Edmonds v. City of Columbia
| Decision Date | 05 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 2023-UP-134,Appellate 2019-001047 |
| Parties | Michael Edmonds, Respondent, v. City of Columbia, Appellant. |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
Heard April 7, 2022
Appeal From Richland County Daniel Dewitt Hall, Circuit Court Judge
Chad Nicholas Johnston, of Burr & Forman LLP, and Dana M Thye, of the City Attorney's Office, both of Columbia for Appellant.
James Paul Porter, of Cromer Babb Porter & Hicks, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent.
In this civil action, the City of Columbia (the City) appeals the jury's verdict in favor of Michael Edmonds and award of $65,000 in damages on his negligence claim. The City argues the circuit court erred in denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) because no tort of "negligent separation" exists and no evidence supported recovery on any theory of negligence. We reverse.
Edmonds began working as a firefighter for the City of Columbia Fire Department (the Fire Department) in July 1987. He earned several promotions throughout his thirty-year career, and in 2010, he was promoted to Assistant Chief of Administration.
In March 2016, the City hired a third-party consultant to complete an assessment of the Fire Department. City Manager Teresa Wilson, sent a department-wide email to employees of the Fire Department, informing them of the assessment and encouraging their participation. She stated the meetings with the consultant would be confidential and the responses and results of the assessment would be reported anonymously. Edmonds met with the consultant on March 24, 2016. Later that day, Edmonds spoke to another employee, Assistant Chief George Adams, who told him the consultant indicated the person she interviewed before him "had a lot to say." Edmonds believed this comment referred to him, and he worried the consultant had divulged his statements. Edmonds emailed Wilson to express these concerns and his fear of "ramifications." Wilson responded that she would do all she could "to maintain the integrity and confidentiality" of the protocol the City had established.
About two months later, in June 2016, Edmonds met with Assistant City Manager, Allison Baker, and shared concerns similar to those he had shared with the consultant. Edmonds also emailed Baker "documentation" of these concerns. Baker subsequently shared this information with Fire Chief Aubrey Jenkins. Chief Jenkins called Edmonds into his office about a month later in July 2016 and questioned him about his complaints to Baker but took no further action at the time.
The following year, in May 2017, the Fire Department conducted an internal administrative investigation into the ethics of Edmonds's purchase of five hundred pairs of fire gloves following an allegation that Edmonds received a personal gain from the purchase. Although the investigator was unable to substantiate this allegation, he expressed concern with the procurement process because Edmonds relied upon an outdated field test in selecting the gloves. In addition, the investigator questioned whether the Fire Department would be able to use the gloves because Edmonds purchased them in fifteen different sizes. Several weeks later, an internet blogger published a blog post accusing "a chief" of the Fire Department of making a questionable purchase of $60,000 worth of firefighting gloves. Less than a month thereafter, on July 5 2017, Chief Jenkins requested Edmonds's resignation. Edmonds submitted his resignation two days later.
Edmonds then filed this action against the City, alleging causes of action for defamation, wrongful discharge, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and promissory estoppel. As to his claim for negligence, Edmonds alleged the City owed him a "duty to conduct a confidential investigation" when it hired the consultant to investigate the Fire Department. Edmonds asserted this duty was based on the City's "ordinary duty to supervise its employees and agents, the representations it made to [Edmonds] and others about confidentiality, and the knowledge that harm could foreseeably occur to [Edmonds's] reputation if the [City] did not ensure and maintain confidentiality." He alleged the City failed to exercise slight care and "breached a duty to Edmonds and directly and proximately caused [Edmonds's] damages," including "lost wages, benefits, earning capacity, and the costs of prosecuting this action." Edmonds additionally alleged he suffered noneconomic damages, including "pain and suffering, humiliation, emotional distress, stress, and anxiety."
The City moved for summary judgment, arguing the record contained no evidence to establish the elements of negligence and that it was immune from liability pursuant to the South Carolina Tort Claims Act.[1] The trial court denied the City's motion for summary judgment, and the matter proceeded to a jury trial.[2]
During trial, Edmonds testified about his meeting with Baker and stated he "shared with [Baker] everything [he] had shared with everybody else." Edmonds recalled that during the July 2016 meeting in which Chief Jenkins confronted him about his statements to Baker, Chief Jenkins assured him everything would be "all right." However, Edmonds explained that from that point forward, he felt he had no face-to-face interactions with Chief Jenkins and the only way he could communicate with him was by phone. Edmonds stated the reasons Chief Jenkins gave for asking for his resignation in 2017 were that "the fire stations [we]re falling apart and this glove thing [wa]s the final straw."
Baker agreed he forwarded Edmonds's email to Chief Jenkins but stated he never represented to Edmonds that his emails would be kept confidential. Baker stated that after seeing the report and Edmonds's email, Chief Jenkins discussed removing Edmonds, but Baker disagreed and suggested Chief Jenkins meet with Edmonds to resolve the issues. He stated that although he was not willing to agree with removing Edmonds in June 2016, twelve months later, he believed there was "much evidence to support the ineffectiveness of [Edmonds]."
Wilson testified the consultant's report included employees' anonymous criticisms of Chief Jenkins. She stated Edmonds was the first and only person who "gave [her] notice that they felt that the confidentiality was breached" and she had no reason to believe the consultant breached confidentiality.
After Edmonds rested his case-in-chief, the City moved for a directed verdict as to each of his causes of action. The trial court granted the motion as to Edmonds's wrongful discharge claim but denied the motion as to all other claims.
The City called Assistant Chief Adams to testify. He testified the consultant did not share anything with him about the survey. Assistant Chief Adams did not recall the conversation Edmonds described. He explained,
The consultant testified her firm had worked with the City for thirty years and stated the City hired it to conduct a survey and interview 108 members of the leadership staff. She explained the survey was anonymous and the report was specific as to the content of responses but did not identify the persons making the comments. She stated she did not share any information with responders regarding what previous responders had shared, and she never provided any names of the responders or associated any comments with any of the responders when she discussed the results with the City.
Chief Jenkins testified Edmonds's responsibilities included logistics, equipment, and buildings. He explained that Edmonds ordered the fire gloves as part of his logistics responsibilities. Chief Jenkins recalled that when the order arrived, he examined the gloves and noticed an inscription on the inside that stated they were "not meant for firefighting." He stated this was "the final straw" in regards to Edmonds. He additionally noted he was concerned because the latest wear test had not included those gloves in its recommendation. Chief Jenkins explained that, prior to the glove issue, there had also been problems with the facilities. He agreed the Fire Department did not have direct control over building services but stated Edmonds was responsible for ensuring the appropriate departments were held accountable. Chief Jenkins testified no one told him what Edmonds said to the consultant but acknowledged he could "figure out" some things based on what members of his command staff "were always saying." He stated he did not attribute any of the statements included in the survey to Edmonds. Chief Jenkins acknowledged Baker forwarded him Edmonds's email but stated Edmonds had already raised the same concerns to him personally. He testified he asked for Edmonds's resignation because he felt Edmonds was ineffective. Chief Jenkins agreed the reasons he gave were the facilities issues and the glove issue.
At the close of the evidence, the City renewed its motion for directed verdict as to the remaining claims. The trial court denied the motion for directed verdict but found for the City as to Edmonds's claim for promissory estoppel. Thus, only the claims of defamation and negligence were submitted to the jury.
In his closing argument, Edmonds argued the City was negligent "in supervising the fire chief and handling [Edmonds's] confidentiality." The trial court charged the jury on general negligence. As to the negligence claim, the trial court's jury verdict form asked "Was the defendant, the City of Columbia, negligent with respect to Michael Edmonds'[s] separation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial