Pick v. City of Remsen, No. C13-4041-MWB

• Court: United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
• Writing for the Court: MARK W. BENNETT U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
• Decision Date: 27 August 2014
• Parties: STEVE PICK, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF REMSEN, PAIGE LIST, RACHAEL KEFFELER, KIM KELEHER, JEFF CLUCK, CRAIG BARTOLOZZI, and KEVIN ROLLINS, Defendants.
• Docket Number: No. C13-4041-MWB

STEVE PICK, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF REMSEN, PAIGE LIST, RACHAEL KEFFELER, KIM KELEHER,
JEFF CLUCK, CRAIG BARTOLOZZI, and KEVIN ROLLINS, Defendants.

No. C13-4041-MWB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA WESTERN DIVISION

August 27, 2014

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................3

A. Factual Background...............................................................3

1. The parties...................................................................3
2. The Manual.................................................................4
3. Pick's interactions with List..............................................6
4. Allegations about missing money........................................7
5. Trail camera in Pick's office.............................................8
6. Request for audit...........................................................9
7. Online banking and completion of rate study.......................11
8. Pick's medical leaves and related activities..........................11
9. Elimination of Pick's position.........................................16
10. Aftermath..................................................................16

B. Procedural Background.........................................................17

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS......................................................................18

A. Summary Judgment Standards.................................................18

B. Defamation Claims ...............................................................24

1. Applicable law ............................................................25
2. Application of the law ...................................................28

a. Missing money....................................................28

Page 2

i. Truth.......................................................28
ii. Qualified privilege.......................................31

b. Hiding or altering documents..................................34
c. Other defamation allegations ..................................35

C. Section 1983 Claims..............................................................36

1. Claim against Bartolozzi................................................37
2. Claims against Rollins and Cluck.....................................37
3. Claim against the City...................................................41

D. Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress Claims.......................42

E. Wrongful Termination In Violation Of Employee Manual...............43

F. Disability Discrimination Claims..............................................44

1. The analytical framework...............................................45
2. Prima facie case ..........................................................46

a. Disability ........................................................... 47
b. Other requirements ..............................................49

3. Nondiscriminatory reason for action .................................49
4. Showing of pretext.......................................................49

G. Age Discrimination Claims.....................................................51

1. The analytical framework...............................................51
2. Prima Facie case .........................................................53

H. Gender Discrimination Claims.................................................54

I. Retaliation Claims................................................................54

1. ADA/ICRA retaliation claim...........................................55
2. First Amendment retaliation ...........................................58

III. CONCLUSION............................................................................59

The former long-time operations director of a city's utilities department brings diverse but related claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C.

Page 3

§ 12101 et seq., the Iowa Civil Rights Act ("ICRA"), Iowa Code Ch. 216, 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17, and pendent state law claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful termination against his former employer, supervisors, co-employees, and city officials. Defendants assert that they are entitled to summary judgment on all of the plaintiff's claims, while the plaintiff asserts that a reasonable jury could find in his favor on most, but not all, of his claims.

I. INTRODUCTION A. Factual Background

As is my usual practice, I set out only those facts, disputed and undisputed, sufficient to put in context the parties' arguments concerning the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Unless otherwise indicated, the facts recited here are undisputed, at least for the purposes of summary judgment. I will discuss additional factual allegations, and the extent to which they are or are not disputed or material, if necessary, in my legal analysis.

1. The parties

Plaintiff Steve Pick resides in Remsen, Iowa. He was formerly employed as Operations Director of Remsen Municipal Utilities ("the Utility" or "Utility"). Defendant City of Remsen ("the City") is a municipality in the State of Iowa. Defendant Paige List resides in Remsen and is the City's Clerk. Defendant Rachael Keffeler resides in Remsen and is the City's Deputy Clerk. Defendant Kim Keleher resides in Remsen and is a member of the Utility's Board of Directors ("the Utility Board"). Defendant Jeff Cluck resides in Remsen and is the City's Mayor. Defendant Craig Bartolozzi resides

Page 4

in Remsen and is the City's former Mayor. Bartolozzi is currently the Utility Board's Chairman and is employed by the Plymouth County Sheriff. Bartolozzi, while Remsen's Mayor, asked then Utility Board members Steve Matgen and Tom Bacan to fire Pick. Bartolozzi also expressed his dissatisfaction with Pick to Don Kolker, another former Utility Board member.

There is a factual dispute about whether Mayor Cluck asked Don Kolker, then a Utility Board member, to fire Pick. Cluck denies this while Kolker contends that Cluck asked him to do so.

In January 2012, the current Utility Board was seated. Keleher, Bartolozzi, and Dean Douvia were appointed by Mayor Cluck. Bartolozzi...