Laskowski v. Mears

• Decision Date: 25 January 1985
• Docket Number: Civ. No. H-78-444.
• Parties: LASKOWSKI, John T., Slepcevich, Emily, Kampo, Michael, Orze, Kenneth D. v. MEARS, Darlene Wanda, in her capacity as Senior Judge of the Juvenile Division of the Superior Court of Lake County, Indiana Deanna Young, Michael Fontaine, Juanita Anderson, Russell Phelps, Intervenors.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

600 F. Supp. 1568

LASKOWSKI, John T., Slepcevich, Emily, Kampo, Michael, Orze, Kenneth D. v. MEARS, Darlene Wanda, in her capacity as Senior Judge of the Juvenile Division of the Superior Court of Lake County, Indiana

Deanna Young, Michael Fontaine, Juanita Anderson, Russell Phelps, Intervenors.

Civ. No. H-78-444.

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division.

January 25, 1985.

C. Jerome Smith, Smith & Funk, Hammond, Ind., for plaintiffs.

Charles Graddick, Graddick & Harris, Gary, Ind., for intervenors.

George Huff, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, Ind., Stephen H. Meyer, Schererville, Ind., Martin H. Kinney, Merrillville, Ind., for defendant.

ORDER

MOODY, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by defendant Mears on June 1, 1984. The intervening plaintiffs' Response was filed on June 14, 1984; the original plaintiffs have not responded. The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The original plaintiffs in this action were former employees of the defendant, Senior Judge of the Juvenile Division of the Superior Court of Lake County, Indiana. They were dismissed by the defendant in April, 1978. The complaint, filed on November 15, 1978, alleged discrimination based on age (Age Discrimination Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (ADEA)) and handicap (Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, as well as violations of the plaintiffs' procedural due process rights. On January 28, 1980, several other former employees of the defendant intervened in this action alleging procedural due process violations and discrimination based on age. The intervenors also claimed that they were dismissed for political reasons in violation of their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. In an amended complaint filed on July 30, 1980 the original plaintiffs added a count in which one of the plaintiffs alleged dismissal for political reasons.

As the case now stands, three of the original complainants remain, along with four intervening defendants. These plaintiffs claim the following:

John Laskowski, former probation officer and original complainant, claims violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for discharge without a hearing and discharge based on age, violations of the ADEA and violations of the Rehabilitation Act;

Kenneth Orze, former probation officer and original complainant, claims violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for discharge without a hearing, discharge based on age, discharge based on political affiliation, and violations of the ADEA;

Deanna Young, former probation officer and intervening plaintiff, claims violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for discharge without due process, motivated by age and political affiliation;

Michael Fontaine, former probation officer and intervening plaintiff, claims violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for discharge without due process, motivated by age and political affiliation;

Juanita Anderson, former probation officer and intervening plaintiff, claims violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for discharge without due process, motivated by age and political affiliation, and violations of the ADEA;

Emily Slepcevich, former assistant superintendent of the Juvenile Detention Center and original complainant, claims violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for discharge without a hearing, discharge based on age, and violations of the ADEA;

Russell Phelps, former teacher at the Lake County Juvenile Center and intervening plaintiff, claims violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for discharge without due process, motivated by age and political affiliation.

Each of these plaintiffs requests reinstatement, compensation for loss of employment rights and benefits, and liquidated damages for intangible injuries.

In an order dated June 18, 1982, this court denied all pending dispositive motions. At that time, I ruled that Indiana Code § 33-5-29.5-8¹ is constitutional. Ancillary to that decision, I noted that "there is absolutely no language in the statute or in the case law interpreting that statute which indicates that the Indiana Legislature intended to permit state judges to dismiss court personnel for reasons of age or handicap where the dismissal would violate federal law." Order of June 18, 1982, at page 3. The Order also states that the express language of § 33-5-29.5-8 forbids dismissal of court personnel based on their political affiliation. I reserved ruling on the questions of whether the defendant is an "employer" under the ADEA and whether certain Lake County officials should be joined in this action.

The Order of July 21, 1982 denied the defendant's Motion for Dismissal filed July 12, 1982. In that order, I considered the defendant's bare assertion that the plaintiff's claims were barred by judicial immunity. Based on the defendant's lone citation to Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978), I found that the judge's acts dismissing plaintiffs were administrative rather than judicial.

The defendant's motion for summary judgment now pending resurrects many of these old issues and raises new problems as well. The motion relies heavily on Blackwell v. Cook, 570 F.Supp. 474 (N.D. Ind.1983).

The defendant first asserts, based on the ruling in Blackwell and the decision in Pruitt v. Kimbrough, 536 F.Supp. 764, 767 (N.D.Ind.1982), that the discharge of a probation officer is a judicial act. Secondly, again citing Blackwell extensively, defendant Mears argues that none of the plaintiffs had a right to due process notice and hearing before discharge. This rule extends, the motion states, to both the non-probation officer parties and the probation officers. Further, defendant argues that the non-probation officers were discharged for cause. Finally, Mears asserts that Kenneth Orze's termination was not a patronage dismissal, but a discharge for engaging in partisan political activity and for insubordination. In a supplement to the motion, filed July 20, 1984, the defendant sets out her reasons for discharging Russell Phelps from his teaching position.

The intervening plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to defendant's motion is quite brief. These four plaintiffs simply question the Blackwell decision and reiterate plaintiff Anderson's ADEA claim. The plaintiffs also contend without benefit of citation that I.C. § 11-13-1-1(c)² is unconstitutional.

1. Judicial immunity

Defendant Mears is the Senior Judge of the Juvenile Division of the Superior Court of Lake County, Indiana. As such, she is a judicial officer of the state judicial system, Pruitt v. Kimbrough, 536 F.Supp. 764, 766 (N.D.Ind.1982), and she may invoke judicial immunity for acts within her "judicial capacity." Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 362, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 1107, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Blackwell v. Cook, 570 F.Supp. 474, 472 (N.D. Ind.1983). The question at bar is whether Mears' acts in discharging the plaintiffs were acts taken in her judicial capacity.

Indiana Code § 11-13-1-1 governs the appointment of probation officers. The provision directs that "probation officers shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing court and are directly responsible to and subject to the order of the court." Indiana Code § 35-5-29.5-8 further directs that such personnel shall serve at the pleasure of the senior judge of the division. It appears that Plaintiff Slepcevich, assistant superintendant of the Juvenile Detention Center, and Russell Phelps, former teacher at the center, were appointed pursuant to I.C. § 33-5-29.5-8. Paragraph (a) of that section provides for appointment of bailiffs, court reporters, probation officers, and "such other personnel" to serve "at the pleasure of the senior judge." Paragraph (b) states that "the court may appoint such number of deputy administrators as the court shall determine necessary to facilitate and transact the business of the court," and that these administrators "shall serve at the pleasure of the chief judge."³

In Blackwell v. Cook, 570 F.Supp. 474 (N.D.Ind.1983), Judge Sharp of this District examined the availability of judicial immunity for acts taken pursuant to I.C. § 11-13-1-1. The facts were similar to those at bar. The case was filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a former employee of the Probation Department, against her putative employer, the Judge of the Marshall County Circuit Court. Ruling on a motion for summary judgment, Judge Sharp found that the defendant was wholly shielded from Blackwell's claims by the doctrine of judicial immunity.

Blackwell holds that allowing the probation officer's § 1983 suit could "impair, interfere, or otherwise affect the discretion" of the judge because of the "special and confidential relationship" between a judge and a probation officer. Id. at 479. The decision is not, however, of precedential value in this court. In light of the paucity of case law on the availability of judicial immunity for personnel decisions, I will re-examine the issue with reference to the history of judicial immunity and current doctrine. See generally Annot., 55 L.Ed.2d 850 (1978).

Long ago, the Supreme Court recognized that judicial officers in general are not subject to civil liability for judicial acts done within their jurisdiction. Wilkes v. Dinsman, 48 U.S. 89, 12 L.Ed. 618 (1849). In contemporary law, judges of general jurisdiction are granted immunity for judicial acts, even if they are in excess of the judge's jurisdiction, so long as he or she has not acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject matter. Pulliam v. Allen, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 1970, 80 L.Ed.2d 565 (1984); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967); Alzua v. Johnson, 231 U.S. 106, 34 S.Ct. 27, 58 L.Ed. 142 (1913); Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U.S. 483, 16 S.Ct. 631, 40 L.Ed. 780 (1896); Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall) 355, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872); Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. (7 Wall) 523, 19 L.Ed. 285 (1869). In Pulliam v. Allen,...