Dionne v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

• Decision Date: 22 November 1994
• Docket Number: No. 93-1042,93-1042
• Citation: 40 F.3d 677
• Parties: William DIONNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE; Joyce Jefferson-Daniels, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Page 677

40 F.3d 677

William DIONNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE; Joyce Jefferson-Daniels, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 93-1042.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Sept. 30, 1993.

Decided Nov. 22, 1994.

ARGUED: Kathleen M. Cahill, Baltimore, MD, for appellant. Laurice Deanne Royal, Baltimore, MD, for appellees. ON BRIEF: Jeanne-Marie Bates, Baltimore, MD, for appellant. Otho M. Thompson, Baltimore, MD, for appellees.

Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded in part, affirmed in part by published opinion. Judge PHILLIPS wrote the majority opinion in which Judge WILLIAMS joined. Judge WIDENER wrote a concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion.

OPINION

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge:

William Dionne, a former Baltimore City employee, appeals the district court's dismissal by summary judgment of his claims under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Dionne alleged that the City and his immediate supervisor violated his procedural due process rights in two instances: first, by firing him without pre-termination notice and hearing, and second, by then reinstating him to a position that was immediately abolished by the City. Because we conclude that, under the federal common law of claim preclusion, an unreviewed state administrative decision which had found in favor of Dionne on his substantive claim of illegal termination does not preclude his subsequent Sec. 1983 claim challenging the denial of federal procedural due process in the course of that termination, we vacate that part of the district court's grant of summary judgment which dismissed the Sec. 1983 claim and remand it for further proceedings. Because we conclude, however, that Dionne had no protectible property interest in the continued existence of the job position to which he was reinstated, we affirm the dismissal by summary judgment of his Sec. 1983 claim based upon its abolishment.

I

In 1985, the City of Baltimore hired William Dionne as Chief of Media Technical Services in the Mayor's Office of Cable and Communications ("MOCC"). Joyce Jefferson-Daniels ("Daniels") became MOCC Director in 1990. Daniels was Dionne's supervisor during all events relevant to this appeal, those events being (1) that Dionne was fired on October 11, 1990, and later reinstated on May 30, 1991, and (2) that as the result of a budgetary process which began in August of 1990, the job position held by Dionne and to which he was reinstated was abolished as of July 1, 1991. Because these events form the basis of Dionne's claims, we describe them in some detail.

On October 11, 1990, Daniels sent Dionne a letter terminating his employment effective that same day for allegedly violating Baltimore City Service Commission Rule 56. ¹ Dionne's status as a civil service employee entitled him to the protection of the rules and regulations of the Baltimore Civil Service Commission (the "Commission"). He received, however, none of the pre-termination process specified by the Commission's rules--no oral or written notice of the specific violations alleged, nor a formal or informal pre-termination conference affording him an opportunity to respond to Daniels' charges. Dionne submitted a written request for an investigation within five days of his discharge in accordance with the Disciplinary Hearing Regulations issued by the Commission. After several days of hearings at which both parties were represented by counsel, the Hearing Officer determined that the City had violated Dionne's procedural due process rights as detailed by the Civil Service rules, and had failed to prove the substantive allegations made against Dionne. The Officer recommended that Dionne be reinstated to his former position and receive full back pay and lost benefits; the Commission adopted his recommendations as its final decision on April 16, 1991. Commission regulations provided that the City had thirty days to appeal the decision.

Upon expiration of the thirty-day period, Dionne wrote the Commission urging it to make sure the City complied with its ruling. The City took no action, however, and on May 24, 1991, Dionne filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City seeking a Writ of Mandamus ordering the City and Daniels to comply with the Commission's ruling.

Daniels was served with the summons and complaint on May 29, 1991. Later that same day, she sent Dionne a letter notifying him that he would be reinstated as of May 30, 1991, and would receive his back pay and lost benefits. ² Daniels' letter continued, "You are also advised that unfortunately ... your position has been abolished for fiscal year 1991-1992. The funding for your position expires on June 30, 1991." Dionne asserts this was the first time he heard that his position would be abolished. His last day of work was June 14, 1991. ³

The process leading to the abolishment of his position actually began about one year earlier. In response to an August 1990 directive concerning budgetary constraints in the upcoming 1991-1992 fiscal year, Daniels recommended to the Director of Finance that two positions in her agency be abolished--Dionne's position and a vacant contractual position. ⁴ On April 17, 1991, the Department of Finance submitted a preliminary budget to the Baltimore Board of Estimates. Based on the preliminary budget, the Board prepared a proposed budget ordinance which incorporated Daniels' recommendation to eliminate Dionne's position at the MOCC. The Board issued its final approval of the budget on June 24, 1991, and the budget was enacted upon the Mayor's signing on June 28, 1991. The final budget abolished Dionne's position.

On June 25, 1991, Dionne filed this Sec. 1983 action against the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore ⁵ (collectively the "City") and against Joyce Jefferson-Daniels, in her individual and official capacities, alleging that the October 1990 termination and the June 1991 abolishment of his job violated his procedural due process rights. Dionne further claimed that the June 1991 abolishment of his job was in retaliation for asserting his right to an administrative hearing and so also violated his First Amendment rights. Claiming that the several constitutional violations alleged directly caused loss of his employment position, loss of wages, benefits and pension rights, damage to his reputation, mental distress and emotional trauma, his complaint sought damages for loss of back pay and benefits, future earnings and benefits, additional compensatory damages, punitive damages (as to defendant Daniels), costs, and attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988 J.A. 17 (complaint). ⁶

The district court dismissed all the claims by summary judgment, finding that Dionne had waived his right to bring a Sec. 1983 claim based on the October 1990 termination under the doctrine of election of remedies, and that legislative immunity prevented a Sec. 1983 claim based on the allegations of retaliation. To the extent his Sec. 1983 claim based on the June 1991 job abolishment asserted a violation of his procedural due process rights, the court held that Dionne had not stated a cognizable claim because he "enjoyed no property right in the continued existence of his job." Dionne v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, No. 91-1770 (D.Md. Jan. 13, 1992). ⁷

This appeal followed.

We review in turn whether Dionne's termination in October 1990 and the abolishment of his job in June of 1991 are actionable under Sec. 1983. We do not consider any claim under Sec. 1983 of retaliation by the defendants in violation of Dionne's First Amendment rights as counsel for Dionne conceded that issue before this court. ⁸

II

The district court concluded that because of Dionne's earlier prosecution of his state administrative claims, the City and Daniels could not be held liable for the alleged constitutional violation under Sec. 1983. "In successfully pursuing the Commission's post-termination administrative remedies, ... Dionne effectively waived his opportunity to seek additional damages from the Defendants." Dionne v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, No. 91-1770, 1992 WL 373149 (D.Md. Oct. 8, 1992). In its Reconsideration Opinion, the lower court revealed that it believed the doctrine of election of remedies required this conclusion.

We hold, initially, that the issue presented is not properly addressed as one of election of remedies, but as one of res judicata. The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, recently so held, see Haphey v. Linn County, 953 F.2d 549, 552 (9th Cir.1992) (en banc), and we agree with that court's analysis. The distinction is one of substance. The doctrine of election of remedies "refers to situations where an individual pursues remedies that are legally or factually inconsistent." Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 49, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 1020, 39 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974); cf. 18 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 4476, at 773 (1981) ("[T]he election label has traditionally been used to explain decisions that today seem better explained in terms of claim preclusion."). Dionne's claim involves no such inconsistencies. The prevention of double recovery, another justification for the doctrine, Alexander, 415 U.S. at 51 n. 14, 94 S.Ct. at 1021 n. 14, also does not support its application. The back pay and lost benefits awarded Dionne by the Civil Service Commission would reduce any damages that Dionne might recover in this action.

We therefore address the dispositive issue as one of claim preclusion: whether the unreviewed state ⁹ administrative proceeding precludes a subsequent Sec. 1983 claim which concededly arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions. Neither the Supreme Court nor this court has previously addressed the general question. The Eleventh Circuit recently has done so, holding that under federal common law, an unreviewed state agency decision should not...