Lynch v. Gontarz

• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: DORIS; BEVILACQUA
• Citation: Lynch v. Gontarz, 120 R.I. 149, 386 A.2d 184 (R.I. 1978)
• Decision Date: 09 May 1978
• Docket Number: No. 76-290-A,76-290-A
• Parties: Michael W. LYNCH v. Stanley GONTARZ et al. ppeal.

Page 184

386 A.2d 184

120 R.I. 149

Michael W. LYNCH v. Stanley GONTARZ et al.

No. 76-290-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

May 9, 1978.

[120 R.I. 158] Nugent & Nugent, Providence, for plaintiff.

Julius C. Michaelson, Atty. Gen., W. Kenneth O'Donnell, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants.

OPINION

DORIS, Justice.

This is a civil action wherein the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the defendants from suspending and terminating him without a hearing from his unclassified position as the executive director of the State Municipal Police Training School. The case was heard without a jury on an agreed statement of facts and written memoranda of the parties by a Superior Court justice who found that the plaintiff was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing prior to his termination. From a judgment thereafter entered denying the plaintiff's request for preliminary and permanent injunction against the defendants, the plaintiff has appealed to this court.

The Municipal Police Training School was established by G.L.1956 (1977 Reenactment) § 42-28.2-2 and placed under the control and direction of a commission appointed by the Governor. The chairman, with the approval of a majority of the members of the commission, is empowered to appoint such permanent and temporary staff necessary to carry out the purpose of the statute. Pursuant to such authority, plaintiff, Michael W. Lynch, was appointed executive director of the training school in 1971.

In a letter dated February 13, 1976, addressed to the president of the Rhode Island Police Chiefs' Association, plaintiff wrote as follows:

"I respectfully request that you convey to your members at your executive session on Tuesday, February 17th the following information.

"Because of the complete indifference and the incompetence of the present Commission on Standards and Training, the administration of the Police Academy will not assume any responsibility for any irregular conduct of the March training semester.

"Due to the many ill advised changes in the standards and the curriculum and the complete lack of communication, it is impossible to continue the professional operation of the Academy as in the past."

On March 12, 1976, the commission suspended plaintiff without pay. The plaintiff was notified of said suspension by letter which stated that "A hearing will be scheduled by the Commission in April 1976 and you will be notified of the date and place." On March 22, 1976, the commission notified plaintiff by letter that a hearing on his suspension was scheduled for April 7, 1976, "to determine your future relationship with the Academy. You may make or amend statements, present witnesses and be represented by an attorney if you wish."

On April 7, plaintiff appeared before the commission without counsel since his counsel was engaged elsewhere and unavailable. ¹ On that date, the commission states that it informed plaintiff as follows:

1. That the meeting was not an evidentiary hearing

2. That no evidentiary hearing was contemplated

3. That he was under no obligation to be present

4. That he was under no obligation to make any statements

5. That the commission would terminate his employment on April 12, 1976, unless the commission was convinced that it should rescind his suspension and reinstate him

6. That the next meeting of the commission was scheduled for a date subsequent to April 12, 1976

7. That the commission took the position that he was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing, but that he was being given an opportunity to explain, justify, modify or recant the statements in his letter of February 13, 1976, to the Police Chiefs' Association, if he wished to avail himself of that opportunity.

In a complaint filed in Superior Court on April 12, 1976, plaintiff alleged that his suspension was illegal and that the denial of a hearing violated his due process rights under the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. The plaintiff prayed that defendants be enjoined temporarily from suspending him, that the suspension be declared illegal, that he be reinstated with back pay and that he be granted a hearing of the charges against him.

By agreement of the parties, the case was presented to the trial justice on an agreed statement of facts and memoranda of the parties.

In the Superior Court plaintiff argued that the commission is an administrative agency within the Administrative Procedures Act (A.P.A.) § 42-35-1 et seq. and that his suspension and impending dismissal without a hearing violates his due process right to continued state employment absent sufficient cause for discharge.

The defendants asserted that plaintiff as an unclassified employee was not entitled to a hearing prior to his termination and that the decision to terminate plaintiff was not a "contested case" within the provisions of the A.P.A. The defendants further argued that since plaintiff is an unclassified employee, he has no legitimate claim to continued state employment and that accordingly his termination without a hearing does not violate his due process rights.

On May 28, 1976, the trial justice adopted the reasoning of defendants and found that plaintiff was an unclassified employee and thus not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. He further found that the case was not within the provisions of the A.P.A. and accordingly denied and dismissed plaintiff's complaint.

On appeal, plaintiff presents two issues for our determination. The parties have stipulated and the trial justice found that plaintiff is an unclassified state employee. In addition, § 36-4-2(d) sets forth that "directors of departments" shall be considered as in the unclassified service.

The plaintiff first argues that the trial justice erred in holding the A.P.A. inapplicable to the termination of his employment as director of the Municipal Police Training School. He contends that the commission's decision to suspend and dismiss plaintiff is a "contested case" within the meaning of § 42-35-1(b) and that therefore the action of the commission without adherence to the procedures outlined in § 42-35-9 for "contested cases" is void and illegal.

Section 42-35-1(b) states as follows:

" '(C)ontested case' means a proceeding, including but not restricted to ratemaking, price fixing, and licensing, in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a specific party are required by law to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for hearing."

Section 36-3-10(2) provides that classified employees with provisional, probationary, or permanent status who have been discharged, demoted, suspended or laid off by an appointing authority may appeal to the State Personnel Appeal Board. A decision of the appeal board is reviewable as a "contested case" under the A.P.A. See Cipriano v. Personnel Appeal Board, 114 R.I. 141, 330 A.2d 71 (1975).

The Legislature has not provided similar protection for unclassified employees. However, if a suspended or dismissed unclassified employee alleges that he or she was discriminated against because of race, sex, age, physical handicap or political or religious beliefs, the employee is entitled to have that decision reviewed by the personnel appeal board. §§ 36-4-42, 36-3-10(3). This indicates to us a legislative intent that unclassified employees serve at the pleasure of their appointing authority absent an allegation of discrimination. Thus, although unclassified employees have been afforded the right of public employment free of discrimination they have not been afforded the right of continued public employment absent sufficient cause for discharge.

Here, there is no allegation of discrimination and since plaintiff as an unclassified employee has no right of continued employment, absent sufficient cause for discharge, we conclude that plaintiff's suspension and dismissal cannot be construed as a "contested case" within the A.P.A. The plaintiff's argument that the trial justice erred when he found that the suspension and dismissal of plaintiff is not a matter within the provisions of the A.P.A. and that plaintiff was not entitled to a hearing before termination of his employment is without merit.

The plaintiff next asserts that his dismissal from his employment without a hearing was a deprivation of his rights guaranteed under the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution. The United States Supreme Court in addressing the question of whether the denial of a hearing prior to the termination of employment of a public...