Barnard v. Jackson County, Mo.
| Decision Date | 12 October 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-0988-CV-W-6.,90-0988-CV-W-6. |
| Citation | 832 F. Supp. 1338 |
| Parties | James A. BARNARD, Plaintiff, v. JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Steven L. Hobson, Ronald J. Stites, Stites, McIntosh & Knepper, Kansas City, MO, for James A. Barnard.
Jay D. Haden, Russell D. Jacobson, J. Earlene Farr, Margaret M. Korth, F. Russell Millin, Millin & Trader, Thomas F. Gordon, Gordon & Gordon, P.C., Kansas City, MO, for defendants.
MODIFIED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Barnard served as legislative auditor for the County Legislature of Jackson County, Missouri, from 1985 until his removal by the Legislature in August 1990. His removal was voted by the seven defendant members of the Legislature who were present; six votes out of nine were needed under the County Charter. Plaintiff sues the voting members of the Legislature and the County, alleging a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in that his First Amendment rights to communicate matters of public concern to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the editorial board of the Kansas City Star were allegedly violated. It is claimed the removal was in retaliation for such communications.
After discovery, defendants move for summary judgment. In ruling the motion the court gives plaintiff the benefit of the doubt on all material disputed facts. Pertinent material facts that are not in dispute are set forth below and in the analytical portions of this opinion.
Plaintiff's theory of the case is that the contested discussions were with (1) the FBI concerning allegations that defendant Carol Coe (then a member of the Legislature) had solicited for a bribe while a legislator; and (2) members of the press about various audits of county departments, offices, officers and contractors before the audits were presented to the Legislature in final form. Only the timing of plaintiff's discussions with the press was in controversy when the termination occurred. Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. 145), p. 9.
After audits are presented to the Legislature they are filed and made available to the public, including the news media. The 1990 audits discussed with the editorial board included one on the Jackson County Sports Authority, in January 1990, which suggested a possible conflict of interest or "the potential for a conflict of interest" by appointed members of the Authority. The Legislature had passed a resolution "expressing concern" over the plaintiff's suggestion. A second audit discussed with the editorial board in May or early June 1990 related to the Medical Examiner's Office. This audit was later presented to the Finance and Audit Committee of the Legislature, chaired by defendant Growney, on June 29, 1990, and thereafter made public. Neither party characterizes the specific content of that audit in briefing to the court.
Between the two 1990 audits that were a subject of legislative concern, the Legislature met in executive session with plaintiff on May 7, 1990, to discuss his job performance. On April 27, 1990, plaintiff had been presented with "Communication Guidelines Pertaining to Legislative Auditor," prepared by defendant Growney and the County Counselor. Plaintiff said he had no problem with the guidelines. He now contends the guidelines given him were unduly restrictive, under State law and the First Amendment. He correctly contends they would prevent him from having any contacts with the press about his investigations and audits before they were presented to the Legislature in final form.
Plaintiff contends that at the May 7, 1990, job performance review some members of the County Legislature appeared to be angry about his FBI contacts, which continued until that meeting. The questions about defendant Coe were publicly aired in 1987, but she apparently had no confirmation of plaintiff's role with the FBI until 1990.
Further factual review will be reserved for discussion of the two subjects of First Amendment controversy.
Plaintiff has apparently served as a self-appointed informant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding what he believes to be law violations within the County Government. He contends that he has proof that at least three members of the County Legislature voted to terminate his services, at least in part, because they resented his whistle-blowing activity. Defendants Tindall, Coe and Waits have been identified as critics of this practice.
Whether or not plaintiff's judgment about criminality was sound is not in issue; presumably the FBI and the United States Attorney would be capable of evaluating his information. It seems rather well settled, however, that private communications in the nature of whistle-blowing are entitled to First Amendment protection from governmental discipline or retaliation, and that any such retaliation against plaintiff for going to the FBI would violate plaintiff's federally protected employment rights. Monsanto v. Quinn, 674 F.2d 990, 994, 996 (3rd Cir.1982); Brown v. Texas A & M University, 804 F.2d 327, 337-8 (5th Cir.1986); Roth v. Veteran's Administration, 856 F.2d 1401, 1404-8 (9th Cir.1988).
In reviewing an issue of this nature on a motion for summary judgment, lack of causation of injury may require judgment for a defendant. O'Connor v. Chicago Transit Authority, 985 F.2d 1362 (7th Cir.1993). No matter how hostile one or more members of the County Legislature may have been, as a result of plaintiff's informing the FBI, there is no evidence that two-thirds of the members of the County Legislature (or even a simple majority) were adversely motivated by reason of plaintiff's FBI contacts, and thus there is no factual basis for a trier to conclude that such hostility may have caused plaintiff's termination.1
Without weighing the evidence, it is noted, moreover, that the FBI issue centered on defendant Coe, according to plaintiff, the issue was so stale by 1990 that it could hardly have changed any votes, and some of the criticism of plaintiff that related to the FBI whistle-blowing was voiced by legislators like defendant Coe, who had been opposed to plaintiff's appointment in the first place. Insufficient evidence of causation mandates a ruling for defendants on the FBI issue.
Whether the audit material discussed by plaintiff with the Star editorial board concerned matters of "public concern" is a somewhat elusive concept. The material relating to the Medical Examiner's Office has not been shown to be the sort of information on corruption, abuse of power, waste or mismanagement that cries out for public attention, and has been declared to be public interest material. See Jurgensen v. Fairfax County, Va., 745 F.2d 868, 872 (4th Cir.1984). It is more like an inspection report or typical internal governmental study, deemed by two of the Jurgensen judges to be lacking inherent public concern status. 745 F.2d at 890-1 (Ervin, J., concurring). The contrary views of the district judge and the dissenting judge in that case make it obvious that a ruling on what is of "public concern" is fraught with difficulty, particularly in a case like this, where an editorial board of a major newspaper gave plaintiff a hearing, despite the arguably routine nature of much of the work. See also O'Connor v. Steeves, 994 F.2d 905, 913 (1st Cir.1993), collecting cases showing "various approaches" to the inquiry about public-concern material.
I have concluded that it is easier to decide the case by assuming arguendo that there were matters of public concern in plaintiff's audit material. Even so, under Judge Russell's opinion for himself alone in Jurgensen, disciplinary action can be properly based on insubordinate release of the material. Restrictions on indiscriminate release of governmental information by employees, removal of records and the like, have occasionally been referred to as possibly justifying discipline. Hubbard v. Environmental Protection Agency, 949 F.2d 453, 459-60 (D.C.Cir.1991); Matlock v. Town of Harrah, Okl., 719 F.Supp. 1523, 1530 (W.D.Okl.1989). The insubordination factor relied on by Judge Russell has been a suggested consideration at least since Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 153, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 1693, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983). In many circumstances use of such procedural restrictions may be questionable or may be a pretext, but in the present case I find nothing questionable or pretextual in defendants' conduct.2
This case is unlike almost all litigated cases in that it is only the timing of news media contact that was challenged by defendants. Once the audit was presented to the Legislature and became a matter of public record, defendants had no objection to plaintiff's defending or otherwise discussing the audit with the media. Defendant Growney, the most directly involved, testified that plaintiff "absolutely" had the right to discuss audits with the press after delivery to the Legislature; there is no basis to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnard v. Jackson County, Mo.
...The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the County and the individual legislators. Barnard v. Jackson County, Missouri, et al., 832 F.Supp. 1338 (W.D.Mo.1993). Barnard appeals. II. DISCUSSION Summary judgment is appropriate when the record as a whole shows that "there is no ......