of a vehicle and declined to drive it and was not fired, and the vehicle was put in for repair."
The defendants – Union County and Orr – in their response first deny that Charles began working for the county in December 2020, but do admit that Charles "was driving dump trucks and tractor trailers during his time employed." Loftin said Charles worked as a truck driver for the county.
They also admit that Charles complained about the safety of the truck he was driving on Dec. 9, 2020, but deny that mechanics "looked at it for an hour and gave it back to him," as Charles claimed.
The defendants admit that Charles returned a second time and made the same complaints about the truck's safety, and that another truck was available, but deny that Charles was sent out to work in the allegedly malfunctioning truck a third time.
Orr did fire Charles for not getting enough work done that day, according to the defendants' response. The response states that the defendants "lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of" Charles' claim that a white driver who experienced the same vehicle issues was treated differently, "and therefore denies these allegations."
Charles claims that the defendants violated both Title 42 of the U.S. Code and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993, causing him to lose wages and benefits and mental, emotional and physical suffering.
He is seeking "lost wages and benefits, front pay or reinstatement, designation as rehire-able, a positive reference, cleansing of his file, posting of this lawsuit and verdict, training, a monitor, and an apology, compensatory damages for mental, physical, and emotional suffering and embarrassment, punitive damages, for reasonable fees and costs, for other declaratory and injunctive relief, and for a jury trial on all matters so triable."
Charles' complaint was filed by Lucien Gillham of the Sutter & Gillham, P.L.L.C firm in Benton.
The defendants argue that Charles is not entitled to relief and "deny each and every allegation not specifically admitted," as well as that Charles suffered any damages. They also requested a jury trial. The defendants also cite Charles' employment status as being "at will" and say that "at all relevant times" they acted in good faith.
The defendants are represented by Camille Neemann of the Association of Arkansas Counties' Rich Management Services. Loftin declined to comment on the case.