Galbreath v. Hale Cnty.
| Decision Date | 01 February 2017 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-308-CG-N |
| Parties | TRICIA GALBREATH, Plaintiff, v. HALE COUNTY, ALABAMA COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama |
This matter is before the Court on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. Defendants Hale County, Alabama; Hale County, Alabama Commission; and Probate Judge Arthur Crawford (collectively, "Defendants") filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 25), a Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 26), a Reply Brief in support (Doc. 39), and a Response in Opposition to Plaintiff Tricia Galbreath's ("Plaintiff") Motion (Doc. 33). Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 28), a Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 29), a Reply Brief in support (Doc. 36), and a Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion (Doc. 34). For the reasons explained below, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part, and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED.
This matter arises out of Plaintiff's termination from the Hale County Commission as the County Administrator. The Complaint asserts eight counts: (1) Defendants deprived Plaintiff of a "constitutionally protected property interest in her employment as County Administrator" without due process as required by the Fourteenth Amendment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) Defendants violated Plaintiff's right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (3) Defendants terminated Plaintiff based on her race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.; (4) Defendant Hale County and Defendant Hale County Commission breached their employment contract with Plaintiff in violation of state law; (5) Defendant Hale County and Defendant Hale County Commission wrongfully terminated Plaintiff in violation of state law; (6) Judge Crawford defamed Plaintiff in violation of state law; (7) Defendants placed a "stigma plus" on Plaintiff and did not allow her the opportunity to clear her name in accordance with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (8) Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff based on her age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq. (Doc. 1).
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain parts of the Complaint. (Doc. 7). The Court granted in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint as follows: (1) Counts 1, 2, and 7 were dismissed against Judge Crawford in his official capacity only; (2) Count 6 was dismissed against Judge Crawford in his individual capacity only; and (3) Counts 3 and 8 were dismissed against Judge Crawford only in their entirety. (Doc. 18). The parties subsequently filed cross motions for summary judgment, Defendants on all counts and Plaintiff on Counts 1 and 4. Each partybriefed their position and provided evidentiary support thereof to the Court. This matter is now ripe for consideration.
The Hale County Commission is an elected body of five individuals, headed up by the Probate Judge of Hale County who also serves as the Chairman of the Commission. Plaintiff, a Caucasian female, began working for the Hale County Commission in 2004 as the County Administrator, after coming out of retirement to take the position. After working several months for Hale County, Plaintiff entered into an employment contract ("the 2005 Contract") with Hale County, which was signed by the then Commission Chairman, Judge Leland Avery, and Plaintiff. (Doc. 27-3, pp. 1-3). The initial term of the contract was for October 1, 2005, through September 20, 2010. Id. at 1. Plaintiff's duties included those commonly discharged by the County Administrator and others the law required. Id. In addition to the 2005 contract, Plaintiff was provided with and signed for a copy of the Hale County Personnel Policy ("the Policy"). (Doc. 30-1, p. 25:2-7; Doc. 27-5, pp. 1-24).
On November 25, 2008, Plaintiff received a second employment contract ("the 2008 Contract"), which extended her employment term through November 25, 2013. (Doc. 27-3, pp. 16-18). The 2008 Contract was substantially the same as the 2005 Contract, but the 2008 contract included a cut in salary to $21,000.00. Id. at 1. The cut in salary was to facilitate Plaintiff's ability to draw payments from her retirement with the Alabama Retirement System while continuing to work, aftershe decided not to retire from Hale County in 2008. (Doc. 27-2, p. 12:14-23).
In the November 2012 election cycle, Judge Crawford defeated incumbent candidate Judge Avery in the run for Hale County Probate Judge. (Doc. 27-7, p. 2: 11-16). Also, Donald Anderson was elected as a commissioner during this election cycle. (Doc. 27-13, p. 2:6-8). Judge Crawford was to assume his new position on January 1, 2013. (Doc. 27-7, p. 3: 4-6). Before then, an amendment to the 2008 Contract ("the 2012 Amendment") was executed. Id. at 3:10-18. The 2012 Amendment made the following material amendments to the 2008 Contract: (1) affording Plaintiff all of the rights, privileges, and benefits that Hale County employees have, to include but not limited to, any and all hospital, surgical, dental, and/or any other medical benefit, under the benefit plan for county employees; (2) requiring unanimous consent of the Hale County Commission before Plaintiff could be terminated; and (3) extending the term of the 2008 Contract through November 25, 2018. (Doc. 27-3, pp. 21-24). Both Plaintiff and Judge Avery signed the 2012 Amendment.1
On June 18, 2013, the Hale County Commission held a commission meeting. The published agenda indicated that one of the general session topics was "personnel," to include the County Administrator (Plaintiff) and County Attorney (William Holmes). (Doc. 30-10, p. 2). The agenda also indicated that an executive session would take place to discuss threatening litigation. Id. Beyond the agenda,Judge Crawford testified that he was unaware of any notice being provided to Plaintiff that she would be disciplined in the executive session or terminated in the general session. (Doc. 30-11, p. 12:4-9; p. 15:10-14).
After the Commission discussed ongoing conflict issues with the County Attorney in the executive session, Judge Crawford provided Plaintiff with a self-prepared employee disciplinary form and read the form aloud. (Doc. 30-11, p. 4:2-18). The disciplinary form outlined alleged issues pertaining to Plaintiff: (1) chronic absenteeism and absent without authorized leave; (2) failure to carry out duties of the job; (3) failure to work cooperatively, cheerfully, and productively with others; (4) use of foul language in the workplace; (5) failure to meet the standard of appropriate attire on the job; and (6) travel without the approval of the commission. (Doc. 30-13, pp. 2-3). The entire commission, Plaintiff, and the County Attorney were present for the reading. (Doc. 30-11, p. 3:16-20). As Judge Crawford read the form, Plaintiff made continued attempts to interrupt and was told that she could not speak at that time. (Doc. 27-2, pp. 135:18-136:2). After Judge Crawford read the form, Plaintiff was offered an opportunity to respond; Judge Crawford testified that Plaintiff only responded "no comment." (Doc. 30-11, p. 4:19-23). No discussion as to Plaintiff's termination transpired during the executive session.
The Hale County Commission returned to general session, wherein Commissioner Anderson moved to terminate Plaintiff's contract. (Doc. 30-9, p. 3). Commissioner Hamilton seconded the motion. (Doc. 30-9, p.3). Judge Crawford, Commissioner Hamilton, and Commissioner Anderson voted in favor of Plaintiff'stermination. Id. Commissioner Rogers voted against Plaintiff's termination, and Commissioner Rhodes abstained from the vote. Id. Given the majority approval, the vote carried and Plaintiff's employment was terminated. Id. Each proponent of Plaintiff's termination offered his own reasons for voting in favor of termination and provided these reasons in a declaration.
As to Judge Crawford, he offered five reasons. See (Doc. 27-20). First, he declared that Plaintiff's duties included preparing commission meeting minutes and Plaintiff failed to do so. Id. at 1. However, Plaintiff testified that she completed the meeting minutes and put them in the appropriate book for the commissioners to sign. (Doc. 30-1, p. 22:15-23). Carol Robinson also testified that electronic copies of the meeting minutes were discovered on Plaintiff's work computer after her termination. (Doc. 35-8, pp. 3:19-4:8). Judge Crawford also declared that he believed Plaintiff was absent from work on a regular basis based on his observations and reports of other County employees working closely with Plaintiff. (Doc. 27-20, p. 1). On the other hand, Plaintiff testified that she had no set work schedule and would come in and work until the job was done, throughout her tenure with Hale County. (Doc. 30-1, p. 13:15-20). Judge Avery also offered a declaration supporting Plaintiff's work schedule position. (Doc. 35-5, p. 1).
Second, Judge Crawford stated that he received reports from Russell Weeden, the Hale County Emergency Management Director, that Plaintiff made threats to cut Weeden's budget if he did not add Plaintiff as a line item in his budget. (Doc. 27-20, p. 2). But Plaintiff denied this accusation in her deposition. (Doc. 35-2, p.44:13-16). Third, Judge Crawford declared that Plaintiff was responsible for managing and directing Hale County contracts. (Doc. 27-20, p. 2). Judge Crawford believed that, based on information he possessed, Plaintiff failed to meet legal requirements pertaining to said contracts on several occasions. Id. Plaintiff, however, testified that the Commission Chairman was the one responsible for the contract duties. (...
To continue reading
Request your trial