Parker v. City of Vandalia

• Decision Date: 18 March 2021
• Docket Number: No. 2:18 CV 13 JMB,2:18 CV 13 JMB
• Parties: WILLIAM PARKER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF VANDALIA, MISSOURI, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

WILLIAM PARKER, et al.,¹ Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF VANDALIA, MISSOURI,² et al., Defendants.

No. 2:18 CV 13 JMB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI NORTHERN DIVISION

March 18, 2021

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Presently pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 75) Plaintiffs William Parker ("Parker") and William Jones ("Jones") (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed an opposition (ECF No.87) and Defendants filed a reply thereto. (ECF No. 97) The motion is fully briefed and ready for disposition. All matters are pending before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge with the consent of the parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Based upon a review of the file, record and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated, the Court grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

According to the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") (ECF No. 41), Plaintiffs were police officers employed by Defendant City of Vandalia, Missouri ("Vandalia"), a fourth-class city located in Audrain County, Missouri. (Id. at ¶¶ 4, 22-23) At the time of the eventsgiving rise to the instant action and the filing of the SAC, Chase Waggoner ("Waggoner")³ was the city administrator of Vandalia and Defendant Christopher Hamman ("Hamman") was the Vandalia Chief of Police. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6) Defendants Gabriel Jennings ("Jennings"), Robert Dunn ("Dunn"), and Dempsey Dixon ("Dixon") were former Vandalia aldermen. (Id. at ¶¶ 7-8, 10) Defendants John Weiser ("Weiser"), Janet Turner ("Turner"), Teresa Wenzel ("Wenzel"), Ramon Barnes ("Barnes"), and Deborah Hopke ("Hopke") were current Vandalia aldermen. (Id. at ¶¶ 9, 11-15) Defendant Ralph Kuda was the mayor of Vandalia. (Id. at ¶ 17) Defendant W. Alan Winders ("Winders") served as the interim City Administrator following Waggoner's termination. (Id. at ¶ 18) Defendant Donald Elkins ("Elkins") was a Vandalia police officer. (Id. at ¶ 19)

In the SAC, Plaintiffs assert claims against Vandalia in Count V, against all Defendants except Elkins in Count IV, and against Hammann and Elkins in Counts VI and VII, and Parker asserts a claim against Vandalia in Count I and against all Defendants except Elkins in Count III.⁴ Parker alleges a Title VII discrimination claim against Vandalia (Count I) and a discrimination claim against all Defendants except Elkins (Count III), arguing that Defendants discriminated and retaliated against him based on his national origin, in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act ("MHRA"). (ECF No. 41, SAC at ¶¶ 132-34) Plaintiffs allege a § 1983 claim (Count IV) against all Defendants except Elkins, arguing that Defendants violated their liberty interest and constitutional rights by terminating them, failing to protect their good names, and denying them due process by depriving Plaintiffs a meaningful opportunity to be heard at their termination hearing. (Id. at ¶¶ 139-44) Plaintiffs allege a § 1983 claim (Count V) against Vandalia. Plaintiffs also allege a defamation claim (Count VI) and a malicious prosecution claim (Count VII) againstHammann and Elkins, arguing that they made false and defamatory statements, and caused them to be maliciously prosecuted. (Id. at ¶¶ 158-63, 166-73)

I. Factual Background

The facts are taken from the SAC, Defendants' Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts (ECF No. 76), Plaintiffs' Response thereto and Additional Facts in Dispute (ECF No. 86), and Defendants' Reply and Response to Plaintiffs' Statement of Additional Facts. (ECF No. 98) To resolve the motion for summary judgment, the Court has considered only those facts that are material and relevant, and the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs filed a Response to twenty-five of the one hundred forty-three paragraphs of Defendants' Statements of Uncontroverted Material Facts. See ¶¶ 25, 42, 44-45, 48, 50, 52, 58, 60, 63, 66-72, 82-86, 104, 108, and 141. Local Rule 4.01(E)⁵ provides with respect to summary judgment motions:

A memorandum in support of a motion for summary judgment shall have attached a statement of uncontroverted material facts, set forth in a separately numbered paragraph for each fact, indicating whether each fact is established by the record, and, if so, the appropriate citations. Every memorandum in opposition shall include a statement of material facts as to which the party contends a genuine dispute exists. Those matters in dispute shall be set forth with specific references to portions of the record, where available, upon which the opposing party relies. The opposing party also shall note for all the disputed facts the paragraph number from movant's listing of facts. All matters set forth in the statement of the movant shall be deemed admitted for purposes of summary judgment unless specifically controverted by the opposing party.

E.D. Mo. L.R. 4.01(E) ("Local Rule 4.01(E). As a result of Plaintiffs' failure to submit responses to ¶¶ 25, 42, 44-45, 48, 50, 52, 58, 60, 63, 66-72, 82-86, 104, 108, and 141, Plaintiffs have not met the requirements of Local Rule 4.01(E), and are deemed to have admitted the facts set forth in those paragraphs. Turner v. Shinseki, 2010 WL 2555114, at *2 (E.D. Mo. June 22, 2010)(citing Deichmann v. Boeing Co., 36 F.Supp.2d 1166, 1168 (E.D .Mo. 1999), aff'd 232 F.3d 907 (8th Cir. 2000)), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 877 (2000).

Plaintiffs have attempted to create a genuine dispute of material facts by supplementing the record with a statement of thirty-six additional facts in dispute (ECF No. 86), most of these facts are controverted by Defendants and unsupported by the record and some are admitted by Defendants.⁶ (ECF No.98) Specifically, Local Rule 4.01(E) requires that the opposing party cite the paragraph number from the movant's listing of facts for all disputed facts. E.D. Mo. L.R. 4.01(E). Plaintiffs have not cited authority for submitting additional facts as opposition to a summary judgment motion nor has this Court's research found any authority. Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, not this Court's Local Rules, make any provision for the submission of additional facts by a party opposing a motion for summary judgment.

The Court addresses the parties' arguments regarding Plaintiffs' Statement of Additional Facts and finds that Plaintiffs asserted factual disputes are either not supported by the record cited by Plaintiffs; immaterial and ineffective for purposes of establishing a genuine issue of materialfact precluding the entry of summary judgment; and/or rely on exhibits stricken from the record in the July 28, 2020, Order.⁷

The Court, therefore, accepts the following facts as true for purposes of resolving the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs were previously employed by Vandalia, a fourth-class city located in Audrain County, Missouri, as part-time police officers with the Vandalia Police Department.⁸ ((ECF No. 41, SAC at ¶¶ 4, 42-43) Parker and Jones were at-will employees. (Jones Depo. at 202; Parker Depo. at 18) Jones completed the scheduling for the police department. (Jones Depo. at 22)

Hammann served as the part-time Chief of Police of the Vandalia Police Department from December 15, 2016, to January 16, 2017. (SAC at ¶ 6; Hammann Depo. at 21) Bumbales was employed as a police officer with the Vandalia Police Department, and he applied for the Chief position at the same time as Hammann. (SAC at ¶ 41. Bumbales Depo. at 31) Parker felt that Bumbales should have been hired over Hammann. (Parker Depo. at 207) Bumbales was upset when he was not hired as Chief, and he expressed his unhappiness. (Bumbales Depo. at 71) Parker and Jones discussed Hammann's hiring and agreed that Hammann lacked the experience to be Chief. (Parker Depo. at 35, 37; Jones Depo. at 36)

Jennings, Dunn, and Dixon are former Vandalia aldermen. (SAC at ¶¶ 7, 8, and 10) Weiser, Turner, Wenzel, Barnes, and Hopke are current Vandalia aldermen. (Id. at ¶¶ 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15) Kuda is the Mayor of Vandalia. (Id. at ¶ 17) Waggoner is the former Vandalia City Administrator. (Id. at ¶ 5) Following Waggoner's termination, Winders served as the interim City Administrator. (Id. at ¶ 18) Elkins is a police officer with the Vandalia Police Department. (Id. at ¶ 19)

Parker is of Polish ancestry and heritage.⁹ Parker testified that Waggoner discriminated against him based on his national origin by making Polish jokes while acting as City Administrator, and no other actions by Waggoner or anyone at Vandalia were taken because of his national origin. (Parker Depo. at 25, 149) In the SAC, Parker alleges that Waggoner "regularly told Polish jokes on numerous occasions" in front of Parker and other employees. (Id. at ¶¶ 24, 25, 47, 58; Parker Depo. at 25) Parker and Bumbales approached Jones in October or November, 2016, about Waggoner's Polish comments. (Jones Depo. at 25-26, Parker Depo. at 23, SAC at ¶ 72)¹⁰ Parker testified that Hammann, Jennings, Dunn, Weiser, Dixon, Turner, Wentzel, Barnes, Hopke, Kuda, and Winders did not discriminate against him based on his national origin.¹¹ (Id. at 153-54, 156)

In late December 2016 or early January 2017, Jones told Waggoner and Kuda that Parker and Bumbales had filed, or planned to file, EEOC claims. (SAC at ¶ 72; Jones Depo. at 43) At that same meeting, Jones told Kuda and Waggoner that he would be filing a EEOC claim as well,out of fear of retribution by Vandalia, Kuda, Waggoner, and Hammann. (SAC at ¶ 72) Jones did not report Waggoner's alleged Polish comments to Kuda until after he knew that Hammann had been named police chief. (Jones Depo. at 43-44) Although Parker was aware that the Vandalia Police Department had a grievance system,¹² he did not file a grievance regarding Waggoner's Polish comments. (Parker Depo. at 27, 29) Jones was aware that the Vandalia Police Department had a grievance system and an anti-harassment policy. (Jones Depo. at 151-52) Since 2008, until the day he was fired, Jones set the schedule for...