Binkley v. City of Tacoma
| Decision Date | 22 March 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 55888-4,55888-4 |
| Citation | 787 P.2d 1366,114 Wn.2d 373 |
| Parties | Kenneth L. BINKLEY, Appellant, v. CITY OF TACOMA, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington and the Department of Public Utilities, Respondents/Cross-Appellants. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Robert J. Backstein, Tacoma City Atty., William J. Barker, Mark L. Bubenik, George S. Karavitis, Asst. City Attys., City of Tacoma, Tacoma, for respondents/cross-appellants.
Kenneth L. Binkley challenges the constitutionality of a municipality's employment decision. He alleges that the City of Tacoma (Tacoma) violated his right of free speech by reassigning him to another job after he lodged a complaint against his supervisor. He also alleges So that a complete picture of the events in question is presented, we must relate the facts in some detail. Tacoma hired Kenneth L. Binkley in 1981. Binkley was employed as a clerk in the General Services Division of the Department of Public Utilities and was assigned to work in the garage. The garage serviced and stored the Department's vehicles. Binkley's duties at the outset included answering the telephone, logging the use of vehicles from the carpool, and processing purchase requisitions, delivery tickets, and employee time cards.
that the working conditions at his new job constituted constructive discharge. In an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the trial court found that Tacoma had retaliated against Binkley and awarded him damages, but also held that there was no constructive discharge. We reverse the section 1983 award and affirm the trial court on the constructive discharge claim
On August 1, 1983, the General Services Division hired W. Larry Kennedy as the new supervisor (fleet services manager) for the garage. When Kennedy was hired, the supervisor's job was expanded to include not only supervision of the garage's maintenance and repair functions, but also control of the entire fleet of vehicles, including acquisition and planning. Accordingly, Kennedy was to have less involvement with the garage than his predecessor. Whereas before responsibilities for the fleet were "quite fragmented", this change in duties was part of an overall plan to reorganize the garage into a single unit responsible for the fleet of vehicles.
Kennedy was Binkley's immediate supervisor from August 1, 1983 until June 6, 1984, when Binkley was reassigned. Over the course of this 10-month period, the working relationship between Kennedy and Binkley proceeded to deteriorate.
When Kennedy began his job in August 1983, he noticed that several tasks, for which Binkley was responsible, were not being timely performed. To remedy this situation, the Difficulties with timely performance of Binkley's duties continued and steps were taken to attempt to relieve some of his workload. Although Kennedy had initially decided that the problem was simply one of overwork, he changed his mind later that year when a temporary worker who filled in while Binkley was on medical leave proved to be more efficient.
two men met to discuss Binkley's responsibilities, thestatus of those tasks, and to set a time for completion of those projects. Binkley failed to catch up on the backlog of projects. Consequently, Kennedy and Binkley met again to review the status of the projects. Binkley explained that he had not finished all of the work because there was too much for him to complete. At this point, Kennedy imposed a specific deadline to complete a particular project which Kennedy viewed as being of some importance. Binkley again failed to meet this deadline, which prompted Kennedy to prepare a memorandum regarding Binkley's unsatisfactory job performance. The memorandum was sent to Binkley and a copy was placed in his personnel file. This memorandum resulted in a complaint by Binkley and an eventual decision by Kennedy and Eric Herrmann (general services manager) to withdraw the memorandum from Binkley's file
In January 1984, a computerized fuel tracking system was installed. The system, which Binkley helped select, required him to use the computer. Problems continued concerning Binkley's failure to complete his recordkeeping and filing duties. 1
In early 1984, Binkley talked to the departmental safety officer about his concerns that dust in the garage and the use of portable heaters were creating hazardous conditions in the workplace. The safety officer investigated but In response to the backlog in Binkley's job, Kennedy set clear priorities on Binkley's duties, and in March instructed Binkley to report progress on certain tasks on a daily basis. Binkley objected to this daily oversight and felt that Kennedy was angry with him because he had gone over Kennedy's head in talking to the safety officer. Binkley complained to his union representative about the daily meetings, and after 2 weeks the meetings were stopped.
thought that the dust was a nuisance rather than a problem. However, in response to employee complaints he arranged to have the dust tested.
In mid-May, the safety officer received the results from the test described above which showed elevated levels of lead in the dust. In response, blood samples were taken from some of the workers to determine if they were developing lead poisoning, but the results of these tests, received in July, showed that the blood levels were within normal ranges.
In April or May, employees began discussing among themselves complaints they had against Kennedy. Eventually, they asked Binkley to prepare a complaint against Kennedy. After getting input from the employees, Binkley drafted a "Vote of No Confidence" setting out five charges. 2 The charges may be summarized as follows: (1) Kennedy did not timely respond to employee complaints about the dust and heating system problems, (2) Kennedy had not followed procedures in assigning a particular employee certain tasks, (3) Kennedy had failed to hire sufficient replacement mechanics which resulted in "normal vehicle maintenance functions" being "severely compromised", (4) Kennedy had been "less than honest and sincere" in dealing with his employees and had shown a "disdainful and disrespectful attitude" towards their input, (5) Kennedy had deceived the Department's Board of Directors about reorganizing the parts room so that he could get an air-conditioned office away from the dirty and In response to his receipt of the Vote of No Confidence, Paul Nolan, one of the directors, sent a letter to Binkley indicating that he should have followed the usual procedures for complaints. 4 The document also prompted a meeting on June 4, 1984 between Nolan, Kennedy, Eric Herrmann (Kennedy's immediate superior) and other management officials regarding problems in the garage and progress towards reorganization. They determined that the charges in the Vote of No Confidence were without merit.
noisy garage. Although the document states that a majority of the employees support it, only Binkley signed it. 3 On June 1, 1984, Binkley sent the Vote of No Confidence to the Board of Directors of the Department of Public Utilities.
In addition, the issue of Binkley's efficiency was raised at this meeting. The previous problems with Binkley were known to management. Kennedy indicated that he was not satisfied with Binkley's job performance due to Binkley's inattention to duties and inability to stay on task. Various options regarding reassignment of Binkley were discussed. In light of the history of difficulties between Kennedy and Binkley, they decided that the best way to accomplish the reorganization of the garage was to reassign Binkley to the gatehouse outside the garage, where he would be away from Kennedy's area of responsibility. This decision was made by Eric Herrmann and was concurred in by all those present.
On June 6, Herrmann notified Binkley that he was reassigned to a clerk position with the building and maintenance section, which is also within the General Services Division. Although Binkley's wages and benefits remained the same, his duties did not. His principal duties were to record the numbers of all vehicles that entered and exited The reassignment upset Binkley, especially because he would no longer be able to work on the computer system, a part of his job that he had particularly enjoyed. He and other employees considered the reassignment to be in retaliation for drafting the Vote of No Confidence. Other employees considered the new job to be something of a joke. Moreover, Binkley felt that the reassignment was an attempt to demean him. Although Binkley requested to return to his old job, management refused.
the garage, answer questions of those drivers who needed information, and perform assorted minor typing assignments and small projects. Following the reassignment, Kennedy was no longer Binkley's immediate supervisor; Jim Hood, who was the acting building maintenance supervisor, became Binkley's new immediate supervisor.
In August 1984, Binkley filed a complaint with the Civil Service Board of the City of Tacoma. The Board ruled that it was prevented from hearing this complaint due to a damage claim that Binkley had filed against Tacoma. In addition, Binkley filed complaints with the State Department of Labor and Industries regarding alleged "toxic" dust and an alleged problem with the aerial man-lift inspection program. 5 On August 7, 1984, Binkley filed a claim against the City of Tacoma for $100,000 in damages resulting from management's "campaign of discrimination and harassment". 6
Further problems developed. On September 25, 1984, Binkley refused to accept typing assignments out of a fear On October 24, 1984, before resigning, Binkley filed suit in Pierce County Superior Court against the City of Tacoma, the Department of Public Utilities, the Civil Service Board, and four Tacoma...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. State
...of speech. Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 383, 107 S.Ct. 2891, 2896, 97 L.Ed.2d 315 (1987) (discharge); Binkley v. City of Tacoma, 114 Wash.2d 373, 381, 787 P.2d 1366 (1990) (job reassignment); Meyer, 105 Wash.2d at 850-51, 719 P.2d 98 (letter of reprimand); Edwards v. Department of Tra......
-
Benjamin v. Washington State Bar Ass'n
...establishing that the speech touches on a matter of public concern. Connick, 461 U.S. at 147, 103 S.Ct. 1684; Binkley v. City of Tacoma, 114 Wash.2d 373, 382, 787 P.2d 1366 (1990). If the employee fails to meet this burden, the inquiry ends. Wilson v. State, 84 Wash.App. 332, 341, 929 P.2d ......
-
Galland v. City of Clovis
...(Mo.1989) 778 S.W.2d 711, 714; Gibney v. Toledo Bd. of Educ. (1988) 40 Ohio St.3d 152, 532 N.E.2d 1300, 1305; Binkley v. City of Tacoma (1990) 114 Wash.2d 373, 787 P.2d 1366, 1376; Casteel v. Vaade (Wis.1992) 167 Wis.2d 1, 481 N.W.2d 476.) Indeed, the only cases that hold a plaintiff must e......
-
Wilson v. State
...the same decision? Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147-48, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 1690-91, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983); Binkley v. City of Tacoma, 114 Wash.2d 373, 382, 787 P.2d 1366 (1990). I PRESERVATION Defendants contend that the trial court erred by permitting the jury to determine the first two el......
-
A View from the First Amendment Trenches: Washington State's New Protections for Public Discourse and Democracy
...State, 131 Wash. 2d 1, 12 n.5, 929 P.2d 396, 404 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Binkley v. City of Tacoma, 114 Wash. 2d 373, 383 n.8, 787 P.2d 1366, 1373 (1990)) (finding that nurse's internal report about patient's abuse was of public concern for purposes of plaintiff's claim under 42 U.......
-
A Cure for a "public Concern": Washington's New Anti-slapp Law
...reached by the United States Supreme Court and others under the test. 229. See cases cited supra note 224. 230. 114 Wash. 2d 373, 382, 787 P.2d 1366, 1373-74 (1990). 231. 131 Wash. 2d 1, 11-12, 929 P.2d 396, 403-04 (1997). 232. Talmadge, supra note 215, at 198; see In re Tyler's Estate, 140......