Brominski v. County of Luzerne

• Decision Date: 04 November 2003
• Docket Number: No. 3:00 CV 1142.,3:00 CV 1142.
• Citation: 289 F.Supp.2d 591
• Parties: Edward A. BROMINSKI, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF LUZERNE; Thomas A. Makowski; Frank P. Crossin; Joseph Jones; James V. Senape, Jr.; Maureen Rudnicki; and William J. Joyce, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

289 F.Supp.2d 591

Edward A. BROMINSKI, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF LUZERNE; Thomas A. Makowski; Frank P. Crossin; Joseph Jones; James V. Senape, Jr.; Maureen Rudnicki; and William J. Joyce, Defendants.

No. 3:00 CV 1142.

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.

November 4, 2003.

Glennis L. Clark, Law Office of Glennis L. Clark, Allentown, PA, for Plaintiff.

George A. Reihner, John G. Dean, Elliott Reihner Siedzikowski & Egan, P.C., Scranton, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

MUNLEY, District Judge.

Before the court for disposition is the defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's affidavit and the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff is Edward Brominski and the defendants are Luzerne County, Thomas A. Makowski, Frank P. Crossin, Joseph Jones, James V. Senape, Jr., Maureen Rudnicki and William J. Joyce (collectively, "Defendants"). The motions are ripe for disposition having been fully briefed and argued. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the motion to strike and will grant the summary judgment in part and deny it in part.

I. Background

In August 1992, Luzerne County hired the plaintiff to serve as its Chief Clerk of Assessment. Complaint ¶ 12. During his employment, plaintiff supervised 40-50 employees in the County's Tax Assessor's office. See Defendants' Exhib. 3, p. 22-23. In December 1999, as part of its annual budgeting process, the County finalized the 2000 fiscal year budget. See id. Exhib. 1B. In order to meet the parameters of the budget and the total amount of salaries that were allowed, the county realigned certain departments and eliminated certain positions from the budget, including three (3) full-time positions in the County Assessor's office. See id. Exhib. 2. After the budget was adopted on December 30, 1999, the plaintiff was notified of the elimination of his position and his termination. See id. Exhib. 3, p. 36.

In January 1999, plaintiff announced his candidacy and sought the democratic nomination for the office of County Commissioner of Luzerne County. Complaint ¶ 14. Plaintiff was unsuccessful in his campaign for County Commissioner. Id. ¶ 19. Plaintiff claims that he was terminated from his position in retaliation for exercising his constitutional rights. Id. ¶ 21.

On June 26, 2000, plaintiff commenced this civil action against Defendants alleging that they violated his constitutional rights and Pennsylvania's Whistleblower Law. Id. By Memorandum and Order dated August 28, 2001, this Court dismissed plaintiff's official capacity claims against the individually named defendants and dismissed plaintiff's request for punitive damages under Pennsylvania's Whistleblower Law. Accordingly, plaintiff's remaining claims are: 1) First Amendment claims against the County and the individually named defendants in their individual capacities pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983;¹ and 2) a Pennsylvania Whistleblower claim against such defendants.

II. Jurisdiction

The Court exercises jurisdiction over this dispute pursuant to its federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Pennsylvania law applies to those claims considered pursuant to supplemental jurisdiction. United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966) (citing Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938)).

III. Standard of Review

The granting of summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." See Knabe v. Boury, 114 F.3d 407, 410 n. 4 (3d Cir.1997) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)). "[T]his standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (emphasis in original).

In considering a motion for summary judgment, the court must examine the facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. International Raw Materials, Ltd. v. Stauffer Chemical Co., 898 F.2d 946, 949 (3d Cir.1990). The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could not return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A fact is material when it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Id. Where the non-moving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the party moving for summary judgment may meet its burden by showing that the evidentiary materials of record, if reduced to admissible evidence, would be insufficient to carry the non-movant's burden of proof at trial. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once the moving party satisfies its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party, who must go beyond its pleadings, and designate specific facts by the use of affidavits, depositions, admissions, or answers to interrogatories showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548.

IV. Discussion

A. Absolute Legislative Immunity

Defendants claims that the individually named defendants should be dismissed from the lawsuit because they are entitled to absolute legislative immunity. After careful analysis, we agree.

Legislative immunity, an absolute immunity, can be invoked when officials' actions are legislative in nature. Gallas v. Supreme Court, 211 F.3d 760, 773 (3d Cir. 2000). In determining whether officials are entitled to absolute legislative immunity, "we must focus on the nature of the official's action rather than the official's motives or the title of his or her office." Id. See also, Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 54, 118 S.Ct. 966, 140 L.Ed.2d 79 (1998) ("Whether an act is legislative turns on the nature of the act, rather than on the motive or intent of the official performing it.")

"Individuals who are not legislators but whose acts have a substantial legislative nexus are ... imbued with this absolute legislative immunity." Hughes v. Lipscher, 852 F.Supp. 293, 296 (D.N.J.1994) (citing Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 92 S.Ct. 2614 (1972); Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 95 S.Ct. 1813, 44 L.Ed.2d 324 (1975)). Specifically, when such officials' actions are both substantively and procedurally legislative in nature, the officials must be dismissed from the action. Gallas, 211 F.3d at 775-77.

Here, all of the named defendants are either County Commissioners responsible for preparing and adopting the County's budget or Board members responsible for overseeing the Tax Assessor's office, as well as setting the number of Tax Assessor office employees and their salaries. See 16 P.S. § 1781 and 72 P.S. § 5345. The County Commissioners (Makowski, Crossin and Jones) voted on a proposed budget that included the recommendations of the Board members (Senape, Joyce and Rudnicki). Plaintiff complains that his position was eliminated from the County's budget.

"The Supreme Court [has] recognized that the elimination of a public employment position ... constitutes a `legislative' act." Gallas, 211 F.3d at 775. See, also, Bogan, 523 U.S. at 55, 118 S.Ct. 966 ("[The city council member's] acts of voting for an ordinance were, in form, quintessentially legislative. [The mayor's] introduction of a budget and signing into law an ordinance also were formally legislative, even though he was an executive official."). Such officials enjoy absolute legislative immunity from § 1983 liability regardless of the officials' motive or intent. Id. at 54-55, 118 S.Ct. 966.

McHugh v. Board of Educ., 100 F.Supp.2d 231 (D.Del.2000), is instructive on this issue. In that case, a school transportation official brought an action against his employer and several school officials alleging that the decision to eliminate his position was retaliatory and violated the First Amendment. Id. at 233. The court there held that the defendant school superintendent's action in proposing the budget and the defendant school board member's action in voting in favor of the budget were "in the sphere of legitimate legislative activity and, therefore ... entitled to absolute immunity." Id. at 238-39.

We find that the individually named defendants' roles in making recommendations and voting on the County's 2000 budget were substantially legislative in nature. The 2000 budget involved the reduction of multiple positions throughout the county, including two other employees from the Tax Assessor's office. See Defendant's Exhib. 1-2, 8-9. As the Supreme Court concluded in Bogan, it "reflected a discretionary, policymaking decision implicating the budgetary priorities .... Moreover, it involved the termination of a position .... Thus, [defendants'] activities were undoubtedly legislative." 523 U.S. at 55-56, 118 S.Ct. 966.

Accordingly, this court will dismiss the individually named defendants from the lawsuit since they are entitled to absolute legislative immunity.² Defendant municipalities on the other hand, are not protected by legislative immunity. Carver v. Foerster, 102 F.3d 96, 103 (3d Cir.1996). Accordingly, Luzerne County remains in the action as the sole defendant.

B. Section 1983 Conspiracy Claim

Because we conclude that the individually named defendants are entitled to absolute legislative immunity, plaintiff's § 1983 conspiracy claim fails as a matter of law. "Under the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine, a corporation's employees, acting as agents of the corporation, are deemed incapable of conspiring among themselves or with the corporation." Jackson v. T & N Van Service, ...