Lock v. City of W. Melbourne, Case No: 6:12-cv-680-Orl-36TBS

• Decision Date: 24 April 2015
• Docket Number: Case No: 6:12-cv-680-Orl-36TBS
• Parties: BRIAN LOCK, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF WEST MELBOURNE, FLORIDA, STEPHANY ELEY, MICHAEL HAZLETT, and HAL ROSE, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

BRIAN LOCK, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF WEST MELBOURNE, FLORIDA,STEPHANY ELEY, MICHAEL

HAZLETT, and HAL ROSE, Defendants.

Case No: 6:12-cv-680-Orl-36TBS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

April 24, 2015

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on four renewed motions for summary judgment on Plaintiff Brian Lock's ("Lock") Second Amended Complaint: (1) Defendant Stephany Eley's ("Eley") Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 172); (2) Defendant Michael Hazlett's ("Hazlett") Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 173); (3) Defendant Hal Rose's ("Rose") Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 174); and (4) Defendant City of West Melbourne's ("City") Amended Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 179).¹ Lock filed a response in opposition to the Individual Defendants' motions (Doc. 175) and a response in opposition to the City's motion (Doc. 180). Upon due consideration of the parties' submissions, including deposition transcripts, affidavits, memoranda of counsel and accompanying exhibits, and for the reasons that follow, the motions are granted-in-part and denied-in-part.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Statement of Facts²

1. Introduction

This action arises from Lock's termination from his position as Chief of the City's Police Department by a 5-2 vote of the City Council on May 3, 2012. JSF, ¶¶ 1, 22; JPS, p. 23. Lock had been employed by the City since December 30, 1980, and had served as Chief of Police since January 6, 1990. JPS, p. 23. At the time of his termination, Lock also served as a commissioner on the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission ("CJSTC"), a unit of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement ("FDLE") that is responsible for overseeing investigations and discipline arising from law enforcement officer misconduct, and for determining final disciplinary action against officers. JSF, ¶ 18; Docs. 66-1, 66-2, Deposition of Brian Lock ("Lock Dep."), 21:18-22:20. At all relevant times, Defendants Eley and Hazlett served as council members on the City Council, while Defendant Rose served as the City's mayor and, as such, was a voting member on the City Council. JPS, p. 23; Doc. 69-4, Affidavit of Hal Rose ("Rose Aff."), ¶ 2. Eley, Hazlett, and Rose each voted in favor of Lock's termination. See Rose Aff., ¶ 3; Doc. 69-5, Affidavit of Stephany Eley ("Eley Aff."), ¶ 3; Doc. 69-6, Affidavit of Michael Hazlett ("Hazlett Aff."), ¶ 3.

Lock's employment agreement with the City provided that Lock could only be terminated "for cause" upon "a majority (4) vote of the [City] Council at a properly noticed meeting whereinLock shall be afforded a hearing."³ Doc. 43-1, p. 8. The Defendants maintain that Lock's termination was the result of his failure to properly investigate and report a theft of prescription drugs by his subordinate, Charles Schrum ("Schrum"), and Lock's alleged efforts to obtain a pension for Schrum after the theft. See Docs. 66-69. The Defendants believe that Lock's actions and inactions were part of a deliberate effort by him, due to their friendship, to cover up Schrum's theft and ensure that Schrum received a pension. See id. Lock, on the other hand, claims that the actual reason he was terminated was because of his refusal to fire another subordinate, James Michael Helms ("Helms"), who was a political rival of Hazlett, Eley, and Rose, as well as Lock's perceived political alignment against the trio. See Docs. 95, 99.

Under the City's Charter, the City Council has the sole authority to terminate individuals it appoints to office, such as the Chief of Police. See West Melbourne, Fla., Charter art. III, § 1(b) & art. XI, § 1, available at http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=11693. However, the authority to hire and fire all other City employees lies exclusively with the City Manager. See id., art. V, § 4(a). The City's Charter further provides: "Except for the purpose of inquiries and investigations, the city council and its members shall deal with the city officers and employees who are subject to the direction and supervision of the city manager solely through the city manager, and neither the city council nor its members shall give orders to any such officer or employee, either publicly or privately." Id., art. III, § 8(b). Under City policies, department heads, such as the Chief of Police, may make recommendations to the City Manager regarding whetherto hire or fire a City employee, but the City Manager retains ultimate authority in making the decision. Doc. 78, Deposition of Scott Morgan ("Morgan Dep. I"), 7:13-8:9.

City policies prohibit the City from terminating an employee due to his support of any political candidate for office. Id. at 69:20-22. City policies also provide that "[e]very employee has the right to express his or her views as a citizen and to cast a vote. Coercion of or by an employee for political purposes and using the position of employment for political purposes is prohibited." Doc. 99-4.

2. The Schrum Incident

In January 2005, Schrum, a lieutenant in the City Police Department, was involved in a one-car accident while driving a City-owned police vehicle. JSF, ¶ 4. After Schrum admitted to Lock that he had used a prescription pain killer before the accident, Lock recommended to the City Manager at the time, Mark Ryan ("Ryan"), that Schrum be demoted from lieutenant to sergeant. Id. at ¶ 5; see Doc. 69-1, p. 4. Ryan ultimately decided not to demote Schrum, but he did impose an unpaid ten-day suspension.⁴ JSF, ¶ 6.

Over four years later, on June 18, 2009, Helms, the Director of Support Services for the City's Police Department, was conducting a routine review of feeds from the surveillance cameras located throughout the Police Department building, when he noticed that one of the cameras in the evidence room had been pushed upward from its usual position. Id. at ¶ 3; Doc. 66-3, Deposition of James Michael Helms ("Helms Dep."), 23:3-14. Upon reviewing the previous day's recordings by that camera, Helms observed Schrum enter the evidence room, push the camera upward, and then put something that had been stored in the room in his pocket. Helms Dep., 23:14-24. Helmsimmediately notified Michael Czernik ("Czernik"), the Assistant Chief of Police, who, upon viewing the recordings, told Helms to make copies. Id. at 23:25-24:5; JSF, ¶ 2.

The next morning, Czernik and another officer re-positioned the camera to its original position. Helms Dep., 24:5-9. Later that day, while Czernik and Helms were watching the live camera feed during the lunch break, they observed Schrum enter the evidence room with a cart, place a number of bags on the cart, and then exit the room with the cart. Id. at 26:18-28:14. Czernik then approached Schrum in the hallway and instructed him to put the bags back in the evidence room and not to go back into the room until further notice. Id. at 28:15-23. Czernik made a phone call to Lock, who was in his car, and told him that Schrum had been observed repositioning the evidence room surveillance camera in a suspicious manner. JSF, ¶ 7. Lock told Czernik to change the locks to the evidence room and that Czernik should hold the only key. Id.; Lock Dep., 101:25-102:11.

Later that day, Helms called Lock and told him that Helms was with an employee who was in trouble and needed help. JSF, ¶ 8. Lock agreed to meet Helms and the troubled employee in the parking lot of a local coffee shop. Id. Upon his arrival, Lock observed Schrum in Helms' car in an extremely emotional state. Id. Schrum told Lock that he had a drug problem and needed help. Id. at ¶ 9. Helms and Lock drove Schrum to a drug treatment facility, where Schrum was admitted. Id. at ¶ 10. Immediately before entering the facility, Schrum admitted to Lock that he had taken narcotic drugs from the evidence room. Id. at ¶ 11.

Four days later, on June 23, 2009, Schrum sent Lock a memorandum announcing his decision to request a medical/disability retirement, citing "knee[], back, and other problems." Id. at ¶ 13; see Doc. 69-1, p. 8. That same day, Lock provided Schrum with written notice that Schrum's law enforcement authority had been removed. JSF, ¶ 13; see Doc. 69-1, p. 9. Shortlythereafter, Schrum was admitted to a long-term, out-of-state treatment facility. Lock Dep., 99:8-10. After his admission to the initial drug treatment facility, Schrum never returned to duty, and remained on unpaid leave from his work with the City until his employment ended. Id. at ¶ 12.

After learning that Schrum had taken narcotic drugs from the evidence room, Lock informed the State Attorney, Norm Wolfinger ("Wolfinger"), in July 2009. Lock Dep., 117:10-17. Wolfinger expressed concern that Schrum's confession to Lock may be inadmissible in any criminal proceeding against Schrum under Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 500 (1967).⁵ Lock Dep., 167:11-20. Wolfinger told Lock to have Czernik prepare an informational report and send it to the Chief Assistant State Attorney, Wayne Holmes ("Holmes"). Id. at 109:17-110:1. Pursuant to Wolfinger's instructions, Lock ordered Czernik to begin a criminal investigation of Schrum's conduct. Lock Dep., 98:20-100:16. Lock did not order an internal affairs investigation separate from the criminal investigation, even though he understood that he had a duty to perform an internal affairs investigation pursuant to the Florida Administrative Code.⁶ Id. at 105:25-106:6, 130:9-18. As part of the criminal investigation, Lock ordered Czernik to perform an audit of the evidence room, and to review the surveillance footage and save any suspicious videos for future evidentiary use. Id. at 100:14-101:4, 106:16-107:1. The audit revealed that two pill bottles in theevidence room did not contain the same number of pills that the officer submitting the bottles had indicated in his initial report. Id. at 107:4-16. Those pill bottles were in the evidence room after being seized following an unattended death, rather than during a criminal investigation.⁷ Id. at...