Brown v. County of Genesee, AFL-CI

• Decision Date: 11 April 1989
• Docket Number: No. 88-1045,L,AFL-CI,88-1045
• Citation: 872 F.2d 169
• Parties: 49 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 849, 49 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,907, 57 USLW 2705 Stephanie Ann BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The COUNTY OF GENESEE, Defendant-Appellant, Michigan Council 25, AFSCMEocal 2259, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 169

872 F.2d 169

49 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 849,

49 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,907, 57 USLW 2705

Stephanie Ann BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The COUNTY OF GENESEE, Defendant-Appellant, Michigan Council 25, AFSCME AFL-CIO, Local 2259, Defendant.

No. 88-1045.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued Oct. 7, 1988.

Decided April 11, 1989.

Gregory T. Gibbs, Flint, Mich., for plaintiff-appellee.

Richard M. Barron, Flint, Mich., for defendant-appellant.

Thomas A. Ricca, Detroit, Mich., for defendant.

Before KENNEDY, KRUPANSKY and BOGGS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The County of Genesee (County), defendant below and appellant before this court, has appealed from the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan which modified a consent agreement that had been negotiated with and agreed to by Stephanie Ann Brown (Brown), the plaintiff below and appellee herein, in this action alleging employment discrimination resulting from Brown's physical impediment, 694 F.Supp. 250.

The case was submitted to the trial court for disposition upon stipulated facts. Brown is a diabetic who requires daily injections of insulin. The parties have agreed that her condition constituted a physical handicap which was protected, both under Michigan and federal statutes.

Brown had applied for a position with the County as a security guard in a county jail facility in March, 1982. Brown was initially informed on May 3, 1982 that she had qualified for the position and that she could commence employment in June, 1982, subject to successfully completing a physical examination. When Brown advised the examining physician of her diabetic condition, and the need for daily insulin injections, he advised the County that she was not physically qualified to serve in the position of a security guard. On June 16, 1982, the County informed Brown that she would not be employed because of her diabetic condition.

Brown, believing that the County had discriminated against her because of her physical disability, thereupon obtained legal counsel to protect her rights and to pursue her cause. The County denied having a policy of excluding all diabetics from consideration for county employment, asserting that the physician who had examined Brown had recommended that she was not physically qualified to be employed as a prison security guard. The appellee's attorney thereupon entered into negotiations with the County in an effort to resolve the controversy. After the initial negotiations proved unsuccessful, Brown filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Michigan on March 21, 1984, wherein she alleged that the County had refused to employ her because of her physical disability in violation of the federal Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C.A. Sec. 794 (West Supp.1988), the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983 (West 1981), and the Michigan Handicappers' Civil Rights Act, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. Sec. 37.1101 and Mich. Stat. Ann. Sec. 3.550(101).

In late March, 1984, after Brown had filed the instant action, the County offered to appoint her to a recently vacated position of county jail security guard, the position which was initially denied her in June of 1982 for physical reasons. Brown accepted this offer on March 31, 1984, after successfully completing her physical examination which considered her previously disqualifying physical condition of diabetes. Brown has continued her employment in this position since that time and the present action is concerned only with the period of time between the denial of her first application date on June 16, 1982 and her subsequent employment on March 31, 1984.

On October 5, 1984, the County filed a motion for summary judgment on Brown's claim under the federal Rehabilitation Act (Act) and argued that the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain appellant's cause of action under the Act because the County Sheriff's Department was not subsidized by any federal grants or funds, which was a prerequisite to invoking federal jurisdiction pursuant to the Act. Alternatively, the County urged that in the event the district court were to conclude that the Act conferred jurisdiction to entertain the instant action, it should nevertheless dismiss Brown's claim under Sec. 1983 as preempted by the Rehabilitation Act. Finally, the County requested the district court to dismiss Brown's pendant state law claims under the Michigan Handicappers' Rights Act.

On April 24, 1985, the district court denied the County's motion for summary judgment as to the causes of action asserted pursuant to the Act and the Michigan Handicappers' statute. The district court, however, granted summary judgment in favor of the County on Brown's Sec. 1983 claim, concluding that Congress had intended the remedies afforded under the Act to be exclusive in resolving all causes of action charging discrimination arising as a result of physical handicaps, thus barring any relief under Sec. 1983. Brown v. County of Genesee, 37 F.E.P. Cases 1595 (E.D.Mich.1985). Contemporaneously, the parties had agreed that in the event the district court failed to grant summary judgment on all of Brown's claims, any remaining controversies would be referred to mediation. Consequently, the district court entered an order on April 21, 1985 referring the remaining counts for mediation on May 14, 1985.

As a result of the ongoing settlement negotiations, the parties concluded a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement on July 9, 1985, in which they agreed that Brown would be advanced to the third pay level ("C" step), as explained in greater detail below. Approximately one year subsequent to the entry and execution of the settlement agreement, the appellee learned from a co-worker that another employee, who had been hired in 1982 at the time Brown's application for employment had been rejected, was being paid at the fourth pay level ("D" step). Brown's counsel thereupon protested to the County that Brown had not been advanced to the highest possible pay level which she theoretically could have achieved had she been hired in 1982.

After counsel for the parties were unable to resolve the dispute, the appellee moved to vacate the judgment entry which incorporated the settlement agreement of July 9, 1985 and to modify the agreement to advance Brown to step "D" on the compensation scale, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The parties submitted the controversy for disposition upon the following stipulation of facts.

1. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant County on March 31, 1984, as a jail security guard.

2. Under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement negotiated between Defendant County and Intervening Defendant AFSME LOCAL 2259, and effective July 19, 1982, seven (7) pay levels or pay steps were established for the employment classification of Security Guard.

3. The first pay step for Security Guard under terms of said contract was the "New Hire" pay step.

4. The "New Hire" pay step has continued to be the first of seven (7) pay steps for Security Guard under each subsequent collective bargaining agreement between Defendant County and Intervening Defendant AFSCME LOCAL 2259.

5. Prior to the contract of July 19, 1982, the first pay step for Security Guard was the "A" pay step.

6. If Plaintiff had been hired on June 16, 1982, as a Security Guard, she would have been paid at the "A" pay step.

7. However, Plaintiff was hired as a Security Guard on March 31, 1984, at the "New Hire" rate of pay under the terms of the then existing collective bargaining agreement.

8. Pay step increases under the Genesee County pay system are not automatic, but are based on "merit" following an annual evaluation of an employee's work performance by the employee's department head.

9. Effective March 31, 1985, Plaintiff received a merit step increase and Plaintiff's rate of pay was increased to the "A" step for Security Guard.

10. Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant engaged in negotiations to settle Plaintiff's lawsuit during the period of April 8, 1985 through July 9, 1985.

11. Said settlement negotiations encompassed Plaintiff's rate of pay.

12. At various times during the negotiations, counsel for Plaintiff stated that Plaintiff's objective in settlement was to receive, in terms of benefits and compensation, that which she would have received had she been hired by Defendant County on June 16, 1982.

13. Counsel for Defendant, on the other hand, inquired of Plaintiff's counsel as to the specific terms on which Plaintiff would agree to settle.

14. On May 15, 1985, after telephonic negotiation between counsel, counsel for Defendant mailed a proposed STIPULATION to counsel for Plaintiff setting forth the specific terms of a proposed settlement of Plaintiff's lawsuit.

15. In said STIPULATION, Defendant included a provision that Plaintiff would be paid at the "B" step for security guard--a rate of pay one step above that which Plaintiff was then receiving from Defendant County.

16. Sometime after receiving said STIPULATION counsel for Plaintiff phoned counsel for Defendant to advise that Plaintiff would not settle unless Plaintiff were paid at a rate of pay she would have received had she been hired on June 16, 1982.

17. Following further negotiations, Counsel for Defendant requested that counsel for Plaintiff have his client put her settlement demands in writing, signed by her, and forward them to counsel for Defendant. Counsel for Plaintiff then took the original proposed STIPULATION prepared by counsel for Defendant, retyped the proposed STIPULATION on his business stationary, substituted the letter "C" for "B" in paragraph 2.b of the retyped proposed STIPULATION, and added a paragraph on page 5 of the retyped proposed STIPULATION which stated, in part, that Plaintiff had read the proposed Agreement and STIPULATION and submits it as an offer to settle this litigation.

18. On ...