Welbern v. Hunt, 88-2005
| Decision Date | 09 May 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-2005,88-2005 |
| Citation | 874 F.2d 532 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
| Parties | Wendell WELBERN, Jr., Appellee, v. Dennis HUNT, individually and in his official capacity as City Administrator of the City of Fort Smith; Bob Wright, individually and in his official capacity as Director of Operations of the City of Fort Smith; Charles Angel, individually and in his official capacity as Personnel Director of the City of Fort Smith; David Beckman, Ed Gross, Ray Stewart, William Shell, Bill Maddox, and Alan Langdon, individually and in their official capacities as City Directors of the City of Fort Smith; William D. Vinces, individually and in his official capacity as Mayor of Fort Smith; Appellants. |
Jerry L. Canfield, Fort Smith, Ark., for appellants.
Philip E. Kaplan, Little Rock, Ark., for appellee.
Before LAY, Chief Judge, and ARNOLD and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.
Wendell Welbern lost his job as Assistant Director of Operations for the City of Fort Smith, Arkansas, when administrators for the City decided to eliminate his job position in 1986. Welbern claims that a municipal ordinance guaranteed him placement in some other job in his department, and that the named City administrators violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by terminating him without a hearing on his claim to another job. The District Court 1 found for Welbern, and ordered his reinstatement with full back pay dating from his termination. We affirm the District Court's finding of liability, but we reverse the back-pay award and remand for further proceedings.
The parties stipulated to all facts material to this dispute. According to their stipulation, Welbern began working for the City in 1970 as a draftsman in the Public Works Department. After successive promotions over the years, Welbern was transferred in January 1985 to the newly created position of Assistant Director of the Operations Department, which manages the street and traffic-control facilities of the City. Together with the Director of Operations, Welbern was responsible for the work of four supervisors, who in turn directed the work of an unspecified number of subordinate employees.
In November 1985, the City hired a new Director of Operations, Bob Wright. In reviewing the Department's organizational chart, Wright concluded that the Department did not need both a Director and an Assistant Director to manage only four supervisors. At Wright's suggestion, Acting City Administrator Dennis Hunt decided on January 10, 1986 to discontinue the position of Assistant Director of Operations, and terminated Welbern's employment effective March 7, 1986.
At the time of his termination, Welbern had greater seniority than some other employees in the Operations Department. The City stipulates that Welbern was qualified to perform at least some of the Department's remaining positions. The City did not, however, offer Welbern another job in the Operations Department. In the three months before his termination, Welbern applied unsuccessfully for several jobs in other City departments, although he did not apply for the positions of laborer and dispatcher which were open at that time in the Operations Department.
To obtain relief under the Due Process Clause, Welbern must show that he has been deprived of a property interest in his job. 2 This property interest may be established by an ordinary contract, or by "the existence of rules and understandings, promulgated and fostered by state officials, that may justify his legitimate claim of entitlement to continued employment...." Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 602, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 2700, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972). The critical issue in this case is whether Ordinance 3715 of the City of Fort Smith gave Welbern such a property interest.
Section II(E) of Ordinance 3715 provides as follows:
In the event of a layoff or reduction in the work force in any department, probationary employees shall first be laid off; if any further reduction in force is necessary, the employee in that department with the least seniority shall be laid off, provided that the remaining employees in the department have the ability to perform the remaining available work with normal efficiency and without further training.
As the parties presented the question, the District Court had to decide whether the phrase "layoff or reduction in the work force in any department" described the City's decision to eliminate the position of Assistant Director in the Operations Department. The District Court acknowledged that "... the ordinance does not mention the situation where a particular position or job is eliminated." Welbern v. Hunt, Civ. No. 87-2050 (W.D.Ark. April 21, 1988) slip op. at 7. The Court held, however, that Welbern had a legally conferred "expectancy to continued employment in accordance with the seniority standard outlined" in Ordinance 3715, and concluded that this seniority right protected Welbern from complete termination even when the City decided to eliminate his position. Id. Slip op. at 8.
On appeal, the City argues vigorously that the elimination of Welbern's position cannot be a "layoff or reduction in force" within the meaning of the Ordinance, and urges us to reverse the District Court's interpretation of state law. This is not something we are normally disposed to do. For many reasons, district courts are inherently more reliable interpreters of the laws of the states in which they operate than the more removed courts of appeals. In reviewing determinations of state law, we defer to the District Court's view "where there is not strong argument that such choice of law is fundamentally deficient in analysis or otherwise lacking in reasoned authority." Ancom, Inc. v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., 658 F.2d 650, 654 (8th Cir.1981).
In this case, the City does not present a sufficiently compelling reason to overrule the District Court's interpretation. The City's main objection to the District Court's interpretation of the phrase "layoff or reduction in force" in Ordinance 3715 is based on the uses of similar terms in private employment contracts. In the normal industrial context, the City argues, the elimination of a single position does not trigger the procedures provided during work-shortage layoffs for senior workers to displace junior workers by "bumping" downward into subordinate positions. The City makes much of the fact that Ordinance 3715 does not itself provide for any procedure to be used in determining senior employees' "bumping" rights in the event of a layoff. In this case, however, the phrase "layoff or reduction in force" is not found in an industrial labor contract, but in a municipal ordinance governing personnel policies for public employees. Unlike most private employers, cities provide relatively fixed levels of service from a relatively stable amount of revenue. In the public sector, cutbacks in the work force may not always happen in the dramatic across-the-board fashion familiar in the industrial context.
Furthermore, industrial labor contracts providing procedures for reductions in force do not typically cover managerial employees in the seniority bumping system. By contrast, Ordinance 3715 guarantees that its provisions "shall apply uniformly to Classified employees, Exempt Service Employees and Unclassified employees," and the last category "include[s] all those supervisory employees and employees who are not included within the former two categories." Ordinance 3715, Section II(A). It may be an intuitively surprising outcome that the elimination of a managerial position can trigger the operation of a seniority-based reassignment. This apparent anomaly is only a consequence of the unusual provision of the Ordinance, which applies "uniformly" to managerial and non-managerial employees alike.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Western Fireproofing Co. v. W.R. Grace & Co.
...correctly concluded Missouri law allowed introduction of the oral statements in the circumstances of this case. See Welbern v. Hunt, 874 F.2d 532, 534 (8th Cir.1989). We now consider Grace's other contentions pertaining to Western's fraudulent misrepresentation claim. In Missouri, Western m......
-
Ecolab, Inc. v. Morisette
...904-05 (1982). Thus, we conclude the district court reasonably interpreted and applied Nebraska law on this issue. See Welbern v. Hunt, 874 F.2d 532, 534 (8th Cir.1989). Ecolab also contends the district court should not have dismissed the entire complaint in connection with its denial of t......
-
Welbern v. Hunt, s. 90-1114
...due process rights, but reversed the district court's determination of the back pay to which Welbern was entitled. Welbern v. Hunt, 874 F.2d 532 (8th Cir.1989). Welbern appeals the district court's back pay determination on remand, and the City For the reasons discussed below, we AFFIRM IN ......