Metz v. Laramie County School Dist. No. 1

• Decision Date: 23 October 2007
• Docket Number: No. 06-159.,06-159.
• Citation: 173 P.3d 334,2007 WY 166
• Parties: Annette METZ; Bonnie Horton; and Pam Basile, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. LARAMIE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1; Linda Willman; Tom Rooney; and Jeff Conine, in their individual and official capacities, Appellees (Defendants).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

173 P.3d 334

2007 WY 166

Annette METZ; Bonnie Horton; and Pam Basile, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. LARAMIE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1; Linda Willman; Tom Rooney; and Jeff Conine, in their individual and official capacities, Appellees (Defendants).

No. 06-159.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

October 23, 2007.

Representing Appellants: Bruce S. Asay of Associated Legal Group, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees: David Evans and Brandi L. Monger of Hickey & Evans, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Monger.

Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, JJ.

KITE, Justice.

[¶ 1] Annette Metz, Bonnie Horton and Pam Basile (appellants) appeal from an order granting summary judgment to Laramie County School District No. 1 (LCSD) on their claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sex discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. We reverse the summary judgment order with respect to the breach of contract and § 1983 claims and affirm the order on the claims of sex discrimination and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

ISSUES

[¶ 2] Appellants present the following statement of the issues:

[I] Did the district court err in holding that a termination without notice and a hearing was compliant with the due process procedures required in 42 USC § 1983?

[II] Did the district court err in dismissing Appellants' claim for breach of contract?

[III] Did the district court err in dismissing Appellants' claim for Title VII sexual discrimination?

[IV] Were the summary judgment motions deemed denied pursuant to Rule 6(c)(2) of the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure after ninety days?

[V] Should the court recognize the importance of prior precedence in a companion case with exactly the same legal and factual basis?

[VI] Were the court's findings on certain facts contrary to the evidence?

[VII] Did the district court err in granting summary judgment on Appellants' claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing?

[VIII] Did the district court err in finding that the plaintiffs were terminated on a day other than when they were fired?

LCSD restates the issues as follows:

1. Does this Court have jurisdiction over Appellants' appeal?

2. [Were] the district court's March 2, 2006 decision letter and May 3, 2006 Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment proper?

3. Did the district court retain jurisdiction to rule on the summary judgment motion more than 90 days after its filing?

FACTS

[¶ 3] Appellants were employed by LCSD as nutrition service workers at McCormick Junior High School (MJHS) in Cheyenne, Wyoming. A written agreement defined the terms of their employment. During their employment, LCSD established a policy allowing students who did not have money to pay for lunch to charge the cost of their lunch. MJHS placed a limit of $6.00 on the amount students could charge. If a student with a balance of $6.00 on his account attempted to charge another lunch, the nutrition service cashiers were directed to have the student speak with an administrator.

[¶ 4] On Thursday, December 16, 2004, a student in Ms. Horton's line during the first lunch period did not have money to pay for his lunch. His account showed a balance of over $6.00. In accordance with the policy, Ms. Horton sent him to speak with the school principal, Jeff Conine. The student told Mr. Conine he did not know his account was in arrears. Mr. Conine brought the student back to Ms. Horton, informed her that the student did not know his account was in arrears and said he was to be allowed to eat.

[¶ 5] After first lunch, Ms. Horton confirmed with Ms. Basile that the student had been told previously that his account was overdue. Ms. Horton went to Mr. Conine and informed him that the student knew he owed money. Meanwhile, Ms. Basile went to her supervisor, Maxine Titus, and told her what had happened after Ms. Horton sent the student to speak with Mr. Conine. Ms. Titus spoke with Ms. Horton and then decided to speak with Mr. Conine. She asked him when he was going to start believing the employees instead of the students. According to Ms. Titus, Mr. Conine became angry, pointed his finger at her and hollered at her that she was "out of line" and no one was taking sides. After the confrontation, both Mr. Conine and Ms. Titus contacted Ms. Willman, the director of nutrition services for LCSD, and requested a meeting, which was scheduled for that afternoon.

[¶ 6] Ms. Titus was meeting with a parent and did not work during second lunch period. After second lunch, Ms. Basile, Ms. Metz, Ms. Horton and a couple of other employees decided they would not resume their work until their concerns about how they were being treated were addressed. They turned off the lunchroom lights and remained in the kitchen during the third lunch period. Several administrators, faculty members and other nutrition service employees served the students.

[¶ 7] Ms. Willman arrived at the school as the administrators and others were serving third lunch. Mr. Conine informed her generally what had happened. Ms. Willman asked the nutrition service employees to meet her in the break room. Mr. Conine and Tom Rooney, LCSD's director of support operations, were also present. Ms. Willman asked the appellants "what the hell is going on here?" and said they had better have a "damn good reason" for walking off the job. Ms. Basile responded that the administration did not "give a rat's ass" about them. Ms. Willman told Ms. Basile that she was fired and to leave. Ms. Basile left the break room but returned a few minutes later. Mr. Rooney said, "[Ms. Basile], you didn't understand. You are fired. Get out." Ms. Horton indicated she was not willing to work under conditions as they existed. Ms. Willman told Ms. Horton that her resignation was accepted. After the meeting in the break room, Ms. Willman told Ms. Metz that she was fired as well.

[¶ 8] The following day, Friday, December 17, 2004, John Lyttle, the assistant superintendent of human resources for LCSD, met with Mr. Conine, Ms. Willman and Mr. Rooney to discuss what had happened. During the meeting, Mr. Conine became aware that only Mr. Lyttle had the authority to terminate the appellants. After the meeting, Mr. Lyttle made telephone calls to the appellants, leaving messages for them indicating that he wanted to talk with them about what happened. Ms. Horton and Ms. Metz did not return his phone call. Ms. Basile called him back the following Monday, December 20, or Tuesday, December 21. She told him she could not meet with him that day. Mr. Lyttle said he had a letter for her but would hold it until they could meet. She tried twice without success to reach him and then received the letter in the mail.

[¶ 9] In separate letters dated December 21, 2004, to each of the appellants, Mr. Lyttle stated that Ms. Willman terminated them on December 16 for gross negligence and insubordination, both of which were grounds for immediate termination under the employment agreement. He advised them that their terminations were effective December 21, 2004. He also advised Ms. Metz and Ms. Basile that they had the right to file a grievance within thirty days. LCSD stated in its appeal brief that Mr. Lyttle did not similarly advise Ms. Horton because she had resigned.

[¶ 10] On March 28, 2005, Ms. Metz, Ms. Horton and Ms. Basile filed a complaint for wrongful termination in Laramie County District Court against LCSD, Ms. Willman, Mr. Conine and Mr. Rooney. They alleged claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. In their factual allegations, the appellants claimed generally that the administrators were condescending and demeaning toward nutrition service employees, failed to keep them advised of events affecting their duties, ignored their complaints about a gas leak, and contributed to an intolerable and hostile work environment. They alleged that on the day which culminated in their terminations, the administrators treated them in an abusive, threatening and humiliating manner. They further alleged that their terminations were wrongful in that the administrators breached the progressive disciplinary provisions of the employment agreement and the duty of good faith and fair dealing, violated their constitutional rights to free speech and due process and subjected them to a hostile work environment.

[¶ 11] LCSD answered the complaint and filed a motion to dismiss the claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and hostile work environment. Appellants responded with a memorandum in opposition to the motion and their own motion for summary judgment in which they claimed they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law because it was undisputed that they were terminated without a pre-termination hearing in violation of their contractual and constitutional rights. LCSD filed responses to the appellants' memorandum and motion and, on November 14, 2005, filed its own motion for summary judgment. On December 16, 2005, the district court held a hearing on the motions. Subsequently, the appellants notified the district court that the federal district court had recently issued a decision denying LCSD's summary judgment motion on claims their supervisor, Ms. Titus, had filed as a result of the termination of her employment with LCSD.

[¶ 12] On March 2, 2006, the district court issued a decision letter in which it granted LCSD's summary judgment motion. On March 13, 2006, the appellants filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its ruling on two grounds. First, they asserted the federal district court ruling denying LCSD's summary judgment motion in Titus v. Laramie County School District No. 1, U.S.D.C., D. Wyo., Case No 05-CV-098-D, was based on...