Bramblett v. City of Columbia

• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
• Writing for the Court: NANETTE K. LAUGHREY United States District Judge
• Decision Date: 22 September 2015
• Docket Number: No. 2:14-cv-04078-NKL,2:14-cv-04078-NKL
• Citation: Bramblett v. City of Columbia, No. 2:14-cv-04078-NKL (W.D. Mo. Sep 22, 2015)
• Parties: IRENE MARIA ZIMBOBWE SCHWARTZE BRAMBLETT, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF COLUMBIA, MISSOURI, et al., Defendants.

IRENE MARIA ZIMBOBWE SCHWARTZE BRAMBLETT, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF COLUMBIA, MISSOURI, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-04078-NKL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION

September 22, 2015

ORDER

Defendants' motion for summary judgment, Doc. 102, is granted in part and denied in part.¹ Defendants' motion is granted with respect to Plaintiff's Count II: Prima Facie Tort and Count IV: Due Process Liberty Interest. Defendants' motion is denied with respect to Plaintiff's Count III: Due Process Property Interest and Count I: Breach of Contract.

I. Undisputed Facts

Plaintiff Irene Maria Zimbobwe Schwartze Bramblett ("Schwartze") is a former employee for the City of Columbia, Missouri ("City"). Prior to May 14, 2009, Schwartze worked as a Police Captain for the City. On May 14, Schwartze was appointed temporary Emergency Communications and Management Administrator ("ECMAAdministrator").² At that point, she was approximately two years and nine months from becoming eligible for retirement under the police pension. Schwartze would not have accepted the ECMA Administrator position if the assignment affected her police pension. To ensure that Schwartze's pension eligibility was not affected, she was paid for her work as ECMA Administrator from the City's Police Department budget and remained a captain in the department. On October 5, 2009, Bill Watkins, then acting City Manager, offered Schwartze a permanent position as ECMA Administrator. The terms of this job offer were laid out in a memorandum (the "October 5, 2009 Agreement"):

I am pleased to offer you the position of ECMA for the City of Columbia. Should you agree to accept this offer the following are the terms and conditions of your appointment as Emergency Communications and Management Administrator.

You will remain a Columbia Police Department captain assigned to the position of Emergency Communications and Management Administrator. Your assignment will end when you first become eligible to retire under the police pension plan. At that time you will have the option of being reassigned to the Police Department or retiring under the police pension plan and continuing as the Emergency Communications and Management Administrator. If you continue as Administrator, you will be covered by the LAGERS retirement system.

You must inform me of your decision to return to the Police Department or remain as Administrator at least six months before you first become eligible for retirement under the police pension plan.

Of course, your assignment to the position of Administrator as well as your option to continue as Administrator is subject to satisfactory job performance.

City Exhibit 22, Doc. 103-22. This Agreement was signed by both Schwartze and Watkins.

As ECMA Administrator, Schwartze was paid about $15,000 more than the prior ECMA Administrator had been paid due to the funding of her position through a captain position in the City's Police Department. Despite continuing to be paid from the Police Department budget, after becoming ECMA Administrator Schwartze performed no police duties and did not report to the Police Chief, Kenneth Burton. The Police Captain position was a "classified" position under the City Ordinances.

In May 2011, Michael Matthes became the City Manager. When Matthes became City Manager, the City was operating at a nearly $3 million deficit. By 2012, the City had a $1.9 million surplus because Matthes put a hiring freeze in effect.

Schwartze became eligible to receive police pension benefits on February 2, 2012. As set out in the October 5, 2009 Memorandum, Schwartze was to have the option at that point to remain as ECMA Administrator or return to the Police Department. In May 2011 and numerous times thereafter Schwartze had conversations with Matthes wherein she indicated her intention to retire from the Police Department in February 2012 and serve solely as the ECMA Administrator.

In late 2011 and early 2012, Eric Anderson, an independent consultant, conducted a review of the administration of the Police Department. Schwartze met with Andersonone time and was critical of Burton but not Matthes. She has no knowledge of anything she said to Anderson being relayed to Burton or Matthes.

Sometime after Schwartze's meeting with Anderson, on January 18, 2012 Matthes told Schwartze he was considering eliminating the ECMA Administrator position. Schwartze asked during this meeting whether going back to the Police Department as captain was an option; Matthes indicated that he would think about it and get back to her. Matthes reiterated that the City was in the process of eliminating the ECMA Administrator position at a meeting with Schwartze in February 2012. During that meeting Matthes told Schwartze she could not return to the Police Department. Schwartze did not express an opinion at that point about what she planned to do moving forward. On February 6, 2012, Burton emailed Matthes and complained that Schwartze was "stonewalling."

On May 9, 2012, Matthes presented Schwartze with two options: she could voluntarily resign and retire from her job as ECMA Administrator and begin drawing her police pension, or she would be eliminated. Matthes gave Schwartze less than one hour to decide whether to accept the resign/retirement scenario or be eliminated. Schwartze consulted with her attorney, and decided not to resign. After being informed of Schwartze's decision, Matthes provided her a letter stating that she was placed on administrative leave, effective immediately. At around 5:00 p.m., Matthes sent an email to the Mayor, City Council, and senior staff stating that Schwartze was on paid administrative leave pending action at the next City Council meeting to amend the budget. Burton then sent an email to the Police Department stating that Schwartze wasno longer an administrator of the City and Schwartze's access to the building was restricted to areas open to the general public unless she was accompanied by an escort. After learning of Schwartze's removal, Deputy Police Chief Stephen Monticelli emailed Burton and stated, "Wow, there has to be a story there? She step in it again?" Burton responded, "we will talk later."

Watkins believes the City's termination of Schwartze was "poorly handled," and has noted that in the sixteen years in which he served as Assistant City Manager and City Manager, he never laid off or terminated a department head without cause. In his experience, employees laid off for budgetary reasons were not terminated immediately, were not locked out of their officers, were not locked out of their computers, and were not escorted by police or human resources staff off of City property. City Attorney Fred Boeckmann made statements similar to Watkins' regarding the irregularities surrounding Schwartze's termination.

On May 17, 2012, Schwartze's attorney filed a "Complaint/Grievance/Appeal" under the City's Ordinances. On June 11, 2012, Matthes denied Schwartze's Complaint/Grievance. On June 14, Schwartze requested a hearing before the Personnel Advisory Board. The City informed Schwartze that layoffs are not subject to hearings before the Board.

On June 4, 2012, the City Council voted to eliminate the ECMA Administrator position. However, prior to that date Matthes had indicated to Schwartze that even if the City Council did not vote to eliminate the position, that would not change his decision to terminate Schwartze.

Joe Piper and Fire Chief Scott Olsen were assigned Schwartze's work after she was terminated. Piper received a raise and a promotion. The City also requested that Donna Hargis return to work from retirement to help with the workload in Schwartze's absence. Following Schwartze's separation of employment from the City, she asked to be placed on a reemployment list. This reemployment list exists because City Ordinance 19-211 states that laid off employees will be given "first consideration" for the position that was eliminated or similar positions. In October 2012, Schwartze applied for the deputy chief of police position and was considered but not selected. Instead, the City hired Diane Bernhard, an internal applicant already working in the Police Department. Matthes did not know Schwartze applied for the deputy chief position. Captain positions opened in September 2012 and August 2013 and both positions were filed internally.

II. Discussion

A. Count III: Due Process Property Interest

Schwartze has brought two due process claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In order to have a successful claim under § 1983, the plaintiff must be able to prove that "1) defendant deprived plaintiff of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and 2) defendant was acting under the color of state law at the time of the conduct constituting the deprivation." Foremost Ins. Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of Mo., 985 S.W.2d 793, 796 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Schwartze contends that Defendants violated her procedural due process rights when they terminated her from her job as ECMA Administrator and refused to let her return to a job at the Police Department. In order for a government employee to have aright to procedural due process, they must be deprived of a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest. Christiansen v. W. Branch Cmty. Sch. Dist., 674 F.3d 927, 934 (8^th Cir. 2012). Property interests in employment generally arise from limitations on an employer's right to terminate an employee. Daniels v. Bd. of Curators of Lincoln Univ., 51 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). Due process requires notice, an opportunity to respond to the charges before termination, and post-termination administrative review. Id. Schwartze contends that she had a protected property interest in her employment with the City pursuant to 1) the October 5, 2009 Agreement, 2) the City Ordinances and Charter, 3) City customs and practices, or 4) some combination of the above.

Regardless of the content of the ...