Biddle v. City of Fort Wayne

Decision Date28 March 1984
Docket NumberCiv. No. F 83-407.
Citation591 F. Supp. 72
PartiesJeron BIDDLE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF FORT WAYNE, Board of Public Safety of the City of Fort Wayne, David C. Riemen, Chief of Police of the City of Fort Wayne, and Winfield Moses, Jr., Mayor of the City of Fort Wayne, Indiana, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Max E. Hobbs, Fort Wayne, Ind., for plaintiff.

Thomas D. Swihart and Karen Walker, Fort Wayne, Ind., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

LEE, District Judge.

This matter is before the court for a decision on the merits following a bench trial, held March 12, 1984. Final arguments were held March 16, 1984. The case deals with alleged violations of the first and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This court, having considered the entire record and being duly advised, hereby enters the following findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Findings of Fact

Plaintiff is a duly appointed police officer of the police department of the City of Fort Wayne, Indiana, and has been such since November 3, 1964. Plaintiff served as a captain, a political position, and non-permanent rank, during the prior Republican administration (1976-79). Plaintiff was promoted to the permanent rank of lieutenant through the merit system on August 28, 1980. Plaintiff is a member of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the collective bargaining unit for command personnel in the Fort Wayne Police Department (FWPD). Plaintiff was President of the FOP in November, 1983. Defendant City of Fort Wayne, Indiana, is a duly constituted municipality under the laws of the State of Indiana. Defendant Board of Public Safety of the City of Fort Wayne is a public board of the City of Fort Wayne charged by law with the administration of the Fort Wayne Police Department and as such has the sole power to discipline by demotion, dismissal, reprimand, forfeiture or suspension of more than ten days of police officers of the rank of lieutenant or below. Its three (3) allotted members are appointed by the mayor. I.C. 36-4-9-6(c) (Burns Code Ed., Repl.1981). Defendant David Riemen, at all times relevant, was the duly acting Chief of Police of the Fort Wayne Police Department. Defendant Winfield Moses, Jr., at all times mentioned, was the duly elected and acting Mayor of the City of Fort Wayne, Indiana. Jurisdiction is present under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1331. This action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On November 21, 1983, a memorandum signed by Chief Riemen was sent to Lieutenant Biddle. That memo informed Lieutenant Biddle that "in order to provide more efficient and effective use of available manpower, the ranks of lieutenant will be reduced. Therefore, your lieutenant rank (lowest in seniority) will be deleted. As of November 25, 1983, you will serve as a sergeant. Your name will be placed first on the reinstatement list for the rank of lieutenant." Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. At the time of Lieutenant Biddle's demotion to sergeant, his salary, as a lieutenant on the B shift, was $22,248.32. He was demoted to the lowest rank of sergeant, paying $20,819.81. Defendants' Exhibit C. There are five ranks of sergeant between the sergeant's rank Lieutenant Biddle was given and the lieutenant rank Biddle held. The 1983 salaries for those five different classifications of sergeant range from $21,219.81 to $21,922.21. Defendants' Exhibit C. In 1984, the salary range is $22,521.17 to $22,947.12.

On November 22, 1983, a directive was sent to plaintiff on City of Fort Wayne stationery directing the plaintiff to report to B shift operations as a properly attired sergeant on November 25, 1983. That directive was signed by David C. Riemen as Chief of Police. Plaintiff's Exhibit 2. It is undisputed that Biddle had no prior notice or hearing of his demotion from lieutenant to the lowest classification of sergeant. It is further undisputed Lt. Biddle was not demoted for any of the causes listed in I.C. 36-8-3-4(b)(2) (Burns Code ed., Supp.1983). There is also no dispute that I.C. 36-8-3-4, of which the court takes judicial notice, specifically provides that police or fire officers may not be demoted without written notice and a hearing prior to the demotion. See I.C. 36-8-3-4(c) (Burns Code ed., Supp. 1983). This court also takes judicial notice of I.C. 36-8-3-3 (Burns Code ed., Supp. 1983), which deals with the powers of the Board of Safety and a Police Chief.

On December 19, 1983, prior to the filing of this lawsuit, the attorney for the City of Fort Wayne, Indiana, corresponded with plaintiff's attorney and proposed to schedule a meeting of the Board of Safety so that a hearing in accordance with I.C. 36-8-3-4 could be scheduled. On February 15, 1984, a letter was sent to Mr. Biddle which purported to be the written notice required by I.C. 36-8-3-4(c). Plaintiff's Exhibit 6, Defendants' Exhibit F. The letter notified Mr. Biddle that a hearing had been scheduled before the Board of Safety for Monday, March 5, 1984. The notice complied with I.C. 36-8-3-4(c) except insofar as the letter contained no listing of charges against Mr. Biddle nor the specific conduct which comprised the proposed charges as specifically required by I.C. 36-8-3-4(c). There was no specific conduct listed because nothing had occurred nor were there any specific charges listed because none existed.

Attached to the letter of February 15, 1984, was a petition for demotion signed by David Riemen. The petition for demotion stated:

1. That your petitioner David C. Riemen is Police Chief of the Fort Wayne Police Department and was so employed on November 25, 1983.
2. That your petitioner, pursuant to Indiana Code § 36-8-3-3(g), "has exclusive control of the police department ... subject to the rules and orders of the Safety Board."
3. That Jeron Biddle has been a lieutenant in the Fort Wayne Police Department, being promoted to that position on August 28, 1980.
4. That it has been the continuing policy of your petitioner to take all steps necessary to assure the efficient operation of the Fort Wayne Police Department.
5. That the command requirement of the Fort Wayne Police Department requires fewer lieutenants.
6. That the command requirements of the Fort Wayne Police Department can be met more efficiently by utilizing the services of captains and sergeants instead of lieutenants.
7. That in his attempt to provide more efficient operation of the Fort Wayne Police Department, your petitioner eliminated a lieutenant's position in the juvenile division. Lt. Mungovan.
8. That your petitioner believed the lieutenant's position in the juvenile division was unnecessary because a sergeant could adequately command said division.
9. That eliminating the lieutenant's position in the juvenile division would not only provide for more efficient operation of the Fort Wayne Police Department, but would be less costly to the City of Fort Wayne because lieutenants receive a higher salary than sergeants.
10. That eliminating (1) lieutenant's position necessitated demoting the least senior lieutenant to sergeant.
11. That Jeron Biddle was the least senior lieutenant in the Fort Wayne Police Department, and was demoted November 23, 1983.

Plaintiff's Exhibit 7, Defendants' Exhibit F.

Chief Riemen requested that the Board of Public Safety demote Jeron Biddle because the demotion was necessary for the reasons stated in the petition. Lt. Biddle's duties continued being performed by Lt. Mungovan. On March 8, 1984, Chief Riemen sent a letter to Mr. Biddle, advising him that the police department would reimburse Mr. Biddle for the difference between a sergeant's pay and a lieutenant's pay from the time of Mr. Biddle's demotion date of November 25, 1983, up to and including March 5, 1984, the date of the Board of Public Safety hearing. Mr. Riemen enclosed a check, payable to Mr. Biddle in the amount of $378.13. Plaintiff's Exhibit 9.

The Board of Public Safety met on March 5, 1984. Mr. Biddle and his attorney were present at that hearing as was counsel for the FWPD. Chief Riemen submitted a "proposed findings of fact and conclusions." That proposal, without any change, was signed and endorsed by the Board of Safety as its resolution of the matter in question. Defendants' Exhibit E. The stated grounds for Mr. Biddle's demotion was "departmental economy and efficiency." The Board of Safety concluded, in pertinent part:

1. That the statutes authorizing the development of rules and regulations by the Police Merit Commission restrict those rules and regulations so as not to interfere with the authority of the Board of Safety with regard to the demotion of police officers.
. . . . .
6. That the Board of Safety has the authority to demote police officers for reason other than "cause" as set forth in 36-8-3-4(2)(b) sic.
7. That the Board of Safety may properly consider the reasons of departmental administration, efficiency, and economy for the demotion or reduction in rank of a police officer.
. . . . .
14. That the City Council of Fort Wayne passed an Ordinance in 1981 freezing promotions to command and directing the reductions of command in the Fort Wayne Police Department.
15. That reduction of command personnel by attrition was considered by the police administration, but has resulted in, at most, the loss of two command personnel since 1981.
. . . . .
29. That the reduction of respondent's rank (demotion) for reasons of departmental administration, efficiency, and economy or reorganization is proper.
. . . . .
34. That the reduction in rank of respondent will, in fact, result in the payment of less money by the department with the performance of the same or similar duties.

Defendants' Exhibit E. The salary savings resulting from Mr. Biddle's demotion was $1428.51 in 1983, if the demotion had been effective for the entire year,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Shannon v. Bepko
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana
    • March 14, 1988
    ...cannot create a protectible property interest. Hadley v. County of DuPage, 715 F.2d 1238, 1244 (7th Cir.1983); Biddle v. City of Fort Wayne, 591 F.Supp. 72, 83 (N.D.Ind.1984). 12 This remaining question of material fact also raises at least two more related questions, one of fact and one of......
  • R.F. v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • June 2, 2022
    ... ... injunction issues. Wayne Chem., Inc. v. Columbus Agency ... Serv. Corp. , 567 F.2d 692, 701 (7th Cir. 1977) (citation ... ...
  • Pepple v. Parkview Memorial Hosp., Inc.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • August 10, 1987
    ...Dist. Ind.App., 452 N.E.2d 1045; City of Anderson v. State ex rel. Page (1979) 4th Dist. Ind.App., 397 N.E.2d 615; Biddle v. City of Fort Wayne (N.D.Ind.1984) 591 F.Supp. 72 (hearing at which administrative board merely rubber-stamped City's findings did not afford due Assuming some sort of......
  • Castetter v. Lawrence Twp.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • October 26, 2011
    ...specific to a particular merit commission may also provide a department member with an entitlement to a position, Biddle v. City of Ft. Wayne, 591 F.Supp. 72, 84 (N.D.Ind.1984), but we are unable to determine whether that is the case here because the LTFD Merit Commission rules are not in t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT