Tumulty v. City of Minneapolis, Civ. No. 4-78-298.
Decision Date | 08 May 1980 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 4-78-298. |
Citation | 511 F. Supp. 36 |
Parties | James TUMULTY and Frank C. LaGrange, Jr., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
James Tumulty, pro se.
David Gronbeck, Minneapolis, Minn., for LaGrange.
Jerome Jallo, Minneapolis, Minn., for defendants.
This action is brought by two unsuccessful candidates for the position of City Attorney II. It is their claim that the procedures used by the City of Minneapolis Civil Service Commission to fill five vacancies in that classification violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights of due process and equal protection.
Both plaintiffs were full-time City Attorney I employees who obtained passing scores in the civil service examination for the City Attorney II vacancies, placing tenth and eleventh from the list of eleven candidates. They seek relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the examination was not competitive as required by the Minneapolis City Charter because of prior contact between the examiners and several of the candidates, deficiencies in the efficiency ratings, subjective scoring and various other claimed inadequacies such as tape recording malfunction during some of the interviews. Tumulty also seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1986. He demands $275,000 in damages; LaGrange seeks $200,000.
The defendants argue that plaintiffs' § 1983 claims should be dismissed for failure to allege deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest. Defendants contend that plaintiffs have no entitlement to promotion to City Attorney II, but only a unilateral expectation of advancement, and that, therefore, they have no interest sufficient to invoke constitutional protections.
Counsel for plaintiff LaGrange recognizes that his client has no property interest in promotion, but, rather, argues the existence of a separate constitutional right to enforcement of appropriate selection procedures. See, DeLuca v. Sullivan, 450 F.Supp. 736 (D.Mass.1977); International Association of Firefighters, Local 736, v. City of Sylacauga, 436 F.Supp. 482 (N.D. Ala.1977). Plaintiff Tumulty likewise asserts a property right to or an interest in being fairly considered for public employment. See, Norlander v. Schleck, 345 F.Supp. 595 (D.Minn.1972).
The appropriate method of review is by public hearing and writ of certiorari to state district court. See also, State of Missouri v. Wochner, 620 F.2d 183 (8th Cir., 1980).2
Turning to plaintiff Tumulty's 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1986 causes of action, it is clear that no cognizable claim is stated. To state a claim under § 1985(3), some allegation of racial or other invidious class-based discrimination is necessary. Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971); Jones v. United...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lundt v. Hodges, C 85-4106.
...under 42 U.S.C. § 1986. If there is no violation of § 1985, a derivative claim under § 1986 also must fail. See Tumulty v. City of Minneapolis, 511 F.Supp. 36 (D.C.Minn.1980), aff'd, 645 F.2d 615 (8th For the same reasons as stated above with respect to Defendant Hodges, the Court finds tha......
-
Odell v. City of Eagan, C8-83-1623
...a unilateral expectation is not sufficient. Molgaard v. Town of Caledonia, 527 F.Supp. 1073 (E.D.Wis.1981); Tumulty v. City of Minneapolis, 511 F.Supp. 36 (D.Minn.1980). There is no constitutionally protected interest in state law procedures. Vruno v. Schwarzwalder, 600 F.2d 124 (8th Cir.19......
-
Kaster v. State of Iowa, 92-2194
...applies to section 1983 action), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1028, 106 S.Ct. 1230, 89 L.Ed.2d 339 (1986); cf. Tumulty v. City of Minneapolis, 511 F.Supp. 36, 38 (D.Minn.1980) (section 1986 action is derivative of section 1985 action), aff'd sub nom. LaGrange v. City of Minneapolis, 645 F.2d 615 ......
-
Ellis v. City of Minneapolis, C7
...that they acquire constitutional dimension; the due process clause does not constitutionalize all local law. Tumulty v. City of Minneapolis, 511 F.Supp. 36, 38 (D.Minn.1980), Aff'd, 645 F.2d 615 (8th Cir.1981) (footnote and citations Ellis' specific allegation is that Jacobs' poor efficienc......