Atcherson v. Siebenmann

• Decision Date: 23 October 1979
• Docket Number: Nos. 78-1819,79-1109,s. 78-1819
• Citation: 605 F.2d 1058
• Parties: Esther ATCHERSON, Appellee, v. Honorable Judge John SIEBENMANN, Judge of the Juvenile Court, Johnson County, District Court of Iowa, Appellant. Esther ATCHERSON, Appellant, v. Honorable Judge John SIEBENMANN, Judge of the Juvenile Court, Johnson County, District Court of Iowa, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 1058

605 F.2d 1058

Esther ATCHERSON, Appellee, v. Honorable Judge John SIEBENMANN, Judge of the Juvenile

Court, Johnson County, District Court of Iowa, Appellant.

Esther ATCHERSON, Appellant, v. Honorable Judge John SIEBENMANN, Judge of the Juvenile

Court, Johnson County, District Court of Iowa, Appellee.

Nos. 78-1819, 79-1109.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eighth Circuit.

Submitted March 15, 1979.

Decided Sept. 13, 1979.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 23, 1979.

Stephen C. Robinson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Des Moines, Iowa, for Siebenmann; Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen. of Iowa, on brief.

E. Eugene Davis, Des Moines, Iowa, for amicus, Iowa Judges Ass'n; Paul E. Horvath and George W. Murray, Des Moines, Iowa, on brief.

Gordon E. Allen, Legal Director, Iowa Civil Liberties Union, Des Moines, Iowa, for Atcherson; Mark W. Bennett, Staff Atty., Des Moines, Iowa, on brief.

Before BRIGHT and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges, and LARSON, District Judge. ^*

BRIGHT, Circuit Judge.

Appellee Esther Atcherson brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1976), against appellant, Honorable John Siebenmann, Judge of the Juvenile Court, Johnson County, District of Iowa, alleging that Judge Siebenmann unlawfully terminated her employment as a county juvenile probation officer in derogation of her first amendment rights. A United States Magistrate tried the action and made findings and conclusions adverse to Judge Siebenmann. The district court in essence adopted those findings and conclusions and entered a judgment awarding reinstatement, $9,500 backpay, costs and attorney's fees to Atcherson. ¹

On appeal Judge Siebenmann makes the following contentions:

1) the district court's finding that Judge Siebenmann coerced Atcherson's resignation is erroneous;

2) the court erred in concluding that Atcherson's letter of April 11, 1975, which contained allegations of misconduct by fellow probation officers but also arguably violated office guidelines, falls within the protection of the first amendment;

3) the district court erred in determining that Atcherson's first amendment conduct (the letter) was a substantial or motivating factor in Judge Siebenmann's decision to terminate her employment;

4) Judge Siebenmann's actions were (a) cloaked in absolute judicial immunity, or (b) performed in good faith and therefore protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity; and

5) the district court awarded excessive damages.

Upon a careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court improperly rejected Judge Siebenmann's qualified immunity defense. Accordingly, we reverse the backpay award, vacate the reinstatement order, and remand.

I. Background.

The district court opinion, reported at 458 F.Supp. 526 (S.D.Iowa 1978), fully recites the underlying facts. We summarize those facts bearing on appellant's claim of infringement of first amendment rights and on Judge Siebenmann's qualified immunity defense.

During the events in question, Judge Siebenmann served as juvenile court judge for an area in Iowa including Johnson County. In that position, Judge Siebenmann possessed administrative authority over the operation of the Johnson County Juvenile Probation Office (the probation office), including authority to hire and fire probation officers "at (his) pleasure." Iowa Code Ann. § 231.8 (1969). ²

At all material times until her resignation effective May 31, 1975, Esther Atcherson served as one of three juvenile probation officers in the probation office. Chief Probation Officer H. A. Wickes supervised the activities of Atcherson and her co-deputy probation officer, Jerry Smithey. The probation office operated on an informal basis, and each probation officer possessed a high degree of autonomy in his or her work.

By early 1975, relations between Atcherson and her supervisor, Wickes, had been strained for some time. ³ Wickes met with Judge Siebenmann on a regular basis and often complained to the judge of difficulties in dealing with Atcherson. Some of Wickes' charges were inaccurate or exaggerated. However, because of his busy schedule, Judge Siebenmann relied entirely upon Wickes regarding probation office affairs, and Wickes' complaints represented his primary source of information concerning Atcherson's performance. Despite the disharmony between Wickes and Atcherson, the probation office functioned reasonably smoothly due to the officers' independence in their work.

In the course of her employment, Atcherson assumed certain responsibilities for the operation of a "girls' group home," an emergency shelter facility in Iowa City. Her duties included the maintenance of records and bookkeeping for the group home's general expenses funded by Johnson County.

In late March of 1975, Atcherson received a $1,000 contribution to the girls' home from a nonprofit corporation that previously had operated a halfway house on the premises taken over by the group home. Atcherson wanted to apply the contribution to special needs of the girls not allowed under the warrant from Johnson County, and she telephoned Assistant County Attorney Daniel Bray, seeking advice as to how the group home could accept those funds without turning them over to the county. Bray, unfamiliar with the status of the group home, interpreted Atcherson's sketchy explanation of the home as indicating a project privately operated by the probation officers under a contract with the county. His initial, tentative advice to Atcherson rested upon that misapprehension. Upon learning of the actual status of the group home, Bray, in April 10, 1975, wrote Ms. Atcherson a critical letter suggesting that Atcherson had misrepresented the facts and that her suggested "scheme" could be considered a "borderline misappropriation of county funds."

Atcherson wrote and hand-delivered to Bray a personal letter, dated April 11, 1975, fully explaining the bookkeeping and operation of the girls' group home and, in reaction to Bray's accusations, adding the following:

In defense of my integrity I wish to state that I am the only probation officer in Johnson County who has not ever translated other expenses into mileage to facilitate reimbursement through the Board of Supervisors. I have repeatedly refused to do so because I will not sign the statement on the back of the warrant unless my claim is entirely accurate. Not only have my mileage claims been consistently moderate, I have also not taken advantage of the option of claiming overtime income.

In my opinion your independent investigation was not adequate for the implications you raised in your letter of April 10, 1975. I can readily document my honesty and would expect the opportunity to do so. (458 F.Supp. at 532.)

Bray gave Judge Siebenmann a copy of Atcherson's letter.

On April 18, 1975, Judge Siebenmann met with Atcherson and instructed her to document the allegations in her letter concerning improper expense reimbursements of the other probation officers. Atcherson furnished such documentation, which circumstantially supported her charges, on April 25, 1975.

After receiving the documentation of the alleged false expense claims, Judge Siebenmann conferred with his three probation officers. He testified at trial concerning this conference:

I told them what I was planning to do, what I thought this thing meant; and it was serious and that it involved the reputation of the entire group of the probation officers as well as the juvenile court; and for all I know, it had in roads (sic) into the courthouse, auditor's office, and other problems; and that I was going to give it to the County Attorney to do with as he saw fit, which I did.

Judge Siebenmann thereafter turned Atcherson's documentation over to the County Attorney who, in turn, presented it as well as other evidence on the subject to a Johnson County grand jury.

On May 2, 1975, Judge Siebenmann again met with Atcherson. He told her that he considered her allegations probation office business and that her letter of April 11 had directly violated his August 15, 1974 directive to probation officers, requiring that all interagency correspondence be channelled through Chief Probation Officer Wickes. Judge Siebenmann also told Atcherson that her conduct had substantially harmed the working relationships in the probation office. He testified at trial:

I said frankly * * * that having accused her two associate probation officers of fraud and cheat and deceit in mileage records, and their being knowledgeable of it, I felt it was I thought it would be pretty difficult for that office to continue in the way it had up, at least, to that point. I frankly felt the whole office had had a whole set back at that point.

At the conclusion of the May 2 meeting, Judge Siebenmann stated to Atcherson that he would give her ten days to consider resignation and that he then would have to decide whether she could remain as a probation officer. ⁴ On May 5, Atcherson submitted her resignation, effective May 31, 1975.

Judge Siebenmann testified at trial that he reserved judgment concerning whether or not to discharge Wickes pending completion of the grand jury investigation of the false expense claim allegations. The grand jury ultimately declined to return an indictment, and Wickes has retained his position as chief probation officer.

The district court, in entering judgment for Atcherson, approved the following conclusions of the magistrate:

1) Atcherson's resignation was not voluntary;

2) Judge Siebenmann caused Atcherson's resignation in retaliation for her letter to Assistant County Attorney Bray;

3) That letter constitutes conduct protected by the first and fourteenth amendments;

4) Judge Siebenmann in terminating Atcherson acted as an administrator, not in a judicial capacity, and therefore was not entitled to absolute judicial immunity;

5) Judge Siebenmann knew of Atcherson's first amendment rights and should have known that his conduct violated those rights, and he therefore failed to...