Miller v. Brungardt
Decision Date | 09 February 1996 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 94-2518-GTV. |
Citation | 916 F. Supp. 1096 |
Parties | Jane D. MILLER, Plaintiff, v. Kerry BRUNGARDT, Richard W. Flores, Unified School District No. 469, Lansing, Kansas, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Nancy A. Roe, Kansas City, KS, for plaintiff.
Jeffrey L. Baxter, Jeffrey E. Goering, Chapman, Waters & Baxter, Leavenworth, KS, Peter K. Curran, Petefish, Curran, Immel & Heeb, Lawrence, KS, Daniel B. Denk, Gregory P. Goheen, McAnany, Van Cleave & Phillips, P.A., Kansas City, KS, for defendants.
This case is before the court upon motion to dismiss by defendants Kerry Brungardt and Richard W. Flores (Doc. 22) and upon motion to reconsider the court's memorandum and order dated October 3, 1995, by all defendants (Doc. 25). For the reasons stated below, the motions are granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff Jane D. Miller filed suit, alleging sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Kansas Act Against Discrimination (KAAD), K.S.A. § 44-1001 et seq., as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress under Kansas common law. In the caption of the complaint, Miller lists Brungardt and Flores as individuals.
Defendants Brungardt and Flores construe the plaintiff's caption to mean Miller is suing them in their individual capacities. Brungardt and Flores argue that the Title VII claims against them should be dismissed because "individual capacity suits are inappropriate." Sauers v. Salt Lake County, 1 F.3d 1122, 1125 (10th Cir.1993). "Under Title VII, suits against individuals must proceed in their official capacity." Id.
The plaintiff responds that how the caption is titled is not controlling. She maintains the body of the complaint establishes that Brungardt and Flores are being sued in their official capacities. If deemed necessary, she asks for leave of the court to amend the caption. See Gray v. University of Kan. Medical Ctr., 715 F.Supp. 1041, 1043 (D.Kan. 1989) () ; see Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(a).
See Sauers, 1 F.3d at 1125 (quoting Busby v. City of Orlando, 931 F.2d 764, 772 (11th Cir.1991)) ("`The proper method for a plaintiff to recover under Title VII is by suing the employer, either by naming the supervisory employees as agents of the employer or by naming the employer directly.'") (emphasis added).
Here, the plaintiff has sued directly the employer, Unified School District No. 469 (USD 469). The court agrees it is duplicative to sue Brungardt and Flores in their official capacities. Therefore, the court dismisses the Title VII claims against them.
Brungardt and Flores insist the court should refrain from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against them. The court disagrees. The state law claims against Brungardt and Flores are so related to those asserted against USD 469, over which there is no question of the court's jurisdiction, that they form part of the same case or controversy. The court, in its discretion, will allow Miller to proceed against Brungardt and Flores under the supplemental jurisdiction doctrine with the exception of the KAAD claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367; Bailey v. West, No. 95-2147, slip op., 5-6, 1996 WL 46040 (D.Kan. Jan. 26, 1996); Parks v. Hayward's Pit, Inc., No. 93-2387, 1993 WL 545231 (D.Kan. Dec. 21, 1993).
Although not controlling, federal decisions applying Title VII are persuasive authority in construing KAAD claims because the statutory schemes are analogous. See Best v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 953 F.2d 1477, 1479 (10th Cir.1991); Ballou v. University of Kan. Medical Ctr., 871 F.Supp. 1384, 1391 (D.Kan.1994); Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Kansas Human Rights Comm'n, 254 Kan. 270, 274, 864 P.2d 1148 (1993); Reber v. Mel Falley, Inc., 235 Kan. 562, 564, 683 P.2d 1229 (1984); McCabe v. Johnson County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 5 Kan.App.2d 232, 235, 615 P.2d 780 (1980). Hence, the court will apply Title VII standards to the KAAD claims. See Carreno v. Local Union No. 226, IBEW, No. 89-4083, 1990 WL 159199, *4 n. 1 (D.Kan. Sept. 27, 1990). For the same reasons the Title VII claims against Brungardt and Flores have been dismissed, the KAAD claims against these two defendants also are dismissed. See Davidson v. MAC Equip., Inc., 878 F.Supp. 186, 188 & n. 1 (D.Kan.1995); Gallardo v. Board of County Comm'rs, Kearny County, Kan., No. 94-4064, 1995 WL 106366 (D.Kan. Jan. 11, 1995); Johnson v. Van Tuyl, No. 92-2103, 1994 WL 263791 .
All three defendants ask the court to reconsider its memorandum and order dated October 2, 1995, in which the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the state-law claims against Brungardt and Flores based upon Kansas notice requirements. The court granted the motion with regard to the state-law claims against USD 469. See Miller v. Brungardt, 904 F.Supp. 1215 (D.Kan.1995). Because the KAAD claims are dismissed in this order, intentional infliction of emotional distress is the only remaining state-law claim against Brungardt and Flores.
Under Kansas law, "any person having a claim against a municipality which could rise to an action brought under the Kansas tort claims act shall file a written notice as provided in this subsection before commencing such action." K.S.A. § 12-105b(d) (1991). "The notice requirements in § 12-105b(d) are mandatory and a condition precedent to bringing a tort claim against a municipality." Miller, 904 F.Supp. at 1217. The court concluded that the Kansas notice requirements applied to state-law claims against USD 469 because the statutory definition of municipality includes school districts. Id. (citing K.S.A. § 12-105a(a) (1991)). Following that same reasoning, the court found the notice requirements did not apply to state-law claims against Brungardt and Flores in their individual capacity because the statutory definition of municipality does not include individual employees. Id. (citing Scheideman v. Shawnee County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 895 F.Supp. 279, 282 (D.Kan.1995)).
For the first time, the defendants direct this court's attention to King v. Pimentel, 20 Kan.App.2d 579, ¶ 5, 890 P.2d 1217 (1995), in which the Kansas Court of Appeals held that the notice requirements of § 12-105b(d) applied to "municipal employees who caused injury or damages to another while acting within the scope of their employment." See D.Kan.R. 7.3 (); see also Torre v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 906 F.Supp. 616, 617-18 (D.Kan.1995).
Miller questions the defendants' reliance upon King. She claims the case is distinguishable because it focused upon whether the tolling provision of § 12-105b applied equally to a municipality and its employees. The plaintiff also notes that the King plaintiff's claims against the municipal employees were not dismissed even though the employees never received written notice.
20 Kan.App.2d at 588, 890 P.2d 1217.
On appeal, the Kansas Court of Appeals disagreed, explaining:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States ex rel. Coffman v. City of Leavenworth
...retaliation claim provide a basis for granting their summary judgment motion as to Count III.147 Doc. 98 at 64.148 Miller v. Brungardt , 916 F.Supp. 1096, 1098 (D. Kan. 1996). ...
-
Dunegan v. City of Council Grove, Kan. Water Dept.
...a proper notice under K.S.A. 12-105b(d) is a condition precedent to the filing of an action against a municipality. Miller v. Brungardt, 916 F.Supp. 1096, 1098 (D.Kan. 1996). Substantial compliance is required under K.S.A. 12-105b(d). See K.S.A 12-105b(d) (in filing of notice of claim, subs......
-
Land v. Midwest Office Technology, Inc.
...against supervisors. See McCue v. State of Kansas, Dept. of Human Resources, 938 F.Supp. 718, 725-26 (D.Kan.1996); Miller v. Brungardt, 916 F.Supp. 1096, 1098-99 (D.Kan.1996); Davidson v. MAC Equipment, Inc., 878 F.Supp. 186, 188 (D.Kan.1995); Gallardo v. Board of County, Comm'rs., 1995 WL ......
-
Reindl v. City of Leavenworth, Kansas
...to filing lawsuits against municipalities and municipal employees for conduct within the scope of their employment. Miller v. Brungardt, 916 F.Supp. 1096, 1100 (D.Kan. 1996). However, actions which amount to outrage are not within the scope of a municipal employee's employment. Therefore, t......
-
Use it or Lose it - Giving Notice of Tort Claims to Municipalities Under K.s.a. 12-105b(d)
...22. Hilyard v. Olsen, 1992 WL 190629 (D. Kan. 1992). 23. 268 Kan. 110, 991 P.2d 889 (1999). 24. Id. at 114-16. 25. Miller v. Brungardt, 916 F. Supp. 1096, 1100 (D. Kan. 1996). 26. 20 Kan. App. 2d 579, 890 P.2d 1217 (1994). 27. Id. at 588-89. 28. 219 Kan. 450, 548 P.2d 1223 (1976). 29. King,......
-
Bosses Beware-it's a Jungle Out There Supervisor Liability in
...Redpath v. City of Overland Park, 857 F. Supp. 1448, 1456 (D. Kan. 1994). [FN10]. Redpath, 857 F. Supp. at 1456; Miller v. Brungardt, 916 F. Supp. 1096, 1098 (D. Kan. 1996). See also Gallardo v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, Kearny County, Kansas, 1995 WL 106366, at *1-2 (D. Kan. 1995); Davidson v......