Carr–Lambert v. Grant Cnty. Bd. of Educ.
| Decision Date | 11 August 2011 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 2:09–CV–61. |
| Citation | 837 F.Supp.2d 594,281 Ed. Law Rep. 255 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia |
| Parties | Marsha CARR–LAMBERT, Plaintiff, v. GRANT COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Dottie Riggleman, in her individual capacity, Joyce Riggleman, in her individual capacity, and David Jones, in his individual capacity, Defendants. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
David M. Hammer, Hammer, Ferretti & Schiavoni, Harry P. Waddell, Law Office of Harry P. Waddell, Martinsburg, WV, Elisabeth H. Rose, Rose, Padden & Petty, LC, Fairmont, WV, for Plaintiff.
David J. Mincer, Bailey & Wyant PLLC, Charleston, WV, David M. Jecklin, Jacqueline L. Sikora, Gianola, Barnum, Wigal & London, L.C., Heather M. Noel, MacCorkle, Lavender, Casey & Sweeney, PLLC, Morgantown, WV, for Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF
Pending before this Court are the defendants Dottie Riggleman, Joyce Riggleman, and David Jones' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [Doc. 226] and the defendant Grant County Board of Education's (“GCBOE”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. 221] and Joinder in Motion of Defendants Dottie Riggleman, Joyce Riggleman, and David Jones for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [Doc. 230]. These motions have been fully briefed and are ripe for decision.
Plaintiff Marsha Carr–Lambert filed the underlying suit asserting four causes of action: violation of her First Amendment rights; violation of her right to freedom of speech under Article III, Sections 7 and 16 of the West Virginia Constitution; wrongful discharge stemming from her trial testimony against the former Director of the South Branch Career and Technical Center (“SBCTC”); and violation of the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act (“WPCA”). Pl.'s Am. Compl. ¶¶ 50–61, [Doc. 42].
The plaintiff served as Superintendent of Grant County Schools from 1999 until June 30, 2009, when her most recent contract expired. On December 9, 2008, the defendants first voted not to renew the plaintiff's contract.1 The plaintiff alleges this non-renewal was an act of retaliation against her for exercising her freedom of speech in an August 2008 trial. The plaintiff also alleges that the defendants failed to compensate her for all wages and benefits due, a violation of the WPCA. Specifically, the plaintiff asserts that she accrued 183 unused personal days and 7.5 unused vacation days as of June 30, 2009.
Pursuant to W.Va.Code § 18–2B–2 and her duties as Superintendent, the plaintiff served on the Administrative Council (“the Council”) for the SBCTC, a three-county vocational center located in Grant County, West Virginia. In June 2007, Robert Sisk (“Sisk”) retired as Director of the SBCTC and accepted a position as Interim President of the Eastern West Virginia Community and Technical College. In this new role, Sisk employed defendant David Jones and Tim Riggleman, who is defendant Dottie Riggleman's son and defendant Joyce Riggleman's husband.
Following Sisk's retirement, the Council received information of possible illegal conduct and instructed the new Director to conduct an informal investigation into Sisk's past business practices. Upon these findings, the Council then voted to conduct an independent audit of the SBCTC's records and financial affairs. The Council also decided the plaintiff would oversee the investigation. The plaintiff asserts that she became the target of accusations, innuendo, and harassment once news of the independent audit became public, and that she was threatened with legal action if her investigatory efforts did not cease.
In March 2008, the Council referred the audit report to the Grant County prosecutor who subsequently charged Sisk with a violation of W.Va.Code § 61–3C–7(a) and petit larceny. During the August 2008 trial, the plaintiff testified on behalf of the prosecution. Sisk was found not guilty of the charges.
In August 2009, after the expiration of her contract, the plaintiff applied for at least one open position for which she asserts she was the only qualified applicant. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants interviewed her on September 2, 2009, but that they subsequently rescinded that opening.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that summary judgment for the moving party is appropriate “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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).
The party opposing summary judgment “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). That is, once the movant has met its burden to show absence of material fact, the party opposing summary judgment must then come forward with affidavits or other evidence demonstrating there is indeed a genuine issue for trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–25, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A genuine issue exists “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
In applying this standard, the Court must review all the evidence “in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322–23, 106 S.Ct. 2548. The Court must avoid weighing the evidence or determining the truth and limit its inquiry solely to a determination of whether genuine issues of triable fact exist. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. Summary judgment is proper only “[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348.
The individually-named defendants initially contend that they should be entitled to qualified immunity from the plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. It is undisputed that a government official may be shielded from liability for his or her conduct even if a plaintiff's rights were violated, unless that conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person” in that official's position would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). However, as these elements have not been fully demonstrated and will require additional findings, this Court is not prepared to make any determinations regarding qualified immunity for the individually-named defendants at this time.
To establish a First Amendment retaliation claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate:
1. That she engaged in a protected expression regarding a matter of public concern;
2. That her interest in First Amendment expression outweighs her employer'sinterest in efficient operation of the workplace;
3. That she was deprived of some valuable benefit; and
4. That a causal relationship exists between her protected expression on a matter of public concern and the loss of the benefit.2
Peters v. Jenney, 327 F.3d 307, 322–23 (4th Cir.2003).
Upon such demonstration, the defendants may defeat the claim by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the protected expression actually disrupted or interfered with governmental duties or efficiency. Goldstein v. Chestnut Ridge Volunteer Fire Co., 218 F.3d 337, 356 (4th Cir.2000); Robinson v. Balog, 160 F.3d 183, 189 (4th Cir.1998).
The defendants argue that the plaintiff has made no evidentiary showings and cannot establish the elements of her claim. Primarily, the defendants contend that the plaintiff's testimony was made pursuant to her responsibilities as Superintendent and, therefore, is not a protected expression. However, the Court in Whitfield v. Chartiers Valley Sch. Dist., 707 F.Supp.2d 561 (W.D.Pa.2010), recently recognized “the need to protect truthful testimony in court” and a Garcetti exception: “when a government employee testifies truthfully, she is not simply performing her job duties, [but] rather ... acting as a citizen.” Id. at 575 (quoting Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 423, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006)). Further, a statement disclosing actual or potential wrongdoing or breach of public trust constitutes speech on a matter of public concern. Robinson, 160 F.3d at 188;McVey v. Stacy, 157 F.3d 271, 280–81 (4th Cir.1998).
This Court is not prepared to make a determination as to whether the plaintiff spoke as an employee or as a citizen, but does acknowledge the possibility that her testimony may be considered a protected expression. As to the remaining elements, this Court finds that the plaintiff has met her burden to overcome a motion under Rule 56(c).
The plaintiff, as part of the Administrative Council, was investigating possible illegal conduct at the SBCTC. Using the balancing test set forth in Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968), the plaintiff's interest in disclosing illegal conduct that would affect three counties may outweigh the defendants' interest in an efficient operation of the workplace.
Additionally, the plaintiff demonstrates that she served as Superintendent for ten years, a position for which she earned a salary of approximately $75,000 and benefits by 2009. Based on the evidence presented, a reasonable jury may find that (1) the nonrenewal of her contract was a deprivation of valuable benefits and (2) a causal relationship exists between the plaintiff's Sisk trial testimony and such a deprivation.
Further reviewing the claim under this framework, this Court finds that, if proven, the plaintiff's interest in that expression would be compelling, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial