Bagienski v. Madison County, Indiana
| Decision Date | 30 April 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:05-cv-1578-SEB-JMS.,1:05-cv-1578-SEB-JMS. |
| Parties | Ernest A. BAGIENSKI, Plaintiff, v. MADISON COUNTY, INDIANA, John Richwine, In his official capacity, and Patricia Dillion, in her official capacity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
Timothy Sean Lanane, Anderson, IN, for Plaintiff.
James S. Stephenson, Ronald J. Semler, Stephenson Morow & Semler, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendants.
ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REMANDING STATE LAW CLAIMS
On October 11, 2005, former Madison County Highway Superintendent, Ernest A. Bagienski ("Bagienski"), filed a Complaint in the Madison Superior Court, and on October 19, 2005, Defendants removed the cause to this court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. Now before us is Defendants' motion for summary judgment filed by Madison County (Indiana) as well as John Richwine and Patricia Dillion, in their official capacities as commissioners of Madison County. In Count I of the Complaint, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Bagienski alleges that he was fired because of his political affiliation, in violation of the First Amendment, and without due process, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Count II, Bagienski alleges a state law claim of breach of his employment agreement.
Regarding Count I, Defendants argue that Bagienski's first amendment and due process claims cannot succeed because Bagienski's political affiliation was not a motivating factor in his dismissal, that he held a "policymaking" position which was exempt from First Amendment considerations, and that he did not have a protectable property interest in his continued employment implicating his due process rights. Bagienski responds that there is sufficient evidence upon which the finder of fact could conclude that his discharge was based on political reasons and that, contrary to Defendants' assertions, he did not occupy a "policymaking" position that was exempt from First Amendment considerations.
For the reasons detailed in this entry, summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendants on Count I of Plaintiff's Complaint, which asserts a civil rights violation pursuant to § 1983; the remaining state law breach of employment agreement claim in Count II is REMANDED to state court.
Ernest Bagienski, a Democrat, was hired by the Madison County highway department on a part-time basis as a security officer in 1989. Defs.' Memo in Supp. at 1, citing Bagienski depo. p. 8, Compl. ¶ 4. He later transferred to full-time positions, first, as a truck driver and, next, as drainage coordinator and line supervisor. Id. at 2, citing Bagienski depo. pp. 8-9. In 1995, Bagienski was named interim superintendent of the highway department and, in 1996, he was made superintendent on a permanent basis. Id. citing Bagienski depo. pp. 9-10. When Bagienski initially was hired by the County and when he subsequently was promoted to superintendent, two of the three commissioners on the Madison County Board of Commissioners also were Democrats. Bagienski depo. at 13.
The job description covering the position of supervisor (superintendent) of the Madison County highway department was originally formulated in 1985 and thereafter periodically revised, the most recent revision occurring in 1998. (Defs.' Memo in Supp. at 2, citing Auker1 aff., ex. 1, p. 1 at Docket No. 28.) According to the 1998 version of the job description, the superintendent:
— Exercises responsibility for the administration and direction of all departmental personnel2 and operations. Id.
— "Plans, assigns and directs manpower and material resources to maintain all county roads, rights-of-way, and related areas in a clean manner and to ensure the safety of users during routine and emergency circumstances." Id.
— Evaluates equipment, maintains an inventory of supplies and recommends purchases of equipment and supplies to the county commissioners. Id.
— Formulates, prepares and submits the department's budget and administers it after approval. Id.
— Oversees the hiring, training, discipline and evaluation of staff. Id.
— Receives and investigates complaints of road conditions from citizens and "initiates appropriate action to resolve valid complaints." Id.
The position requires an ability to plan and develop budget requests, to develop departmental personnel policies and to formulate long and short-range construction and maintenance plans. Defs.' Memo in Supp. at 2, citing Auker aff., ex. 1, p. 2. The superintendent is "required to exercise independent judgment in making decisions and recommendations to oversee and direct the operations of the County Highway Department." Id. He Id.
Bagienski argues that the job description for the position of supervisor (superintendent) of the Madison County Highway Department does not conform with the tasks he actually performed. He testified that his duty as superintendent was to execute the orders of the county commissioners. Bagienski depo., p. 13. He represents that he had limited authority, but acknowledges that he made recommendations to the commissioners on matters such as road paving schedules, the maintenance of the roads, the purchase of new equipment, and the hiring and firing of personnel. Defs.' Memo in Supp. at 3; citing Bagienski depo. pp. 17-18. Bagienski would also prepare a budget for the Commissioners' approval, pay claims, and generally oversee administrative operations. Bagienski depo. p. 15. Bagienski testified that his duties were performed under the supervision of the County Engineer who had primary responsibility over the highway department. Pl.'s Resp. at 3, citing Bagienski depo., p. 15.
John Richwine and Patricia Dillon were elected in 2004 as Madison County Commissioners. Both are Republicans; they took office on January 1, 2005. Their election shifted the majority on the Board from Democrat to Republican.3 Although the appointment of county department heads traditionally occurred at the first meeting of the Board of Commissioners (which would have been in January 2005), the matter was tabled to allow the new board to evaluate the performance records of the incumbent department heads. Richwine depo. p. 35-37. At his deposition, when asked how he evaluated these employees' performances, Commissioner Richwine responded he made his evaluations through "hands-on" discussions, meetings with those officials, and direct observations. Id. at 37. However, Richwine has acknowledged that he did not conduct any such formal evaluation of Bagienski's performance, nor did he review Bagienski's personnel file prior to deciding to terminate his employment. Defs.' Resp. at 2, citing Richwine depo. pp. 38, 48.
Richwine testified that he "was leaning against reappointment of Bagienski based upon his perception of the morale of the workers at the highway department, absences of Bagienski from the department during work hours and reports of unfair discipline in the department." Defs.' Memo in Supp. at 3; citing Richwine depo. p. 43, 52-54. He recalled a conversation he had with Bagienski on January 12, 2005, in the commissioners' office during which Bagienski advised him that if he (Bagienski) were moved to a rank and file position, he would sue Richwine and the County. Defs.' Memo. in Supp. at 3, citing Richwine depo., p. 40. Bagienski recalls that this conversation occurred in a hallway in the courthouse, during which he advised Richwine that he would be cooperative in his removal as superintendent, if the board did it in the "right way." Otherwise, he threatened that he would see Richwine in court. Id., citing Bagienski depo., p. 24-25.
On January 13, 2005, Bagienski was summoned to a meeting with Commissioner Richwine and Dillon and advised that he would not be reappointed as superintendent. Defs.' Memo in Supp. at 4, citing Richwine depo. pp. 39-40; Bagienski depo. p. 33. Bagienski notes that the written notice of his discharge which he received had been signed by only the Republican commissioners. Further, he asserts that the decision to let him go was made by only the Republican commissioners. Pl.'s Resp. at 3; citing Dillon depo., pp. 36, 42.
Bagienski inquired at the time of his discharge whether he could be transferred into another position within the department. Richwine depo. p. 46. Richwine testified that there was a position open within the department at the time of Bagienski's discharge. In addition, three new truck drivers were hired by the County subsequent to Bagienski's discharge. Richwine depo., p. 46.
Bagienski was the only department head who was not reappointed after that election. Richwine depo. p. 39. Several months later, after the position was advertised, his successor, Kevin McNew, was hired. Richwine testified that he did not know McNew's political affiliation prior to his being hired.4 Richwine depo. pp. 45-46, 50.
Bagienski concedes that he had neither a statutory or contractual right to retain the position of superintendent of the highway department. Id. citing Bagienski depo., pp. 35-36.
In 2004, Bagienski had participated in the election campaign of Democrats Otis Cox and Ted Waymire, who ran against Republicans John Richwine and Pat Dillion for County Commissioner. Bagienski actively...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ball v. City of Muncie
...is a confidential or policymaking position which would justify politically motivated employment actions. Bagienski v. Madison Cnty., 484 F.Supp.2d 938, 947 (S.D.Ind.2007) (citing Thompson, 300 F.3d at 756 ). To determine whether political loyalty is a valid qualification, we consider whethe......