North Myrtle Beach says inappropriate photos behind employee’s firing, not discrimination
The City of North Myrtle Beach responded to a former employee who alleges he was fired after being injured on the job and becoming disabled.
The city said the reason for the firing was inappropriate behavior, including sexual photos shown to other employees, according to federal court documents filed last month.
Davis Livingston, a mechanic who worked for the city for 36 years, stated that his issues with his employer began with an injury he sustained at work.
In March 2018, Livingston suffered a “traumatic fall” while donating blood at a work-sponsored event, the lawsuit alleges. The workplace injury left him with several broken bones — in three places — and a dislocated ankle that required at least two surgeries.
The injury and subsequent surgeries put him out of work on medical leave for six months, the lawsuit states.
Livingston filed a worker’s compensation claim that initially went through smoothly, according to the lawsuit. Later, the city’s insurance carrier refused Livingston the medical care he needed, and he hired an attorney for his claim, according to the lawsuit.
Livingston’s worker’s compensation claim continued to be “contentious” with his employer, the lawsuit states.
He returned to work in June 2019, with accommodation for physical therapy and changes to the distances he had to walk and the amount of time spent standing on the job. Livingston wore an ankle brace daily.
On May 29, 2020, Livingston was informed that he had been put on unpaid administrative leave. He was “blindsided,” the lawsuit says. Livingston said in the lawsuit that he was told he was being investigated, but was not told why. Livingston suspected his employer was looking for a reason to fire him due to his permanent disability.
In court documents, the city “adamantly denies” that Livingston’s “alleged ankle disability had anything whatsoever” to do with its decision to end his employment
The city said the investigation was a result of “multiple co-workers” telling the Human Resources Department about serious allegations of misconduct.
Questioned about weapons, harassment allegations
Livingston was called into work on June 3, 2020, “for a barrage of three meetings lasting hours.”
During those meetings he was questioned about whether he takes illegal drugs or has ever brought a gun to work. He was questioned about brandishing a knife on the job. He denied doing any of those things. He was asked if he had ever slept at work — and he recalled once in 36 years when he took a nap at lunch, according to the lawsuit.
He was asked about sexual harassment accusations. His ankle injury was discussed during the investigation, the lawsuit says. He was told that his behavior had been “erratic” since returning to work from medical leave and that multiple people had complained about him, but not told what they said.
Livingston said he believes the complaints came from an employee he reported to higher-ups for watching pornography at work. That same employee had “violently threatened [Livingston] and spit in [his] face,” according to the lawsuit.
Livingston had recently reprimanded another employee as well, the lawsuit states. Livingston said he believes that the employee, who was angry with Livingston for the write-up, also complained about him.
Livingston said he believed his employer used the two employees’ complaints “to act on its intent to fire [Livingston] because of his ankle disability caused by the workplace injury.”
In court documents, the city said Livingston was fired because he showed an image of his penis to two male subordinates and commented to them about it. Livingston also requested that a male subordinate display his penis so that he could spray it with biofreeze, a cream used for muscle pain, the city said. They denied that the allegations were fabricated by subordinates who were seeking revenge against Livingston.
After being questioned about drug use, Livingston took a drug test and sent his clean results to his employer. He received no response about the drug test, he said in the filing. The city did not require the drug test and could not accept results from an independent test regardless, according to court documents.
During the course of his administrative leave, he contacted the City of North Myrtle Beach several times to ask what he could do to return to work. Multiple inquiries went without response. He was eventually told “there were instructions in place to ignore” Livingston, the lawsuit says.
Throughout the course of the administrative leave — which ended after two months with his termination on July 27 — Livingston agreed to take a lie detector test as part of the investigation.
Livingston is asking for money to cover the loss of earnings and attorney fees as well as the cost of the drug test and the lie detector tests, the lawsuit alleges.
His lawsuit was the fourth lawsuit filed against the city of North Myrtle Beach by former employees this year. When reached for a statement, Pat Dowling, spokesperson for the city of North Myrtle Beach, said the city does not comment on pending litigation.
This story was originally published October 10, 2021 at 8:56 AM.
