A leading resource for evaluating potential employers
Sunday February 18th 2018



Wife swapping Louisiana deputies sue Sheriff for firing them

On January 5th, 2015, two Bossier Parish Sheriff’s Deputies sued Sheriff Julian Whittington and his Chief Deputy Charles Owens.

Brandon Coker and Michael Golden, who are life-long friends, claim that they were fired in November 2014 because they fell in love with and moved in with each other’s wives.

According to the complaint, in 2014, after  they and their families socialized regularly, Michael Golden and Lauren Coker fell in love with each other, while Brandon Coker and Farah Golden fell in love with each other.

On October 31, 2014, the two Louisiana deputies moved in with each other’s wives. Golden and Coker both planned on divorcing their spouses and getting remarried.

The following are some of the allegations that Golden and Coker made in their lawsuit complaint:

  • On November 3, 2014, Captain Charles Owens, Chief Deputy of the Bossier Parish Sheriff, instructed Brandon Coker and Michael Golden to report to Internal Affairs concerning their living arrangements. Chief Deputy Owens, on the authority of Sheriff Whittington, placed them both on unpaid administrative leave due to their co-habitation with a woman who is not their wife. In addition, Chief Owens, on the authority of Sheriff Whittington, informed Plaintiffs that they could not return to work until they changed and stopped their living arrangements. Owens further instructed Plaintiffs that once they stopped and changed their living arrangements and Plaintiffs returned to work, Plaintiffs would be demoted and sent to work at the Sheriff’s detention and correctional centers at a reduced rate of pay. The demotion would result in a loss of pay and prestige. Owens further instructed Plaintiffs that even if they stopped the living arrangements and returned to work, a further condition of re-employment would be that the Plaintiffs cease all contact with the woman with whom they were currently co-habitation out of wedlock until they obtained divorces.
  • After November 3, 2014, Plaintiffs have attempted to return to work however Defendants have refused their return to work because Plaintiffs have not ceased their living arrangements. Defendants gave Plaintiffs until November 24, 2014, to cease their living arrangements and return to work or that they will consider them to have resigned. Plaintiffs have always been ready, willing and able to return to work excepting for the condition of demotion and cease their living arrangements with those they love and cease contact with the ones they love. Plaintiff’s presented themselves for work on November 24, 2014, but were told their previous job was not available.
  • The Sheriff and Chief Deputy have failed to discipline, demote or discharge other deputies who have engaged in similar behavior. Based upon information and belief, Plaintiffs are aware of the following acts: (1) a male deputy living as husband with his daughter in law (2) a female deputy engaging in lesbian acts with another male deputy’s wife (3) a male deputy and his wife engaging in what is colloquially known as “swinging” or wife swapping (4) a male deputy who has engaged a prostitute for sexual favors. It is thus pretextual for Defendants to label Plaintiffs’ living arrangements as immoral or indecent or a violation of the Section. The application of the Section to Plaintiffs in light of it not being applied to others equally described above, violates the Plaintiffs’ rights under the Equal Protection Clause.

This is a report on a civil lawsuit filed at the U.S. District Court. The details in this report come from an original complaint filed by a plaintiff. Please note that a complaint represents an accusation by a private individual, not the government. It is not an indication of guilt, and it represents only one side of the story.