Bechtold v. City of Rosemount

• Citation: 104 F.3d 1062
• Decision Date: 15 January 1997
• Docket Number: No. 96-1597,96-1597
• Parties: 72 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1704, 69 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44,480 David J. BECHTOLD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

Page 1062

104 F.3d 1062

72 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1704,

69 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44,480

David J. BECHTOLD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 96-1597.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 20, 1996.

Decided Jan. 15, 1997.

Charles Leo Friedman, Minneapolis, argued, for appellant.

Timothy J. Pawlenty, Minneapolis, argued (Daniel Q. Poretti, on the brief), for appellee.

Before BEAM, LAY and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

LAY, Circuit Judge.

David Bechtold, former Parks and Recreation Director for the City of Rosemount, Minnesota ("the City"), filed suit against the City for unlawful termination in violation of his due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (ADEA), and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn.Stat § 363 et seq. (MHRA). The district court ¹ granted the City's motion for summary judgment, and Bechtold appeals.

FACTS

Bechtold began his tenure as the Parks and Recreation Director for the City in 1983. Ten years later, in 1993, the City opened a community center and an ice arena, and hired James Topitzhofer to manage them. In 1994, the City hired Thomas Burt as its new city administrator, and directed him to review critically the organization of the City's government and make recommendations for change to the Rosemount City Council ("the Council"). After soliciting and receiving input from city employees, Burt developed a plan to consolidate the Parks and Recreation Department (headed by Bechtold) and the Community Center Department (headed by Topitzhofer) into one department, on the premise that the combined department "would offer greater efficiency and reduce duplication of effort between the two separate units." Appellee's Br. at 5. The plan eliminated Bechtold's and Topitzhofer's positions, creating a new position to head the combined department. Topitzhofer and Bechtold were both considered for this position.

On May 11, 1994, Burt sent a memorandum to the Council setting forth the proposed reorganization and a recommendation that Topitzhofer be selected for the new position. Burt maintains his decision to recommend Topitzhofer over Bechtold was mostly due to Topitzhofer's experience managing the ice arena and community center. On June 6, 1994, Burt sent a letter to Bechtold which stated, "[T]his letter will serve as notice of your layoff from the City of Rosemount. June 17, 1994 will be considered your last day of employment with the City of Rosemount." ² On June 7, 1994, the Council met. At the meeting, Burt explained the reasons behind his decisions, and five individuals appeared and made statements on Bechtold's behalf. The Council voted unanimously to combine the two departments into one, hire Topitzhofer for the new position, and terminate Bechtold's employment.

Bechtold filed a grievance against the City, challenging his termination. On August 1, 1994, the Council conducted a hearing on Bechtold's grievance, at which Bechtold was represented by counsel. On September 6, 1994, the Council denied Bechtold's grievance, finding that his employment was terminated for legitimate reasons.

Under Minnesota law, state judicial review of a county or city employee's termination can only be obtained through a petition for writ of certiorari to the Minnesota Court of Appeals within sixty days of the city or county board's decision. Dietz v. Dodge County, 487 N.W.2d 237, 239 (Minn.1992). Pursuant to this procedure, Bechtold filed a petition with the Minnesota Court of Appeals, claiming wrongful termination, breach of contract, age discrimination, and due process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The Court of Appeals did not decide Bechtold's age discrimination claims, holding that such claims do not fall under the Dietz rule and thus are not required to be reviewed by writ of certiorari. In re Discharge of Bechtold v. City of Rosemount, No. C3-94-2366, 1995 WL 507583, at * 4 (Minn.Ct.App. Aug.29, 1995). At the time of the decision, Bechtold had already filed suit in federal district court, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded Minnesota law allowed Bechtold to pursue his age discrimination claims there. The court purported to defer Bechtold's § 1983 claim to the federal district court as well, but then determined that Bechtold's due process rights were not violated. Finally, the court determined that the City's decision to terminate Bechtold was not arbitrary and capricious, and thus his wrongful termination claim must fail. Id.

Bechtold's suit in district court alleged age discrimination in violation of the ADEA and the MHRA, breach of contract, negligent retention and supervision, and federal constitutional violations of substantive and procedural due process under § 1983. The district court granted summary judgment for the City on all of Bechtold's claims. Bechtold appeals the dismissal of the due process and age discrimination claims.

DUE PROCESS

The district court held Bechtold's § 1983 claim barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which presents a jurisdictional bar to general constitutional challenges brought in federal court that are inextricably intertwined with claims asserted in state court. Charchenko v. City of Stillwater, 47 F.3d 981, 983 (8th Cir.1995); see generally District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923). Here, of course, Bechtold does not bring a general constitutional challenge to his termination, but rather uses § 1983 as a platform for his constitutional claims. Rooker-Feldman, however, derives from the prohibition on federal appellate review of state court proceedings, and cases interpreting the doctrine make it clear that a litigant cannot circumvent Rooker-Feldman by recasting his or her lawsuit as a § 1983 action. Keene Corp. v. Cass, 908 F.2d 293, 297 (8th Cir.1990). Therefore, Bechtold's § 1983 claim is barred by Rooker-Feldman if it is inextricably intertwined with the constitutional claims he presented in state court.

In order to determine whether a claim is "inextricably intertwined" with a state court claim, the federal court must analyze whether the relief requested in the federal action would effectively reverse the state court decision or void its ruling. Id. at 296-97. Here, as the district court noted, the state court "explicitly analyzed the procedures afforded plaintiff against the requirements of the due process clause in termination proceedings," and determined Bechtold's due process rights were not violated. Bechtold v. City of Rosemount, No. 3-94-1507, slip op. at 12 (D.Minn. Jan. 29, 1996). Bechtold could conceivably escape the dictates of Rooker-Feldman if the Minnesota court had decided the issue exclusively under a state constitutional due process principle not included in federal due process jurisprudence. However, the court did not state whether it was analyzing the issue under the state or federal constitution, and it applied two United States Supreme Court cases on procedural due process. See

                Bechtold, 1995 WL 507583, at * 3 (applying Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972), and Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985)).  If the district court heard Bechtold's § 1983 claim, it would apply the same law, and if it granted Bechtold relief, the order would amount to a reversal of the state court.  "Where federal relief can only be predicated upon a conviction that the state court was wrong, it is difficult to conceive the federal proceeding as, in substance, anything other than a prohibited appeal of the state-court judgment."  Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 25, 107 S.Ct. 1519, 1533, 95 L.Ed.2d 1 (1987) (Marshall, J., concurring). 3  Under these principles, we hold that Bechtold's § 1983 claim is jurisdictionally barred. 4
                

AGE DISCRIMINATION

The district court granted summary judgment for the City on Bechtold's ADEA and MHRA claims because it determined Bechtold's arguments failed to demonstrate discrimination under either a pretext or a mixed motive analysis. Though Bechtold and the City focus on the substance of Bechtold's age discrimination claims, we find the claim barred on procedural grounds. Just as it did for the § 1983 claim, the Minnesota Court of Appeals explicitly reserved judgment on Bechtold's age discrimination claim, rejecting the City's argument that the claim is intertwined with the wrongful termination claim and thus must be reviewed only under the Dietz procedure. Bechtold, 1995 WL 507583, at * 2. However, the court of appeals, in reviewing Bechtold's wrongful termination claim, determined that the City had "substantial, legitimate reasons" for reaching its decision, and thus the decision was not arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by the record. Id. at * 4. In Gahr v. Trammel, this court ruled that a state court's determination that a termination was "not arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory" barred the employee's First Amendment claim in federal court under the doctrine of issue preclusion, because "the state court decided the essential elements of Gahr's first amendment claim when it concluded that the school board did not arbitrarily or capriciously discharge Gahr." 796 F.2d 1063, 1069 (8th Cir.1986). The state court's determination in this case must be examined under the lens of Gahr and its progeny to determine whether Bechtold's age discrimination claim is barred by issue preclusion.

Because 28 U.S.C. § 1738 requires us to give preclusive effect to a state court judgment only if a state court sitting in the state of judgment would do so, Minnesota issue preclusion law controls our analysis. Issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, is appropriate under Minnesota law if

(1) the issue was identical to one in a prior adjudication; (2)...