Hinkle v. City of Wilmington

• Decision Date: 07 September 2016
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 14-1020-SLR
• Citation: 205 F.Supp.3d 558
• Parties: Genevieve M. HINKLE and Louis Hinkle, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF WILMINGTON, Jacqueline Jenkins, and Earl Jeter, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Delaware

205 F.Supp.3d 558

Genevieve M. HINKLE and Louis Hinkle, Plaintiffs,

v.CITY OF WILMINGTON, Jacqueline Jenkins, and Earl Jeter, Defendants.

Civ. No. 14-1020-SLR

United States District Court, D. Delaware.

Signed September 7, 2016

Victor F. Battaglia, Sr., Esquire of Biggs & Battaglia, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Plaintiff.

David H. Williams, Esquire, James H. McMackin, III, Esquire, and Allyson Britton DiRocco, Esquire of Morris James LLP Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROBINSON, District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

On August 8, 2014, plaintiffs Genevieve M. Hinkle ("Hinkle") and Louis Hinkle ("Mr. Hinkle") (collectively "plaintiffs") filed the present lawsuit against defendants City of Wilmington (the "City"), Jacqueline D. Jenkins ("Jenkins"), and Earl Jeter ("Jeter") (collectively "defendants"), alleging a number of federal and state causes of action related to the termination of Hinkle's employment with the City on August 14, 2013. (D.I. 1) Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on December 5, 2014 and a second amended complaint ("SAC") on April 21, 2015. (D.I. 15, 31) Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended complaint was denied on March 30, 2016. (D.I. 71) Presently before the court are plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment (D.I. 51) and motion to supplement the record on the parties' motions for summary judgment (D.I. 74), as well as, defendants' motion for summary judgment (D.I. 53). The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

II. BACKGROUND

A. The Parties

Hinkle is a 61 year old Caucasian female¹ and a citizen of the State of Delaware residing in New Castle County. Hinkle was the director of risk management and employee benefits in the human resources department of the City from April 2007 to August 2013. Mr. Hinkle is, and at all times pertinent, has been, Hinkle's husband. (D.I. 31 at ¶¶ 3, 18) Jenkins is the director of human resources for the City and was one of Hinkle's immediate supervisors. She is an African American, approximately ten years younger than Hinkle. (Id. at ¶ 4; D.I. 61 at 14) Jeter is the City Auditor. (D.I. 31 at ¶ 5) The City is a political subdivision of the State of Delaware functioning within the limits imposed upon it by a Home Rule Charter. The City employs numerous individuals in various positions to fulfill its obligations and duties as a municipality. (Id. at ¶ 6)

B. Hinkle's Employment

As director of risk management and employee benefits, Hinkle's job responsibilities included "preparing the budget and making recommendations concerning funding; claims' investigation and adjusting; establishing safety and loss control programs; providing statistical data on accidents and claims; and maintaining the claims management program." (Id. at ¶ 7) With respect to the check approval process, Hinkle alleges that she and her assistant would send documentation for check requests to the City's department of finance for its approval. After verifying and approving the check, the finance department would send Hinkle an electronic notice through the City's MUNIS software system and Hinkle would electronically release the check. Hinkle alleges that she did not review any documentation after approval by the finance department. Moreover, the established check approval process did not require her to perform an "electronic review" of the documentation for each check request, nor was she trained to use the software which enabled the electronic review. (Id. at ¶ 11; D.I. 61 at 5) Hinkle further asserts that, from the time she was hired until the time she was terminated, neither she nor her supervisors were ever trained to use, nor did they use, TCM² to electronically review the documentation for each check request until after the fraud came to surface. (D.I. 31 at ¶ 13; D.I. 61 at 9)

Defendants allege that Hinkle was offered training on the MUNIS system and in certain instances declined it. According to defendants, directors of other departments received the training and were aware that they should review invoices and supporting documentation prior to electronically approving check requests. Moreover, defendants allege that reconciliations between the City's two software programs (MUNIS and Riskmaster) were to be conducted approximately every six months.³ (D.I. 54 at A6, 71-72, 137)

In October 2012, Hinkle imposed disciplinary action on a subordinate African American City employee who was a personal friend of then Mayor-elect Williams's wife. Hinkle alleges that the City's former head of human resources informed her that Mayor-elect Williams told his former chief of staff that Hinkle should stop harassing his wife's friend. (D.I. 31 at ¶ 9; D.I. 54 at A18-22)

C. Events Leading to Hinkle's Termination

In March 2013, the City Auditor's Office discovered that from at least April 25, 2012 through March 25, 2014, an accounts payable clerk in the City's department of finance had embezzled $33,347.52 in City funds in the form of twenty fraudulently issued checks to settle claims with funds managed by risk management. Hinkle authorized the issuance of nineteen of the twenty fraudulent checks. Hinkle alleges that her only involvement was to electronically confirm that the finance department had reviewed and approved the documentation for the checks and that they could be printed. (D.I. 31 at ¶¶ 14-15; D.I. 54 at A2-A7)

As City Auditor, Jeter led the internal investigation of the fraud and concluded in his final report dated July 11, 2013, that Hinkle (as director of risk management) was grossly negligent in her failure to verify the documentation for the fraudulent checks prior to approving them for payment. Jeter found that Hinkle had not performed the MUNIS and Riskmaster reconciliation process during the eleven month period that the fraud occurred. (D.I. 54 at A5-A6) On August 14, 2013, Jenkins notified Hinkle that she was terminated, effective immediately, as a result of her negligence in approving fraudulent checks and her failure to "manage the City's [c]laim [m]anagement program, including investigating, adjusting, reserving and maintaining accurate records of all claims" and "ensur[ing] internal controls over cash disbursements were in place." (D.I. 54 at A146)

Martha Gimbel ("Gimbel") is the interim acting human resources director and was Hinkle's immediate supervisor. She is Caucasian and "of equivalent age to [Hinkle]." Gimbel also electronically approved of approximately nineteen of the twenty fraudulent check requests. The City sent her a formal letter of reprimand. John D'Amelio ("D'Amelio") is a senior financial analyst and "approximately 20 years younger than Hinkle." He reviewed the request forms and approved each fraudulent check request. The City also sent him a letter of reprimand. (D.I. 31 at ¶¶ 21, 25; D.I. 67 at 4) Shaina Cooper ("Cooper") is the account manager of the finance department and D'Amelio's immediate supervisor. She is African American and "approximately 25 years younger than Hinkle." Cooper was not disciplined. Sam Pratcher ("Pratcher") was the former director of human resources and another of Hinkle's immediate supervisors. He is African-American. He approved one of the fraudulent check requests and was not disciplined. (D.I. 31 at ¶¶ 22-23)

D. Post-Termination Events

On August 14, 2013, upon receiving the notice of termination, Hinkle's counsel sent a letter to Jenkins stating that Hinkle "appeals from the City's decision to terminate her."⁴ On August 27, 2013, City Solicitor, Michael P. Migliore, Esquire ("Migliore") responded to Hinkle's counsel, stating that he should direct communications to counsel. On August 27, 2013, Hinkle's counsel replied that the City Ordinance (and Jenkins) required that the letter be sent to Jenkins and that he would copy Migliore going forward. On September 3, 2013, Hinkle's counsel wrote to Migliore requesting that he "take appropriate steps" to restore Hinkle to her position and requesting a response within five days. On September 4, 2013, Hinkle's counsel wrote again to request a "second step grievance protest" and referenced City Ordinance § 40-272 (c). On September 6, 2013, Migliore replied via email acknowledging the formal grievance request and to set a meeting with Hinkle. The City and Hinkle agreed to a hearing before the City's personnel appeal board ("appeal board"),⁵ although Hinkle contended that defendants refused to allow her the mandatory intermediate steps required by the grievance process. (D.I. 31 at ¶¶ 26-28; D.I.54 at A147-59) A two-day hearing was held on October 22, 2013 and January 6, 2014 before the appeal board consisting of three City employees.

In December 2013, Hinkle filed charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and Delaware Department of Labor (the "DDOL"), and also applied for unemployment benefits. After a hearing on December 31, 2013, the unemployment insurance appeal board ("unemployment board") found that Hinkle had been discharged from her employment without just cause⁶ because the City failed "to present evidence that there was a written policy establishing the procedure for [the check approval process]." (D.I. 52 at 3, B131-34) On January 7, 2014, the EEOC notified the City of the charges.⁷ (D.I. 61 at 17)

A member of the appeal board testified that Magliore contacted him to ask about the status of the appeal. The appeal board member replied that he could not discuss the matter. He further testified that he was not influenced by the contact. Hinkle alleges that the contact occurred after the EEOC issued its notification and before the appeal board's decision. (D.I. 52 at B100-01; D.I. 61 at 17)

On January 14, 2014, the appeal board issued its decision⁸ concluding that, Hinkle had failed to perform the responsibilities of her position as director of risk management. However, the City's termination of Hinkle

was

...