Jones v. Hamic

• Decision Date: 13 July 2012
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:10–CV–202–MEF.
• Citation: 875 F.Supp.2d 1334
• Parties: Donna JONES, Plaintiff, v. Fred HAMIC, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

875 F.Supp.2d 1334

Donna JONES, Plaintiff,

v.Fred HAMIC, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:10–CV–202–MEF.

United States District Court,

M.D. Alabama,

Southern Division.

July 13, 2012.

Ann Carroll Robertson, Henry Wallace Blizzard, III, Wiggins Childs Quinn & Pantanzis, PC, Birmingham, AL, Laura Lea Wyrosdick, Laura A. Wyrosdick, Attorney at Law, Geneva, AL, for Plaintiff.

Kendrick Emerson Webb, Webb & Eley, P.C., Montgomery, AL, Robert Hosea Brogden, Robert H. Brogden, Attorney–at–Law, Ozark, AL, for Defendants.

Memorandum Opinion & Order

MARK E. FULLER, District Judge.

I. Introduction

Greg Ward (“Ward”) caused a firestorm surrounding Donna Jones (“Jones”), the plaintiff in this case, when he accused her of misusing Geneva County's overtime system in her role as county administrator. Initially, Ward's accusations caused the Geneva County Commission (“the commission”) and Geneva County Personnel Board (“the personnel board”) to move her from hourly pay to a salary. But Ward's finger pointing eventually led to a criminal investigation of Jones, followed by her indictment and arrest, and it culminated in her firing by Probate Judge Fred Hamic (“Hamic”). After a state agency's audit seemingly exonerated her, the district attorneydropped the criminal charges. Yet her employer refused to reinstate her, and so she filed suit, alleging that the defendants' actions violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The defendants—the personnel board, the commission, Hamic, and Hazel Odom—have since moved for summary judgment, contending there are no trial-worthy issues on Jones's claims. (Docs. # 99, 101.) Although there is a genuine issue of material fact about whether Jones was treated unfairly, there is no question about whether the defendants violated federal law—they quite clearly did not. Summary judgment, therefore, is due to be GRANTED in their favor. The reasons why are discussed below.

II. Jurisdiction & Venue

The Court has jurisdiction over Jones's claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and § 1343 (civil rights). The parties do not claim that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them, nor do they dispute that venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The Court finds adequate allegations supporting both contentions.

III. Summary Judgment Standard

A motion for summary judgment looks to “pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). A court should grant summary judgment when the pleadings and supporting materials show that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact and that the moving party deserves judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The party moving for summary judgment “always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying” the relevant documents that “it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). To shoulder this burden, the moving party can present evidence to this effect. Id. at 322–23, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Or it can show that the nonmoving party has failed to present evidence in support of some element of its case on which it ultimately bears the burden of proof. Id.

If the moving party meets its burden, the non-movant must then designate, by affidavits, depositions, admissions, and answers to interrogatories, specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial. Jeffery v. Sarasota White Sox, Inc., 64 F.3d 590, 593–94 (11th Cir.1995). A genuine issue of material fact exists when the nonmoving party produces evidence that would allow a reasonable fact-finder to return a verdict in his or her favor. Waddell v. Valley Forge Dental Assocs., 276 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir.2001). Thus, summary judgment requires the nonmoving party to “do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348. A plaintiff, indeed, must present evidence demonstrating that he can establish the basic elements of his claim, Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, because “conclusory allegations without specific supporting facts have no probative value” at the summary judgment stage. Evers v. Gen. Motors Corp., 770 F.2d 984, 986 (11th Cir.1985).

A court ruling on a motion for summary judgment must believe the non-movant's evidence. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505. It also must draw all justifiable inferences from the evidence in the nonmoving party's favor. Id. After the nonmoving party has responded to the motion, the court must grant summary judgment if there exists no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party deserves judgment as a matter of law. SeeFed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

IV. Background

A. Rules, regulations, and policies

The Geneva County Personnel Board was created “to establish a civil service system for Geneva County.” 1985 Ala. Acts No. 85–587. To this end, the five-member board ¹ is charged with “provid[ing] for the adoption, amendment, repeal of rules, regulations, determinations, job classification plans, pay plans, and mandatory and/or permissive retirement plans.” Id. When it comes to classifying civil service members, Geneva County must divide them “into the exempt service and classified service.” Id.

The exempt services include elected officials, voluntary personnel, consultants rendering temporary service, part-time or seasonal employees, attorneys, and employees not paid exclusively by Geneva County. Id. Classified service employees include all Geneva County employees paid out of Geneva County funds and “not specifically placed in the exempt service.” Id. The personnel board may place an employee into the exempt service by resolution—but only after a recommendation by the applicable board.²Id.

Using the powers granted to it under the Geneva County Civil Service Act, the personnel board created the Geneva County Personnel Handbook. Among other employment matters, the Handbook addresses overtime pay:

A. Employees who work in FLSA non-exempt jobs will be paid overtime pay, or given compensatory time off, for those hours worked in excess of the established regular hours for the workweek/period. Except for Deputy Sheriff's personnel, overtime pay or compensatory time off will not be earned until the employee exceeds the established regular hours for the workweek/period. Deputy Sheriff personnel will have their overtime entitlements calculated in accordance with state law.

...

B. Employees who work in jobs specifically exempted from the overtime requirements of the FLSA will not be paid overtime pay for overtime work but may take comparable time off at the convenience of the employee.

( Personnel Handbook 47–48.)

The Geneva County Civil Service Act also established a grievance system for employees. Under the system, an employee can file a grievance with her supervisor within five working days of the employee learning of a violation or misapplication of a personnel rule. ( Personnel Handbook 42.) And if the employee disagrees with how the supervisor handles the complaint, the employee can appeal the supervisor's decision to the Geneva County Personnel Board within ten working days. ( Id. at 42–43.) The personnel board will then hold a hearing on the grievance, at which time the aggrieved employee can have counsel present. ( Id. at 44.) If the employee remains dissatisfied with the decision, she can appeal to the Circuit Court of Geneva County. ( Id. at 45.)

B. Underlying facts

Donna Jones began working for Geneva County, Alabama, in 1979. (Jones Dep. 15.) She served as county probate clerk and accounting clerk until the Geneva County Commission hired her as county administrator in 1990. ( Id. at 17.) In that position, Jones reported to the probate judge and her duties included hiring, supervising, and firing employees of the department she headed. ( Id. at 20.) She also handled a number of other bureaucratic chores: she did the county's pay roll, paid its bills, maintained its finances, prepared the annual budget, and took the Commission's minutes during meetings. ( Id. at 22–23; Everett Dep. 15–17.)

Fred Hamic ran for and won a spot on the Geneva County Commission in November of 2000. (Jones Dep. 55.) During his first term, Hamic worked with Jones and the two got along just fine. ( Id. at 55–56.) After his initial term expired, he ran and won again, but this time he didn't complete his term, opting instead to run for probate judge in 2006 against the incumbent, Harry Adkinson. ( Id.) Judge Adkinson happened to be a close friend of Jones's. ( Id.)

As the contest between Hamic and Adkinson heated up, Jones encountered a number of people who told her that Hamic would fire her if he won. (Jones Dep. 64–65.) Hamic ended up winning the election, and the day after his victory, Jones called him to say congratulations. ( Id. at 61.) Hamic responded by saying, “Little lady, things are going to be different at the courthouse,” right before hanging up on her. ( Id. at 61–62.) Despite the ominous warning, Hamic refrained from firing Jones when he took office in January of 2007. ( Id. at 288.) In fact, Jones asked Hamic if he planned on firing her, and Hamic said he wouldn't so long as she continued doing her work well. (Hamic Dep. 29.)

As probate judge, Hamic chaired the Geneva County Commission. (Hamic Dep. 22.) In Geneva County, the commission chairman doesn't vote—except in case of a tie. ( Id.) Against this backdrop some confusion arose about who appointed the county administrator; no one knew for sure whether it was the commission or the chairman that did. ( Id. at 18–19.) To clear things up, commissioner Dennis Finch moved...