Lane v. City of Lafollette, Tenn.
| Decision Date | 06 June 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 06-5803.,06-5803. |
| Citation | 490 F.3d 410 |
| Parties | Landon LANE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF LAFOLLETTE, TENNESSEE; Cliff Jennings, Mayor, Robert Fannon, City Councilman, Hansford Hatmaker, City Councilman, in their individual capacities, Defendants-Appellants, Cliff Jennings, Mayor, et al., in their official capacities, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
ARGUED: Nathan D. Rowell, Watson, Roach, Batson, Rowell & Lauderback, Knoxville, Tennessee, Daniel H. Rader III, Moore, Rader, Clift & Fitzpatrick, Cookeville, Tennessee, for Appellants. J. Timothy Bobo, Ridenour & Ridenour, Clinton, Tennessee, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Nathan D. Rowell, Watson, Roach, Batson, Rowell & Lauderback, Knoxville, Tennessee, Daniel H. Rader III, Moore, Rader, Clift & Fitzpatrick, Cookeville, Tennessee, for Appellants. J. Timothy Bobo, Ridenour & Ridenour, Clinton, Tennessee, for Appellee.
Before: SUHRHEINRICH, CLAY, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Landon Lane is the former Recreation Director of the city of LaFollette, Tennessee (the "City"). In the November, 2004 mayoral election, Plaintiff supported Defendant Cliff Jennings' opponent, Lucy Lobertini. Defendant Jennings won the election. After the election, Defendants Jennings, Robert Fannon and Hansford Hatmaker, all members of City Council, voted to terminate Plaintiff. Plaintiff sued Defendants in their individual and official capacities pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging, inter alia, that they violated several of his rights secured by the United States Constitution, primarily his First and Fourteenth Amendment right not to be terminated from government employment on account of his political beliefs. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that they did not vote to terminate Plaintiff because of his political beliefs, and, even if they had, the nature of Plaintiff's position was such that Plaintiff could legally be terminated for political reasons. Defendants also contended that their actions were protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. The district court denied Defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff's federal constitutional claims, and Defendants brought this interlocutory appeal challenging the district court's refusal to credit their defense of qualified immunity. In addition, Defendants challenge the district court's refusal to grant summary judgment in their favor on Plaintiff's official-capacity claims. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the district court's denial of qualified immunity, and DISMISS Defendants' challenge to Plaintiff's official-capacity claims for want of jurisdiction.
This case concerns the position of Recreation Director of the City of LaFollette (the "Recreation Director"). What constitutes the job duties of the Recreation Director is a factual matter, the resolution of which is necessary to deciding the issues presented in this appeal; it is also a factual matter that Plaintiff and Defendants dispute. For the purpose of this appeal, information about the Recreation Director's job duties comes from three sources: the Charter of the City of LaFollette, Tennessee (the "City Charter"), the City of LaFollette Employee Handbook & Personnel Policies (the "Employee Handbook"), and the parties' affidavits.
The structure of the City's government is detailed in the City Charter. Article II of the City Charter vests broad "general powers" in the City Council, and identifies many specific responsibilities of the City Council. J.A. at 62. Article V addresses the responsibilities of the City Administrator, whose duties include "supervis[ing] and coordinat[ing] all administrative activities of the affairs of the city under the City Council." J.A. at 67. Article V also enumerates nine specific duties of the City Administrator. Information relevant to the position of Recreation Director is located in Articles VI and VII of the City Charter. The City Charter does not, however, define the responsibilities of the Recreation Director. Article VI of the City Charter addresses "Other City Officers." Article VI states in relevant part:
Section 1. Appointment of Officers. The City Council shall elect by majority vote the following officers: City Clerk, City Attorney, City Judge, Treasurer, Chief of Police, Public Works Director, Street and Sanitation Operations Manager, Codes Enforcement Officer, Recreation Director, Animal Control Officer, and Fire Chief. Such officers shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council.
All Officers shall be elected with due regard to their qualifications and fitness and for the good of the public service, and without reference to race, age, color, creed, sex, or political party affiliation.
It shall be unlawful for any candidate for office or any candidate for appointed office to give or promise any person, either directly or indirectly, any office, position, employment benefit, or anything of value for the purpose of influencing or obtaining the political support, aid, or vote of any person.
Article VII addresses "Administration and Finance." Article VII states in relevant part:
Section 1. Administrative Organization. The City Council shall determine the powers and duties to be performed by each department, shall prescribe the powers and duties of all officers and employees, and may require an officer or employee to perform duties in any number of departments. The administrative organization, under the supervision of the City Administrator, shall be organized into the following departments: (1) Department of Finance; (2) Department of Public Safety; (3) Department of Public Works; and (4) Department of Recreation.
The City Council shall have the power to change the departmental organization by ordinance upon recommendation from the City Administrator.
Additionally, the parties support their positions by reference to the Employee Handbook. The Employee Handbook contains a policy statement informing the employee that "[e]mployment with the City of LaFollette is at will."1 J.A. at 34. The Employee Handbook also provides an overview of the government of the City:
The Mayor and City Council establish policy and enact ordinances and resolutions for the development of the entire community. As elected officials, the Mayor and City Council set the policies by which the City of LaFollette government functions.
The City Administrator is the Chief Administrative Officer of the City of LaFollette and is responsible for handling the administrative affairs of the City government within the framework of the City Charter and policies adopted by the Mayor and City Council.
The Employee Handbook also contains a section entitled "Miscellaneous Policies," subsection A of which addresses "Political Activity." Subsection A states in relevant part:
No person in the service of the City of LaFollette or seeking admission thereto, shall be appointed, reduced, removed, or in any way favored or discriminated against because of political opinions or affiliations.
Nothing in this section is intended to prohibit any municipal government employee from privately expressing his/her political views or from casting his/her vote in all elections.
Also included in the Employee Handbook is an organizational chart of the City. According to the chart, the City Council holds the highest position in the City. The City Administrator answers directly to the City Council. Beneath the City Administrator, and answering to the City Administrator, are the City Safety Coordinator, City Attorney, and City Judge, who are each on the same organizational level. The Recreation Director is on the same organizational level as nine other offices, which are located below the Safety Coordinator, City Attorney, and City Judge, but nevertheless answer directly to the City Administrator. These nine other offices are: Police Chief, Administrative Services, City Treasurer, City Clerk, Public Works, Library, Animal Control, Codes Enforcement, and Fire Chief.
In addition to the documents describing the City, the parties submitted affidavits addressing the job functions of the Recreation Director. While the parties give starkly different descriptions of the position, no party describes the actual duties of the Recreation Director with significant detail. Defendants do not uniquely address the responsibilities of the Recreation Director, but instead address the job functions that they contend are common to each director of the four departments enumerated in Article VII of the City Charter. According to Defendants, department directors, including the Recreation Director, "submit annual budgets[,] formulate policies[,] and set the goals[,] responsibilities and functions for their departments." J.A. at 20. The department directors also "advise the City Council on policy and personnel matters, including employment decisions involving promotion, demotion, termination and hiring members of their department." J.A. at 20. This includes determining "when subordinates have committed a policy infraction or [have] engaged in misconduct," and conducting "periodic workload assessments to ensure [that] the departments are adequately staffed." J.A. at 20. Moreover, the department directors, including the Recreation Director, "possess the authority to employ all discipline measures short of unpaid suspension and termination without the consent and approval of the City Council." J.A. at 20-21. The department directors are "responsible for the operation of their Department," and this involves "handl[ing] routine administrative tasks with respect to the operation of their Department and the management of the employees situated there under [sic]." J.A. at 21. Finally, Defendants allege that the "City Council and the Mayor rely upon the Heads of the Department [sic] to promote and effectuate the policy of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maher v. International Paper Co., Case No. 1:08-cv-212.
... ... Mar. 25, 2008) (Maloney, J.) ("ARS") (quoting Conley v. City of Findlay, 266 Fed.Appx. 400, 405 (6th Cir.2008)) (Griffin, J.) (quoting ... Taber, 587 F.Supp.2d 856, 867 (W.D.Tenn.2008) (citing Ledbetter, 550 U.S. 618, 127 S.Ct. at 2166-72, and Nat'l ... ___, ___ S.Ct. ___, ... Page 949 ... 172 L.Ed.2d 361 (2008); Lane v. LaFollette, Tenn., 490 F.3d 410, 420 (6th Cir. 2007) ("For the first ... ...
-
Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio v. Hodges
...570 (1972) (professor claimed that state college refused to renew his contract due to his protected speech); Lane v. City of LaFollette , 490 F.3d 410, 419 (6th Cir. 2007) (employee claimed that city fired him for his political beliefs); Toledo Area AFL-CIO Council v. Pizza , 154 F.3d 307, ......
-
Peterson v. Dean
...them of their rights guaranteed by the Constitution while acting 777 F.3d 341under color of state law. Lane v. City of LaFollette, Tenn., 490 F.3d 410, 418 (6th Cir.2007). It is clear that defendants acted under the color of state law in terminating plaintiffs; thus, the key question is whe......
- Shumate v. City of Adrian
-
Constitutional violations (42 U.S.C. §1983)
...duties of the position, and to the duties that the new holder of that position is expected to perform. Lane v. City of LaFollette , 490 F.3d 410, 419 (6th Cir. 2007). The Elrod/Branti exception, which allows public employees in policymaking positions to be fired for their political or polic......