Speer v. City of Wynne
| Decision Date | 14 September 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 00-3776,N,00-3776 |
| Parties | (8th Cir. 2002) ROGER D. SPEER, APPELLEE, v. CITY OF WYNNE, ARKANSAS, APPELLANT. ROGER D. SPEER, APPELLANT, v. DANNY GLOVER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, APPELLEE. o. 00-3777 Submitted: |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
M. Keith Wren, Little Rock, AR, for appellant.
John Wesley Hall, Little Rock, AR, for appellee Speer.
Wendy K. Michaelis, Little Rock, AR, for appellee Glover.
Before Mcmillian, Beam, and Hansen, Circuit Judges.
Roger D. Speer filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the City of Wynne, Arkansas (City), the City's mayor, James Green, and Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Danny Glover violated his procedural due process right to a name-clearing hearing. The district court granted summary judgment to Prosecutor Glover and, following a bench trial, entered judgment against the City but in favor of Mayor Green. The City appeals the district court's judgment in favor of Speer, and Speer cross-appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to the deputy prosecutor. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The material facts are not in dispute. Lieutenant Speer was a long-time police officer in the Wynne Police Department in Cross County, Arkansas. During a 1996 investigation into charges that the Cross County Sheriff's Department was misusing prisoners, Susan Combs, a Cross County jail detainee, alleged that Lieutenant Speer had engaged in sexual acts with detainees in exchange for favors such as reduced jail time and reduced fines. Deputy Prosecutor Glover learned of the allegations against Speer and asked the Arkansas state police to conduct an investigation into them. During the ensuing investigation, Denise Hill similarly reported that Lieutenant Speer had sex with Combs and Christy Hubbard, another Cross County jail detainee, in exchange for various favors. Ms. Hill also alleged that Lieutenant Speer had propositioned her for sex in exchange for her early release from jail.
Mayor Green, Police Chief Lynne Rodgers, Prosecuting Attorney Fletcher Long, and Deputy Prosecutor Glover, held a meeting on April 17, 1997, to discuss the allegations against Lieutenant Speer and the completed investigation. Long and Glover informed the city officials that they would not prosecute Lieutenant Speer for various reasons. The group then discussed the appropriate employment action to be taken against Lieutenant Speer. Chief Rodgers reluctantly terminated Speer's employment with the department later that same day.
After Speer's discharge, a reporter with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette newspaper contacted both Mayor Green and Deputy Prosecutor Glover to discuss the investigation and the employment action taken against Speer. The following article was published in the April 19, 1997, edition of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
Wynne Officer out, won't face charges from investigation
WYNNE - A Wynne policeman was fired this week over allegations of sexual misconduct while on the job, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Danny Glover said.
Glover said that he and Prosecuting Attorney Fletcher Long of Forrest City recommended to city officials that Lt. Roger Speer, a criminal investigator with the department, be fired after they reviewed the results of an Arkansas State Police criminal investigation.
Glover said the allegations against Speer concern the officer trading sex with female suspects for favors. He said at least one of the females was an inmate in the county jail.
"Mr. Long and I looked at filing criminal charges against him, but in the end we decided we couldn't," Glover said.
Glover said there were three allegations that were investigated.
"One of them we didn't feel like was a crime," Glover said of why no charges were filed.
Glover said the investigation into the department was continuing.
"Until then, I'm not going to comment on the specifics," he said.
Glover said he had provided Wynne Police Chief Lynn Rodgers with a copy of the investigative file.
Rodgers could not be reached for comment on Friday.
Wynne Mayor Bud Green said Friday that Speer was fired Thursday.
"As I understand it, the investigation is over with," he said. "I looked at the investigative file and Speer was the only one they were looking at."
Green, who has been mayor two years, said he did not know how long Speer had been a police officer.
"The allegations against him were not from recent events," Green said.
(J.A. at 199.)
Speer filed this § 1983 action less than a week after the article appeared in the newspaper. He claimed that the City, Mayor Green, and Glover violated his procedural due process rights by terminating his employment without affording him an opportunity to contest the allegations against him at a hearing. The district court thereafter granted summary judgment to Glover on the basis that Glover had no employment relationship with Speer. Speer's remaining claims were tried to the district court in a bench trial.
Ms. Hill testified during the trial and, to the apparent surprise of the parties, recanted her earlier allegations against Speer. Ms. Hill testified that the sheriff's wife approached her in jail and promised an early release from jail if Ms. Hill made the false accusations against Speer. According to Ms. Hill, the sheriff and his wife wanted to have Speer fired from the police department, and Ms. Hill's false allegations were intended to support the allegations first made by Ms. Combs. Ms. Hubbard also testified and denied that Speer ever asked her to engage in sex in exchange for favors. As a final blow to the defendants, City Police Chief Michael Miller, Chief Rodgers' successor, testified that Ms. Combs demanded that she be released from jail and relieved from fines she owed the City or she would refuse to testify on behalf of the City. Chief Miller further testified that Ms. Combs was subsequently released from jail, that her fines were waived, and that he feared his testimony would cost him his job. The district court later reopened the evidence to reflect that the City terminated Chief Miller's employment twelve days after his testimony. 1
In light of the trial testimony, the City conceded to the district court that the allegations against Speer all had been false. The district court subsequently issued judgment against the City, concluding in its written findings that Speer was entitled to a hearing to contest the tarnishing allegations that Mayor Green made public in the newspaper article. The district court did not discuss Speer's due process claim against Mayor Green but entered judgment in the Mayor's favor.
An at-will, public employee generally has no protected liberty interest in continued employment which would obligate a state employer to provide some form of a hearing in connection with the employee's discharge. See Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 348 (1976). An exception to this general rule exists where a state employer creates and disseminates a false and defamatory impression about the at-will employee in connection with the discharge. The Supreme Court has recognized in such situations that the Constitution's procedural due process protections require the employer to provide the employee with an opportunity to dispute the defamatory allegations in what is commonly referred to as a name-clearing hearing. Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 627-28 (1977); Singleton v. Cecil, 176 F.3d 419, 427 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 966 (1999). The right to a name-clearing hearing protects the employee's liberty interest in his or her good name and reputation, and it prevents a public employer from depriving an employee of that interest without due process. See Merritt v. Reed, 120 F.3d 124, 126 (8th Cir. 1997). A public employee must make a three-part showing to establish the deprivation of a liberty interest in his good name: 1) the public employer's reasons for the discharge stigmatized the employee by seriously damaging his standing and association in the community or by foreclosing employment opportunities that may otherwise have been available; 2) the public employer made the reason or reasons public; and 3) the employee denied the charges that led to the employee's firing. See Coleman v. Reed 147 F.3d 751, 754-55 (8th Cir. 1998); Merritt, 120 F.3d at 126; Waddell v. Forney, 108 F.3d 889, 895-96 (8th Cir. 1997).
The City argues the district court erred in holding it liable for a violation of Speer's due process right to a name-clearing hearing for two reasons. First, the City argues Speer failed to show that Mayor Green made the reasons for his discharge public. The City argues alternatively that it cannot be subject to municipal liability under § 1983 because the district court made no underlying finding that Mayor Green violated Speer's constitutional rights. In an appeal from a judgment following a bench trial, our review of the district court's factual findings is limited to clear error. Santucci v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 221 F.3d 1045, 1047 (8th Cir. 2000). We review de novo the district court's conclusions of law. Id.
The requisite dissemination triggering the right to a name-clearing hearing occurs where the public employer makes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LaPorta v. City of Chi.
...City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 389–90, 392, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989) ). Similarly, in Speer v. City of Wynne, Ark., 276 F.3d 980 (8th Cir. 2002), the court noted that "situations may arise where the combined actions of multiple officials or employees may give ri......
-
Haughie v. Wexford Health Sources
..."no one employee may violate" those rights. Garcia v. Salt Lake Cnty., 768 F.2d 303, 310 (10th Cir. 1985); see Speer v. City of Wynne, Arkansas, 276 F.3d 980, 986 (8th Cir. 2002) ("[S]ituations may arise where the combined actions of multiple officials or employees may give rise to a consti......
-
Leventhal v. Schaffer
...court's factual findings for clear error and reviews its legal conclusions de novo. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); Speer v. City of Wynne, Ark., 276 F.3d 980, 984–85 (8th Cir.2002). “Under this standard, [the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals] overturn[s] a factual finding only if it is not supported by......
-
Doe v. Pulaski County Special School Dist.
...a bench trial, we normally review the court's factual findings for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Speer v. City of Wynne, 276 F.3d 980, 984-85 (8th Cir.2002). An appellate court's review, however, is unique in the context of a First Amendment claim. New York Times Co. v. Su......