McClellan v. City of Nowata
| Decision Date | 06 January 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 13-CV-385-JHP-PJC |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma |
| Parties | CHARLES MCCLELLAN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NOWATA, Defendant. |
Now before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support (Dkt. 19). Defendant has moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims that his due process rights were violated in connection with his terminations from employment with Defendant in September 2007 and May 2012. This Court, having reviewed the evidence on the record before it, finds no issues of material fact for submission to a jury, and further finds that Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Plaintiff Charles McClellan was hired as a police officer for the City of Nowata in January 2007. Plaintiff was fired from this position in September 2007. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff requested a review board to appeal his termination, pursuant to 11 O.S. § 50-123. On October 23, 2007, Plaintiff submitted a written request for a review board hearing to appeal his termination, again pursuant to 11 O.S. § 50-123. However, Plaintiff was not provided a review board in connection with his 2007 termination at this time.
On December 27, 2010, after over three years had gone by since his termination from Nowata's Police Department, McClellan submitted another written request for a review board hearing. On March 8, 2011, a review board was convened to hear Plaintiff's appeal of hisSeptember 2007 termination. The review board concluded as follows:
The general consensus was that the termination may have been valid, but was not completed correctly. The paper work does not substantiate the termination. All five [members of the review board] agreed that we should suggest to the current City Manager that Mr. McClellan should be reinstated to the position of Police Officer, his record cleared with the City and CLEET, and his pension be brought up to date as to the City's contribution.
Plaintiff was subsequently rehired as a police officer with the City of Nowata.
In September 2011, the City of Nowata attempted to make good on the recommendation of the March 2011 review board to pay its portion of Plaintiff's pension contributions for the 3.49 year period of time between Plaintiff's termination in September 2007 and his rehiring in March 2011, provided that Plaintiff also make his pension contributions for that same 3.49 year period. Plaintiff refused to execute this agreement to bring his pension contributions current.
On March 13, 2012, Plaintiff met with then-Acting City Manager Lynn Griggs, and demanded a pay increase because of his workload. In response, Griggs gave Plaintiff a pay increase, but advised him that he needed a better rapport with the community, and that he should consider swapping positions with the Assistant Police Chief if he thought his workload was too heavy. A memorandum memorializing the March 13, 2012 meeting, drafted by Griggs, was later presented to Plaintiff on April 16, 2012.
On April 4, 2012, a meeting was held between Plaintiff, police officer Brent Holmes, Mayor Joe Slack, and Lynn Griggs. At this meeting, Officer Holmes' concerns regarding the disorganized condition of Plaintiff's office and Plaintiff's presentation of an inappropriate image to the citizens of the City were discussed. The amount of time Plaintiff spent inappropriately investigating City employees and County officials was discussed. Plaintiff's inappropriate sexual conduct with members of his staff was discussed. Lynn Griggs drafted a memorandum summarizing this meeting, and presented it to Plaintiff on April 16, 2012.
In this memorandum, in addition to the concerns above, Griggs documented that Officer Holmes expressed concerns regarding Plaintiff's harassment of employees. Griggs also documented that she expressed concern that the popular conception in Nowata was that the Police Department was a joke, as a result of the Police Department's officers' apparent inability to work together, coupled with the "ongoing controversy with the Sheriff's" Office. Griggs further documented that she expressed that Plaintiff "had not given proper respect to the position of City Manager," that Plaintiff appeared to have an attitude that he was better than everyone else, and that Plaintiff should hold himself and the Police Department to a higher standard of behavior, such that there should be no "sexual innuendos" or any other behavior that "'smacks' of impropriety." Both Brent Holmes and Joe Slack agreed with Griggs' memorialization of the April 4, 2012 meeting. After receipt of this memorandum, Plaintiff indicated, "I would like a few hours to review and reflect back on the meeting and would like to make a response by the end of the day April 16." Plaintiff did, in fact, prepare a written response to this memorandum and delivered it to Lynn Griggs.
On April 23, 2012, a meeting was held between Plaintiff, then-Mayor Joe Slack, Jim Patton, Lynn Griggs, police officer Matt Smith, DeDe Kerns, Mike Guthrie, and deputy clerk/payroll clerk Shena Guthrie for the purpose of discussing implementation of a CLEET reimbursement policy. Lynn Griggs drafted a memorandum summarizing this meeting, and presented it to Plaintiff on May 3, 2012. In this memorandum, Griggs memorialized that she had expressed during the meeting that she did not appreciate remarks made by Plaintiff that she was "imploding" the Police Department, and it was her view that Plaintiff was the one "imploding" the Police Department. Additionally, Griggs memorialized that Shena Guthrie had asked Plaintiff why some of the officers under his command were getting overtime pay, while otherswere not getting a full work week. Griggs added that this was unacceptable in light of the state of the City's budget. Griggs also memorialized that Matt Smith had initially directed his concerns regarding the CLEET policy to Sheena Guthrie. Jim Patton drafted a memorandum summarizing this meeting as well. In this memorandum, Patton observed that Griggs expressed that the remarks made by Plaintiff that she was undermining his authority had generated phone calls from concerned City employees that disrupted a training program Griggs was attending. Patton also observed that Griggs informed Plaintiff that she felt that Plaintiff had not followed the proper chain of command, and that Plaintiff had responded to this by stating that he had not broken the chain of command.
On May 3, 2012, Plaintiff met with Lynn Griggs, and was advised by Griggs that his employment with the City was terminated. Following his termination, Plaintiff requested a review board hearing pursuant to 11 O.S. § 50-123. Plaintiff was provided not one, but two review board hearings in connection with his May 3, 2012 termination. At the initial review board hearing, the review board consisted of Mayor Jim Patton, attorney Bill Maddux, Dr. David Caughell, and police officers Matt Smith and Derrick Boyles. Plaintiff appeared at his initial review board hearing without an attorney, and requested that the hearing be continued to a later date so that he could have his attorney present with him. The board of review granted Plaintiff's request and continued Plaintiff's review board hearing to June 19, 2012. At the second review board hearing held on June 19, 2012, the review board consisted of Mayor Jim Patton, attorney Bill Maddux, Dr. Jeff Gibson, and police officers Matt Smith and Derrick Boyles.
The City of Nowata presented extensive documentation to the board of review as evidence in support of its decision to terminate Plaintiff's employment. The reasons for Plaintiff's termination cited by Griggs in the documentation presented to the review board were:insubordination; discourteous behavior to the public or other employees; disregard for department or City/rules regulations; incompetence, inefficiency, or neglect of duty; discriminatory harassment; disgraceful conduct that discredits the City; and activity which has been determined to be incompatible with City employment. Plaintiff did not present any documentary evidence to the board of review, nor did he testify at the hearing. Counsel for Plaintiff did, however, challenge the neutrality of the Board. In response to this challenge, then-Mayor Jim Patton polled each member of the Board - Bill Maddux, Jeff Gibson, Matt Smith, Derrick Boyles, and himself - and each one asserted that he was unbiased and would render a decision impartially based on the evidence presented. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board unanimously voted to affirm the termination of McClellan's employment.
McClellan has filed this lawsuit alleging violation of his due process rights, both for his termination from employment with City of Nowata in September 2007 (Second Cause of Action), and for his termination in May 2012 (First Cause of Action).
Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and evidence on file "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A fact is material if it is essential to the proper disposition of a claim under controlling law and an issue is genuine if the evidence is such that a rational trier of fact could resolve the issue either way. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). All facts and inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. at 255. The movant bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a dispute of material fact warranting summary judgment. CelotexCorp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). If a party who would bear the burden of proof at trial lacks sufficient evidence on an essential element of a claim, then all other factual issues concerning the claim become immaterial. Id. at 322. If the movant carries its burden, the non-mova...
To continue reading
Request your trial