Patterson v. Yazoo City, Miss.

• Citation: 847 F.Supp.2d 924
• Decision Date: 24 February 2012
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 5:10–CV–00153–DCB–JMR.
• Parties: Henry Lewis PATTERSON, “H.L.”, Plaintiff v. YAZOO CITY, MISSISSIPPI; Yazoo County, Mississippi; and Yazoo Recreation Commission, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi

847 F.Supp.2d 924

Henry Lewis PATTERSON, “H.L.”, Plaintiff

v.YAZOO CITY, MISSISSIPPI; Yazoo County, Mississippi; and Yazoo Recreation Commission, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 5:10–CV–00153–DCB–JMR.

United States District Court,

S.D. Mississippi,

Western Division.

Feb. 24, 2012.

Edd L. Peyton, Edricke LeMoyne Peyton, Attorney, Memphis, TN, for Plaintiff.

Gary E. Friedman, William Brett Harvey, Phelps Dunbar, LLP, Michael F. Myers, Lilli Evans Bass, Currie, Johnson, Griffin, Gaines & Myers, Jackson, MS, Herbert C. Ehrhardt, Robin Banck Taylor, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Ridgeland, MS, Wiley Johnson Barbour, Jr., Henry, Barbour, DeCell & Bridgforth, Ltd., Yazoo City, MS, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DAVID BRAMLETTE, District Judge.

This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [docket entry no. 104], Yazoo City's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [docket entry no. 105] and Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment [docket entry no. 145], Yazoo Recreation Commission's Motion for Summary Judgment [docket entry no. 108] and Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment [docket entry no. 149], and Yazoo County's Motion for Summary Judgment [docket entry no. 112] and joinder in Yazoo City's and Yazoo Recreation Commission's Supplemental Motions [docket entry nos. 153, 154]. Having carefully considered said Motions, the Parties' opposition thereto, applicable statutory and case law, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court finds and orders as follows:

I. Facts and Procedural History

In 1979, the Mississippi Legislature authorized Yazoo City (the “City”) and Yazoo County (the “County”) to establish the Yazoo Recreation Commission (the “Commission”) to manage and control the parks and recreation facilities within their joint jurisdictions. S.B. 2954, Reg. Sess., 1979 Miss. Laws 943. The Bill authorizing the Commission's formation provides that the Commission is to be composed of twelve members and jointly funded from municipal and county property taxes. Id. at § 2. The City and the County are each responsible for appointing five Commission members and the municipal and county school boards appoint the remaining two members. Id. Moreover, the City and County must approve the annual budget, id. at § 3, appropriate funds necessary for the Commission's operation, id., concur in all of the Commission's hiring decisions, id.§ 5(c), and agree to the Commission's salary and benefit programs for its employees. Id.§ 5(d). All other powers are delegated to the Commission. In particular, the Commission is empowered to employ a superintendent to have “actual charge of the parks, playgrounds and recreation facilities and the enforcement and execution of all rules and regulations.” Id.§ 5(c). It is that responsibility that gives rise to the current Complaint.

In 1997, the Commission promoted Plaintiff H.L. Patterson from the position of assistant superintendent to superintendent,¹ which at the time carried a salary of $40,000 per year. Patterson Dep. at 35.²As superintendent, Patterson was solely responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Commission with duties ranging from supervising personnel, coordinating recreational activities, groundskeeping, and repairing of park facilities and equipment. See generally, Superintendent of Recreation Job Description, docket entry no. 105–4. In addition to these general responsibilities, the job required him to possess the “ability to learn the practices and techniques of modern bookkeeping and purchasing” and may occasionally require the ability to perform manual labor. See id. At all times during his tenure as superintendent, Patterson's position was subject to review by the Commission “on the basis of operational efficiency, results accomplished, and on the basis of public response to departmental activities.” Id.

The Defendants contend that, starting around 2004 or 2005, Patterson's job performance began to decline. Patterson testified that around 2004 or 2005 private citizens began to organize and undertake cleanup efforts of the parks, which included picking up litter, cutting grass, and mending baseball fences. Patterson Dep. at 88–91; Guthrie Dep. at 39–40. Also, sometime during that period the Commission's equipment began to fall into disrepair. Patterson Dep. at 88–91; Guthrie Dep. at 39–40. Further, Patterson acknowledged that budget deficits were not uncommon during his time as superintendent.³ Patterson Dep. at 178–79, 253–54. Guthrie, the Commission's chairman, testified that at one point during Patterson's tenure the Commission's bank account was overdrawn by as much as $30,000.00. Guthrie Dep. at 32.

In 2009, a new group of commissioners (alternatively referred to hereinafter as “the Board”) was appointed to the Commission.⁴ Patterson Dep. at 41. The events surrounding the transition from the “old Board” to the “new Board” are unclear, but Patterson understood that the new commissioners intended to demand a better performance from the Commission employees than did the outgoing commissioners.⁵ To that end, members of the Board verbally informed Patterson that there were a number of areas where his job performance needed to improve.⁶ Guthrie Dep. at 46–47. Moreover, some of the new commissioners began monitoring the employees' performance, Patterson Dep. at 57–61, and shortly thereafter, Patterson claims that three of the five Commission's employees resigned, id. at 42, with at least one employee stating that the new Board's more stringent demands constituted “harassment.” Id. at 61. It was also around that time that Patterson understood that the new Board intended to fire him. Id. at 189–91. Tension appears to have arisen between new commissioners and Patterson around this time when Diane Delaware, a Commissioner whom Patterson described “wants this and wants that,” attempted to assign tasks to the Commission's secretary, Polly Crumb. Id. at 165–69. Patterson, who believed Crumb to be his personal secretary, told Delaware to stop giving instructions to the Commission's secretary. Id.

Pursuant to its authority, at an April 1, 2009 meeting the Commission unanimously voted to relieve Patterson of his position as superintendent. Minutes of Yazoo Recreation Commission (April 1, 2009), docket entry no. 105–13. Patterson had no prior knowledge of this meeting nor was he present at the meeting, Guthrie Dep. at 45, although he testified that he had learned through informal conversations that his job was in jeopardy. Patterson Dep. at 189–91. The minutes from that meeting cite no specific reasons for the decision. See Minutes of Yazoo Recreation Commission (Feb. 19, 2009). In his deposition, Guthrie, the Commission's Rule 30(b)(6) designee, avers that the Commission fired Patterson because of his poor job performance. Guthrie Dep. at 33. Particularly, Guthrie states that the Board fired Patterson for (1) overdrawing the Commission's account by $30,000; (2) sustaining overdraft charges on the Commission's account approximately one-hundred times, (3) not knowing where his employees were, and (4) not maintaining the parks.⁷Id. at 32–33, see also, id. at 89 (stating the members of the Board inspected the Commission's equipment shortly before the decision was made and found it in disrepair). The day after the meeting Guthrie asked Patterson to resign as superintendent. Id. at 31–32. When Patterson refused, Guthrie informed him that his employment with the Commission had been terminated. Id. at 32.

The superintendent position remained unfilled for well over a year after Patterson was fired, although Henry Campbell, the Commission's Program Director, appears to have unofficially assumed most of the Superintendent's duties, with the exception of managing the Commission's finances or making employment decisions for the Commission. Id. at 52–57. On May 7, 2010, almost a year after Patterson had been fired, Campbell submitted a letter to the Commission requesting a pay raise and the authority to hire another employee. Campbell Letter, docket entry no. 105–11. In January 2011, the Commission promoted Henry Campbell to fill Patterson's former position.⁸

Patterson tells a different story. In his Complaint, he alleges that he was fired because the Commission wanted to replace him with a younger, non-disabled person and thus deprived him of his position without adequate due process of law. See Amended Complaint, docket entry no. 67. Due to health issues, Patterson's right leg was amputated in January 2008. Id. ¶ 21. In September 2008, Patterson's left leg was amputated. Id. Patterson maintains that “[a]t all times prior to and after the amputation of his legs, [he] was fully qualified for the Superintendent of Recreation position, had a successful performance record in the position and met his employer's legitimate expectations.” Id. ¶ 23. As evidence of his satisfactory record, Patterson points to the absence of any negative performance evaluations, written warnings, or other evidence that would suggest the Board's dissatisfaction with his job performance. Guthrie Dep. at 31; see, e.g., Pl. Reply Memo. at 8, docket entry no. 120.

Despite his record, however, Patterson claims that immediately prior to his second amputation the Commission sought to replace him with Henry Campbell, a non-disabled, younger employee,⁹ and that the Commission then manufactured its reasons for terminating him after he returned to the job with satisfactory results. The record indicates that the City voted to transfer Campbell to the Commission the same month Patterson underwent his second surgery,¹⁰ and less than a month after Patterson was fired from the Commission, the City again voted that Campbell be moved from the City payroll to the Recreation Commission effective April 27, 2009.¹¹ Sept. 8, 2008 Minutes, docket entry no. 120–6 at 30; April 29, 2009, Minutes, docket entry no. 120–6 at 37. Guthrie testified that...