Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana
| Decision Date | 25 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | 88-5827,88-5855,Nos. 86-6386,s. 86-6386 |
| Citation | 915 F.2d 424 |
| Parties | Jesse J. SANCHEZ; Victor Torres; Robert Caro, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF SANTA ANA, Defendant-Appellant, and City of Santa Ana Police Department; Don Botts; Raymond C. Davis; E.B. Hansen; Robert Stebbens; Norwood Williams; Lee Drummond; Lawrence Pitzer; Michael Llewellyn; Dale Sterzer; Gary Dixon; John Collins; John McDaniels; Michael Lanners; William Bruns; John Dittus; Richard Faust; John McClain, Defendants. Jesse J. SANCHEZ; Victor Torres; Robert Caro, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF SANTA ANA, Defendant, and Robert Stebbens; Norwood Williams; Lee Drummond; Lawrence Pitzer; Michael Llewellyn; Dale Sterzer; Gary Dixon; John Collins; John McDaniels; Michael Lanners; William Bruns; John Dittus; Richard Faust; John McClain, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Charles Matheis, Jr., Beam & Brobeck, Santa Ana, Cal., for defendants-appellants.
Meir J. Westreich, Glendale, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before GOODWIN, Chief Judge, SCHROEDER and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.
The City of Santa Ana appeals the district court's summary judgment in favor of former city police officer Jesse J. Sanchez on his claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 that the City violated his due process rights in removing his merit pay. The City also appeals the jury's damage award of $400,000 in lost wages and $500,000 for emotional distress. 1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291, and we affirm the summary judgment and affirm in part and vacate in part the damage award.
The City of Santa Ana Police Department hired Sanchez in late 1975 pursuant to a program to recruit Spanish-speaking officers. His salary was initially set at step C, the base salary for police officers hired from other police departments as lateral transfers. By April 1, 1978, Sanchez had progressed to merit step E, the highest salary step, which is awarded on the basis of meritorious performance.
In February 1979, defendant Sergeant Collins, Sanchez's supervisor, prepared an annual performance review recommending that Sanchez's merit step E be removed because he was performing "below job standards." Excerpts of Record [ER] at 701-703. No action was taken at that time.
On March 14, 1979, defendant Captain Hansen submitted a memorandum to Chief of Police Davis recommending that Sanchez's merit step D be removed because of two disciplinary suspension recommendations from Sanchez's supervisors, Sergeant Collins and Lieutenant Williams. At the conclusion of the recommendation, Captain Hansen wrote: ER at 910-11.
On March 15, 1979, Sanchez left work during roll call, claiming emotional illness. Later that same day, his merit step E was formally removed, retroactive to March 1, 1979.
On March 26, 1979, Chief Davis approved in writing the removal of Sanchez's merit step D, effective April 1, 1979.
In a March 30, 1979 memorandum to Chief Davis, Sanchez indicated that he wished to contest the removal of his merit pay, and requested a written statement of the charges against him. Captain Hansen responded to Sanchez's memorandum, stating that the removal of his merit pay was not based on any specific charges against him other than a failure to perform at a level justifying merit pay. He further advised Sanchez that he could challenge the removal by arranging for an interview with Chief Davis or by relying on his written memorandum. It is undisputed that Chief Davis never responded to Sanchez's memorandum.
In an April 13, 1979 memorandum to Captain Hansen, Sanchez reiterated his request for a statement of the charges upon which the removal of his merit pay was based, because without such a statement he did "not know how to respond to the pay reductions in the grievance procedure." ER at 927. Captain Hansen again informed Sanchez that the removal of his merit pay was based solely upon his substandard performance, that he should submit a written grievance to, or request an interview with, Chief Davis, and that he could obtain further clarification of the grievance procedure from Lieutenant Jordan.
In an April 25, 1979 memorandum to Lieutenant Jordan, Sanchez requested an explanation of the procedure the department had followed in removing merit pay and of the grievance procedure to challenge its removal. He indicated that he wished to pursue the grievance procedure, but first wanted to understand the complete procedure. Lieutenant Jordan informed him that Santa Ana City Council Resolution 58-281 covered the procedure the department had used in removing Sanchez's merit pay and that Section 10.77 of the Santa Ana Police Department's Rules and Regulations covered the grievance procedure to challenge its removal. Resolution 58-281 provides that an officer's merit pay may be removed upon the recommendation of the head of the police department and the approval of the City Manager. Section 10.77 permits an employee to present grievances concerning adverse personnel action through channels up to and including the Chief of Police. Lieutenant Jordan's letter made no reference to the City's grievance procedure, Santa Ana City Charter Section 1008, which grants the right to a hearing before the Santa Ana Personnel Board.
Beginning on May 6, 1989, Sanchez took a four-month medical leave of absence. By letter dated September 6, 1979, Sanchez advised the City that his doctor had conditionally released him to return to work. He requested information concerning his new work assignment, which the City provided the same day.
By letter dated September 10, 1979, Sanchez alleged that the removal of his merit pay was a demotion and a continuing pattern of discrimination which had caused him to suffer a stress reaction. He indicated that he would return to work only if his merit pay were restored.
Lieutenant Jordan phoned Sanchez on behalf of the City and denied his request for immediate restoration of his merit pay. Sanchez thereafter submitted a letter of resignation effective September 10, 1979.
Sanchez and two other former police officers filed in federal district court a complaint for damages and injunctive relief against the City, Chief Davis, and other named members of the department. The complaint alleged that the City had removed Sanchez's merit pay without due process of law, that Sanchez had been constructively discharged from his job, and that, as a result of emotional distress, he suffered from a work-related disability.
On February 7, 1983, the defendants filed a motion in limine, seeking in part a declaration that Santa Ana City Charter Section 1008, as amended, (the City's grievance procedure) was constitutional. Prior to its amendment in June 1978, Section 1008 granted to City employees whose pay had been reduced the right to a written statement of the charges leading to the pay reduction and the right to a hearing before the Santa Ana Personnel Board. The June 1978 amendment removed merit pay reductions from the coverage of Section 1008.
Sanchez responded by moving for summary judgment. He argued that the amended Section 1008 could not be applied retroactively to him because he had begun receiving merit pay prior to the effective date of the amendment, and that he had a property interest in his merit pay which could not be taken away without due process.
On June 3, 1983, the district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Sanchez and against the City and Chief Davis on Sanchez's due process claim. The court concluded that the City had denied Sanchez due process in removing his merit pay, and that the denial of due process was a proper claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The court subsequently exonerated Chief Davis of personal liability and reserved for trial the issue of the scope, nature and amount of damages against the City.
Following a trial on the issue of damages, the jury determined that the due process violation constituted a constructive discharge, and awarded Sanchez $400,000 in lost income and $500,000 for emotional distress. After the City's post-trial motions were denied, the City brought this appeal.
The City advances four assignments of error: (a) Sanchez did not have a constitutionally protected property interest in his merit pay; (b) the grievance procedure available to Sanchez satisfied due process; (c) Sanchez waived his right to challenge the grievance procedure; and (d) Sanchez's due process claim is barred by Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981). We reject these contentions.
The City argues that Sanchez had no property interest in his merit pay. "The ... due process guarantees of the fourteenth amendment apply only when a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest is at stake." Sorrano's Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir.1989). Property interests are not created by the Constitution; instead, "they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law--rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits." Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). In order to have a property interest in a benefit, a person must demonstrate that he or she has a legitimate claim of entitlement to it, not merely a unilateral expectation. Id.
Sanchez correctly asserts that prior to its amendment in June 1978, Santa Ana City Charter Section 1008 (hereinafter "old ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services
...affirmative defense, which must be specifically pleaded or else it is deemed to be waived. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c); see Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 915 F.2d 424, 431 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 815, 112 S.Ct. 66, 116 L.Ed.2d 41 (1991). Because the Defendant has not raised res judicat......
-
Livingood v. Meece
...drastic personnel actions than terminations, such as demotions or transfers accompanied by a loss of pay. E.g., Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 915 F.2d 424, 429 (9th Cir.1990) cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 66, 116 L.Ed.2d 41 (1991); Mangaroo v. Nelson, 864 F.2d 1202, 1206 (5th Cir.1......
-
Jadwin v. County of Kern
...Plaintiff with a review and appeal process, as set forth in other documents, from a decision already made. See Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 915 F.2d 424, 428-29 (9th Cir.1990) ("A governing body does not create a interest in a benefit merely by providing a particular procedure for the remo......
-
Fitzgerald v. El Dorado Cnty.
...a factual question for the jury.” Schnidrig v. Columbia Mach., Inc., 80 F.3d 1406, 1411 (9th Cir.1996) (quoting Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 915 F.2d 424, 431 (9th Cir.1990) ). “Demotion, even when accompanied by a reduction in pay, does not by itself trigger a constructive discharge.” Kin......
-
Table of Cases
...321 (D. Mass. 1987), §7:76 Salstrom v. Citicorp Credit Services, Inc., 74 F.3d 183 (9th Cir. 1996), §7:201 Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana , 915 F.2d 424 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 815 (1991), §2:30 Sanchez v. Denver & R.G.W.R.R. Co. , 538 F.2d 304 (10th Cir. 1976), §9:35 Sanders ......
-
Theories of liability
...breasts, pawing between her legs, and on one occasion, brandishing a gun and threatening to rape her). Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana , 915 F.2d 424, 431 (9th Cir. 1990) (inding of constructive discharge requires “aggravating factors” such as a “continuous pattern” of discriminatory treatme......
-
Pleading practice
...• Supplement the answer to raise affirmative defenses that arose after the original answer was filed. Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana , 915 F.2d 424 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied , 502 U.S. 815 (1991). • A party may amend a pleading once as a matter of right without filing a motion for leave o......