Gillis v. Bay Cnty. Sheriff John Miller
| Decision Date | 28 January 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 14-cv-12518 |
| Parties | MATTHEW GILLIS, Plaintiff, v. BAY COUNTY SHERIFF JOHN MILLER, in his Official and Individual Capacities, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
Like its companion case1, this case may raise many legitimate questions. It does not, however, raise a question of First Amendment retaliation. Pled only as such, this case must be dismissed.
Defendants Bay County Sheriff's Department and Bay County Sheriff John Miller move for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff Matthew Gillis's claims. See Defs.' Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 25. Gillis claims that Defendants violated both federal and Michigan law by terminating his employment on April 15, 2014. See Pl.'s Compl. ECF No. 1. According to Gillis, his termination was retaliation for the exercise of his First Amendment rights, a violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants also, according to Gillis, violated the Michigan Public Employment Relations Act and Whistleblowers' Protection Act by terminating him.
Defendants disagree and have moved for summary judgment on Gillis's claims. They argue that Gillis has not established a genuine dispute of material fact that his First Amendmentrights were violated. Further, Defendants claim he cannot demonstrate a connection between his union activity and his termination, a showing necessary to maintaining a PERA claim. Lastly, Defendants argue that Gillis cannot demonstrate that his case meets the elements of a Whistleblowers' Protection Act claim.
Because Gillis does not have a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim, that count of his complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. Gillis's remaining state law causes of action will be dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiff Matthew Gillis is a former Correctional Facility Officer ("CFO") at the Bay County Jail. In January 2014 Plaintiff Gillis was elected President of the corrections officer's union, Bay County Corrections of the Police Officers Association of Michigan ("CO Union"). He alleges that he was constructively discharged from his position with the Bay County Jail on February 27, 2014.
Defendant Bay County Sheriff's Department is the law enforcement agency of the Bay County government. The Sheriff's Department is tasked with the administration of the Bay County Jail. Defendant John Miller is the Bay County Sheriff.
What follows is a brief summary of the facts that gave rise to this lawsuit. They are not necessarily the facts that are germane to Gillis's legal claims. Indeed, those facts are few. Understanding and placing the facts relevant to Gillis's claims in context, however, requires a broader understanding of the activity in the Bay County Jail in late 2013 and early 2014. That chronicle is what follows.
Beginning in late 2013, conduct occurred at the jail that led to a series of internal investigations being conducted. In total, three internal investigations were conducted with one employee being reprimanded, one terminated, and another resigning. The employee that resigned was Gillis. All three of the investigations began in early 2014 and concluded within a few months.
The first investigation revolved around allegations that Captain Troy Stewart, the jail administrator at the Bay County Jail, had illegally provided an inmate with prescription mouthwash. As Jail administrator Stewart is tasked with the "care and custody" of the inmates. Shore Dep. 64, Ex. R, Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 25. In early 2014 Stewart procured a bottle of prescription mouthwash for an inmate suffering from rather severe halitosis. Stewart procured the bottle through his wife, at the time a dental assistant. But since the inmate could not leave the jail to be examined by an outside dentist, and because the inmate was not a patient of this dentist, Stewart had the bottle prescribed to his wife. He then picked up the bottle of mouthwash at the pharmacy, scratched off his wife's name, and left the bottle, with use instructions, for the inmate.
The information that Stewart procured this mouthwash for an inmate spread throughout the jail, and it was rumored that the mouthwash contained codeine cough syrup, a controlled substance. Word spread from the inmates to the jail staff. When tale of the mouthwash grew, Stewart decided that he should report to Undersheriff Troy Cunningham that he had brought the mouthwash into the jail.
Upon learning of Stewart's conduct, Sheriff Miller ordered an investigation. Miller Dep. 10-11, Ex. T, Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 25. Miller appointed Sergeant Michael Shore toconduct the investigation. Id. The investigation began on January 13, 2014 and involved interviewing a number of individuals in the jail, including Stewart. Shore Dep. 11, 16.
Because of the claims that the mouthwash was a controlled substance smuggled into the jail, Sergeant Shore treated the investigation as one into criminal activity. Shore Dep. 21-22. This could result in a number of different outcomes, including prosecution. As a result, all individuals interviewed were instructed not to discuss the investigation with anyone but the Sheriff and Undersheriff. See, e.g., Shore Interview Notes, Ex. U, Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 25. Despite being treated as a criminal investigation, the investigation events were never memorialized in a police report, as is common. Shore Dep. 23-24. This was done at the direction of Undersheriff Cunningham. Id.
This first investigation concluded on February 27, 2014 with Sergeant Shore furnishing a report to Sheriff Miller in early March. The report was forwarded to the Bay County Prosecutor on March 10, 2014. See Case Review Sheet, Ex. U, Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. 22, ECF No. 25. On March 25, 2014, the Bay County Prosecutor reviewed Sergeant Shore's report and declined to prosecute, noting "lack of criminal intent - insuff. evid to establish violation of criminal statutes." Id. (sic throughout).
A copy of the report was also sent to the Sheriff. On the basis of the report, Sheriff Miller met with Captain Stewart to discuss and respond to the allegations of his conduct. Following that meeting, Sheriff Miller issued a letter of reprimand to Captain Stewart. Sheriff Miller wrote:
Letter of Reprimand, Ex. U, Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 25.
Sergeant Shore's second investigation commenced soon after the mouthwash incident and revolved around Sergeant Walraven, a supervising CFO at the Bay County Jail and a friend of Plaintiff Matthew Gillis.2 An allegedly anonymous report of misconduct was brought to jail administration's attention by a note slipped under the door of Undersheriff Cunningham on January 23, 2014. The note simply requested that Undersheriff Cunningham review jail security footage from the night shift "on certain dates and at certain times." Cunningham Aff., Ex. W, Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 25. The security footage from the dates and times listed in the note showed CFOs "engaged in numerous unacceptable activities, including cell phones in the jail, playing cards for extended periods of time, damaging jail property, conducting outside business when in the jail[,] not monitoring video security cameras as necessary[,] and various other violations of department policy." Id. Plaintiff Matthew Gillis was present during these shifts. Id. Undersheriff Cunningham ordered Sergeant Shore to conduct an investigation into "any improper employee practices by the CFO's [sic] on duty and shared the information on the tapes with him." Id.
In Undersheriff Cunningham's deposition, he makes no mention of this "kite" but instead states more generally that "some employees complaining" about Sergeant Walraven led to Shore's investigation. Cunningham Dep. 9, Ex. 10, Pl.'s Resp., ECF No. 29. He also admits that he was aware of employees making comments to Sergeant Shore about Walraven during the investigation into Captain Stewart. Id. at 9-10. One interview where the topic of Walraven arose was Sergeant Shore's interview with Deputy Jeff Sargeson. See Shore Interview Notes, Ex. U.Sergeant Shore interviewed Deputy Sargeson on January 17, 2014, one week before the "kite" was slipped under Undersheriff Cunningham's door.3
Sergeant Shore began his investigation into Sergeant Walraven's conduct on January 27, 2014. See Shore Interview Notes, Ex. Z, Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 31-27. Sergeant Shore conducted the final interview in the Walraven investigation on March 4, 2014. Id. During this interview, Cosineau made a number of allegations concerning Walraven's conduct, or misconduct. Cosineau relayed to Sergeant Shore that Walraven was "fired up" about the investigation into Captain Stewart's conduct. Cosineau told Sergeant Shore that Walraven believed that the investigation should be conducted by the Michigan State Police. Further, Walraven apparently told Cosineau (who then told Shore) that if the administration started "'going after' employees over this" Walraven would go "right to the Bay City Times to let them know." Shore Interview Notes, Ex. Z. Relevantly, Cosineau also told Sergeant Shore that he heard Plaintiff Matthew Gillis and Sergeant Walraven discussing the possibility of going to Human Resources concerning the...
To continue reading
Request your trial