Case Title: Roberts v. Joiner

Citation: 590 So. 2d 195

Docket Number: 1900502

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1991-09-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
590 So. 2d 195 (1991)
Jim ROBERTS, et al.
v.
Jim JOINER and John Milner.
1900502.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
September 6, 1991.
Rehearing Denied November 8, 1991.
*196 C. Peter Bolvig of McDaniel, Hall, Conerly & Lusk, P.C., Birmingham, for appellants.
Michael J. Evans and Gary P. Cody of Longshore, Evans & Longshore, Birmingham, for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
Jim Joiner and John Milner, who were employed as law enforcement officers by the Town of Morris (the "Town"), filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against all the members of the town council of Morris, alleging, among other things, that the town council members had reduced their salaries and then had terminated them and in so doing had both deprived them of property without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and violated their right to freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Later, another town council was elected, and the new town council members (Jim Roberts, et al.) were substituted as parties to the action, pursuant to Rule 25(d)(1), A.R.Civ.P. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs in the amount of $100,000 each. The trial court awarded Joiner an additional $25,430 for lost wages and lost insurance premium benefits; awarded Milner an additional $39,034 for lost wages; ordered Milner reinstated; and entered a judgment on the verdict.
In 1983, Joiner was the Town's chief of police and Milner was a sergeant in the police department. In late November or early December 1983, Joiner and Milner informed the Town's mayor, Lamar Reid, that town council members Earl Peyton and Frank Keith had purchased tires through the Town's account for their personal use. Peyton and Keith had paid for the tires, but had received them at a substantially discounted price by using the Town's account. Joiner and Milner also notified the State Ethics Commission, and *197 they say that the Ethics Commission told them that it would be best for the Town to handle the situation internally.
On December 18, 1983, the town council met to address "the tire situation." It determined that Peyton and Keith would resign from the committee that purchased goods for the Town and that they should pay the tire store the amount of the discount they had improperly taken.
On December 27, 1983, the town council voted to borrow $8,500 on a 90-day promissory note to cover payroll expenses.
In early January 1984, Keith, who was the town council member directly supervising the police department, altered Milner and Joiner's work schedules, and the plaintiffs allege that this was the beginning of the retaliation for their telling on Peyton and Keith. Joiner testified that also in early January, Keith told him to find a reason to fire Milner.
On January 10, 1984, Keith made a motion to lay off the police dispatcher, demote a police officer to dispatcher, and cut all regular full-time employees' salaries by five percent. The town council, citing financial difficulties, approved the motion. The full-time employees were Joiner, Milner, the police officer who was demoted to dispatcher, and the town clerk, who had originally brought the tire purchases to the attention of Milner.
Shortly after that meeting, Joiner told the mayor and a town councilman that the pay cut was in retaliation for his telling on Peyton and Keith about the tire purchases.
On January 28, 1984, the town council met and Joiner read a letter to the council stating that the pay cuts and layoffs were retaliation. Milner attended this meeting.
The town council met again on February 28, 1984. Councilman Chambers questioned the Town's paying insurance for all the members of Joiner's family. The town council had previously voted not to provide family health insurance for employees hired after January 26, 1982. Joiner had resigned as police chief in February 1982 and then had been rehired in March 1982; accordingly, Chambers argued, Joiner was not entitled to family health insurance. The town council voted to pay only Joiner's health insurance premiums.
Joiner and Milner again complained to the town council that this was retaliation.
Either the last day of February or the first day of March 1984, Joiner moved from Morris to Jasper, Alabama. Joiner testified at trial that his family moved and that his wife got a job because it was apparent to him that he was going to be terminated.
Joiner and Milner attended the town council's March 13, 1984, meeting, during which the council approved this resolution:
On March 15, 1984, Milner and Joiner met with the town council to try to resolve their difficulties, but both sides were intransigent, the plaintiffs demanding a full reinstatement of benefits and the town council unwilling to reinstate any benefits.
On March 23, 1984, Joiner and Milner filed this action, specifically claiming that their pay had been cut and that insurance for Joiner's family had been terminated in retaliation for their reporting the tire purchases to the mayor. The complaint requested damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of the plaintiffs' rights to free speech and due process, and requested damages based on state law claims for breach of contract, "bad faith," outrage, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
On March 29, 1984, the town council met again. The mayor stated alleged reasons for the town council's dissatisfaction with the plaintiffs' work and asked them to resign. They were at the meeting and refused to resign; the town council voted to *198 terminate them. Keith and Peyton did not vote.
The plaintiffs amended their complaint to claim additionally that they had been terminated without due process and in violation of their right to free speech.
At trial, the plaintiffs dropped the state law claims and proceeded only on their § 1983 action. In addition to their free speech claims, the trial court allowed the plaintiffs' claim concerning deprivation of property without due process to go to the jury on at least three theories: 1) that the pay cut was a deprivation without due process, 2) that the reduction of Joiner's family insurance benefits was a deprivation without due process, and 3) that the plaintiffs were terminated without due process. The jury returned a general verdict.
For the plaintiffs to recover for the alleged deprivation of their property rights without due process of law, they must prove both 1) that they had a property interest and 2) that they were deprived of that interest without due process of law. Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 102 S. Ct. 1148, 71 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1982); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S. Ct. 1908, 68 L. Ed. 2d 420 (1981). For the sake of discussion only, we assume that they had a property interest and resolve the case by addressing whether they were deprived of such an interest without due process of law. Specifically, we address the plaintiffs' claims that they were terminated without due process.
In relation to that claim, the plaintiffs argue that they were entitled to receive notice of the charges against them and were entitled to a hearing prior to their termination. However, as we later explain in more detail, according to United States Supreme Court decisions in Parratt and Logan, which had been decided at the time of the transactions underlying this lawsuit, even in the absence of pretermination procedures, posttermination remedies can properly provide due process under the United States Constitution in relation to Joiner and Milner's claim that the town council itself deprived them of property without due processalthough if their claim had been based on a state-established ordinance or statute that purportedly denied them due process, such postdeprivation remedies might have been insufficient.
Since the transactions occurred, the United States Supreme Court's position on whether postdeprivation remedies sufficiently provide due process seems to have changed. See Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 105 S. Ct. 1487, 84 L. Ed. 2d 494 (1985). The plaintiffs do not present an argument that we should retroactively apply Loudermill, however, and we are not inclined to do so without such an argument. See Cox v. Cook, 420 U.S. 734, 95 S. Ct. 1237, 43 L. Ed. 2d 587 (1975); Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 92 S. Ct. 349, 30 L. Ed. 2d 296 (1971).
In Parratt, an inmate in a Nebraska correctional facility ordered through the mail certain hobby materials. When they arrived, he was in solitary confinement, where he was not permitted to have the materials, and when he was released from solitary confinement, the materials had been lost. He brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging deprivation of property without due process of law. The United States Supreme Court wrote:
451 U.S.  at 537-42, 101 S. Ct.  at 1914-16 (emphasis original).
Accordingly, Parratt seems to indicate that Joiner and Milner were not necessarily entitled to predeprivation proceedings, because they are challenging actions by town council members instead of established state procedures. Parratt also seems to indicate that postdeprivation proceedings in this situation can properly provide due process.
In Logan, the plaintiff challenged established state procedures. Logan was discharged from Zimmerman Brush Company *200 purportedly because he had a physical handicap that rendered him incapable of working. Logan challenged that discharge under the Illinois Fair Employment Practices Act. The United States Supreme Court described the events following Logan's challenge:
455 U.S.  at 426-27, 102 S. Ct.  at 1152-53 (citations omitted).
Addressing Logan's alleged deprivation of due process, the Supreme Court wrote:
455 U.S.  at 434-36, 102 S. Ct.  at 1156-58.
In the case before us, Joiner and Milner are challenging the town council's actions, not an established state procedure, so Parratt is more apposite than Logan. The evidence indicates that the "Town of Morris Personnel Policy" provides for a post-termination appeal and hearing. An employee is entitled to written notice setting forth the reasons for his termination and is entitled to a hearing on his termination. The hearing may be before either the town council or an appointed hearing officer. An employee has the right to representation by an attorney and may call witnesses and present evidence at the hearing. Subsequent to the hearing, the employee has the further right to judicial review of the proceedings by the circuit court.
The evidence also indicates that instead of pursuing the post-termination procedures, the plaintiffs opted to amend their complaint (which had been filed before they were terminated) to use the termination as another theory for recovery on their state law and § 1983 claims.
Considering all the evidence, we hold that the Town did not deprive Joiner and Milner of property without due process of law in relation to their claims concerning their termination, Parratt, and that the trial court erred in submitting that claim to the jury. We intend that holding to be construed narrowly. We do not address whether the trial court erred in submitting to the jury the plaintiffs' claims of a deprivation of property without due process based on the pay cuts and Joiner's loss of his family's insurance.
As to the plaintiffs' free speech claims, the law on deprivations of freedom of speech is clearly established, unlike the law relating to due process that we have just discussed, although the application of the law to facts in the context of free speech claims has produced dramatically different results in seemingly similar factual situations. "It is clear that a state may not discharge an employee on a basis that infringes that employee's constitutionally protected interest in freedom of speech." Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 383, 107 S. Ct. 2891, 2896, 97 L. Ed. 2d 315 (1987). The threshold question in determining whether an adverse employment decision violates the right to freedom of speech is whether the speech at issue may be fairly characterized as speech on a public concern. Id., at 384, 107 S. Ct.  at 2897. If it is, the court must balance the interests of the employee as a citizen in commenting upon public concern with the interest of the state, as employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees. Id.
Whether speech is protected is an issue of law, reviewable de novo on appeal. Id., at 385-86, 107 S. Ct.  at 2897-98. If it is determined as a matter of law that the speech is protected, the plaintiff must prove that the speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the challenged employment decision. Mount Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287, 97 S. Ct. 568, 576, 50 L. Ed. 2d 471 (1977). The burden then shifts to the defendant to show "by a preponderance of the evidence that it would *202 have reached the same decision ... in the absence of the protected activity." Id. These last two issues are fact questions.
Id.
In addition to the evidence that we have already discussed, the Town's mayor testified in deposition and at trial that he thought the town council's actions against Joiner and Milner were retaliation for their telling about the tire purchases.
We must first determine whether Joiner and Milner's communications in turning in Peyton and Keith to the mayor and town council were a matter of public concern. Speech on matters of public concern has been defined as speech "fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community." Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 146, 103 S. Ct. 1684, 1689-90, 75 L. Ed. 2d 708 (1983). That inquiry into what is a public concern requires a court to consider the content, form, and context of the speech at issue, as revealed by the entire record. Rankin, 483 U.S.  at 385, 107 S. Ct.  at 2897.
In determining whether speech is a matter of public concern, many courts have particularly focused on the extent to which the content of the employee's speech was calculated to disclose wrongdoing, inefficiency, or other malfeasance on the part of governmental officials in the conduct of their official duties. See Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 857 (10th Cir.1989); Koch v. City of Hutchinson, 847 F.2d 1436, 1445, 46 n. 17 (10th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 909, 109 S. Ct. 262, 102 L. Ed. 2d 250 (1988), and the numerous cases cited in Wulf and Koch for this proposition.
Considering the above discussion, we hold that Joiner and Milner's speech in turning in the councilmen for the improper tire purchases was a matter of public concern. We further hold that on balance, Joiner and Milner's interest (as well as the public's), in the free speech involved in turning in Keith and Peyton outweighed any purported state interest in promoting the efficiency of public services. The law should not allow the Town to create problems with Joiner and Milner because of their reporting the improper tire purchases and then use the very problems it created as a basis for saying that it has a greater interest in efficiency of public services than Joiner and Milner have in free speech.
Furthermore, the plaintiffs presented substantial evidence that the speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the challenged employment decisions. Even the mayor of the Town said, both in his deposition and again at trial, that he thought the town council's actions were retaliation for Joiner and Milner's telling about the improper tire purchases.
The trial court did not err in submitting to the jury the plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging a violation of their right to free speech. See Wulf; Reeves v. Claiborne County Board of Education, 828 F.2d 1096 (5th Cir.1987); Sykes v. McDowell, 786 F.2d 1098 (11th Cir.1986); Robb v. City of Philadelphia, 733 F.2d 286 (3d Cir.1984); Allen v. Autauga County Board of Education, 685 F.2d 1302 (11th Cir.1982); Kingsville Independent School District v. Cooper, 611 F.2d 1109 (5th Cir. 1980).
We are aware that there are cases that might suggest a contrary result. See Morales v. Stierheim, 848 F.2d 1145 (11th Cir.1988); Cooper v. Johnson, 590 F.2d 559 (4th Cir.1979); Kannisto v. City & County of San Francisco, 541 F.2d 841 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied 430 U.S. 931, 97 S. Ct. 1552, 51 L. Ed. 2d 775 (1977); Wood v. Town of Frederica, 529 F. Supp. 403 (D.Del.1982), aff'd at 688 F.2d 828 (3d Cir.1982); Hoopes v. Nacrelli, 512 F. Supp. 363 (E.D.Pa.1981).
The trial court properly submitted the plaintiffs' free speech claim to the jury, but it erred in submitting to the jury their claim for deprivation of property allegedly without due process because of their termination. The jury returned a general verdict. In South Central Bell Tel. Co. v. Branum, 568 So. 2d 795 (Ala.1990), we addressed the effect of a general verdict when a case contains a "good" count (i.e., one properly submitted to the jury) and a "bad" count (i.e., one improperly submitted to the jury). In that case, we held that if a good count and a bad count go to the jury *203 and the jury returns a general verdict, this Court cannot presume that the verdict was returned on the good count. 568 So. 2d  at 798. See also Aspinwall v. Gowens, 405 So. 2d 134 (Ala.1981).
Accordingly, the judgment is due to be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SHORES, ADAMS, HOUSTON, STEAGALL and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.
INGRAM, J., concurs in the result in part and dissents in part.
INGRAM, Justice (concurring in the result in part and dissenting in part):
In this action, the plaintiffs sued the members of the town council of the Town of Morris, in their official capacity. The plaintiffs alleged that the town council members denied them due process of law and violated their rights to free speech under the first amendment and were therefore liable for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The essence of their claim is that the town council members, acting under the color of their office, retaliated against the plaintiffs for speaking out regarding an incident concerning the improper purchase of tires by two councilmen through the town's account. The plaintiffs alleged that the members of the town council terminated them for this "whistle-blowing" activity.
The defendants named in the original complaint were designated as follows:
By the time of trial, no council member named in the original complaint was still in office. Under Rule 25(d)(1), A.R.Civ.P., the successors in office to the originally named defendants, who were sued in their official capacity, were automatically substituted.[1]
A suit against the town council and the mayor of the Town of Morris, in their official capacities, is for all intents and purposes an action against the Town of Morris. See Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 469, 105 S. Ct. 873, 876, 83 L. Ed. 2d 878 (1985); Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690 n. 55, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 2035 n. 55, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1978). In official-capacity suits, such as this one, the plaintiffs seek to impose liability upon the governmental entity that the named defendants represent, here the Town of Morris. In order to recover under § 1983 in an official-capacity suit, the plaintiffs must allege and prove that the entity was a moving force behind the deprivation and that the entity's policy or custom played a part in the violation.
The United States Supreme Court addressed this issue in Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 105 S. Ct. 3099 (1985). The Court stated:
"* See Monell, 436 U.S., at 694, 98 S.Ct., at 2037 (`[A] local government may not be sued under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents. Instead, it is when execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983')."
Id. at 166 and n. 12, 105 S. Ct.  at 3105 n. 12.
The issue in this case is whether the plaintiffs have pleaded and proved a cause of action against the Town of Morris under § 1983. I believe they have not.
To reiterate, in order for a municipality to be found liable under § 1983, the plaintiffs must allege and prove a direct causal link between the municipal policy or custom and the alleged constitutional deprivation. City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385, 109 S. Ct. 1197, 1202-03, 103 L. Ed. 2d 412 (1989). The plaintiffs must allege and prove that "the `execution of the government's policy or custom ... inflict[ed] the injury.'" Id. (quoting City of Springfield, Mass. v. Kibbe, 480 U.S. 257, 267, 107 S. Ct. 1114, 1119, 94 L. Ed. 2d 293 (1987) (O'Connor, J., dissenting) (quoting Monell, 436 U.S.  at 694, 98 S.Ct. at 2037)).
In the pre-trial order in the present case, the trial court stated:
(Emphasis added.)
Further, the following charge was requested by the plaintiffs and was given by the trial court:
(Emphasis added.)
Also, the plaintiffs produced no evidence or testimony, nor do they argue, that they were discharged pursuant to some policy or custom of the Town of Morris, nor did they allege that the single event of their discharge constituted a "policy or custom" of the Town of Morris.[2] "The [Town of Morris] *205 cannot be held liable under § 1983 unless [the plaintiffs] prove the existence of an unconstitutional municipal policy." City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 128, 108 S. Ct. 915, 926, 99 L. Ed. 2d 107 (1988).
In this case, the plaintiffs consistently assert that they were discharged because they had "blown the whistle" on an allegedly improper purchase of tires by two "sitting" councilmen and that their discharge violated the personnel policy of the town. Their claims, under § 1983, arise not from the effectuation of some policy or custom of the Town of Morris; indeed, the plaintiffs allege that their discharge violated the policy of the Town of Morris. This is not sufficient to state a claim against the Town of Morris under § 1983 for deprivation of constitutional rights as a result of the town's policy or custom. Because the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for relief, under § 1983, against the Town of Morris, and the plaintiffs dismissed with prejudice their claims against those members of the town council who were sued in their individual capacity, there is no ground upon which relief can be granted. Therefore, the verdict of the jury against the current town council members in their official capacities is due to be reversed, and the cause remanded to the trial court for entry of judgment in favor of the defendants. I respectfully dissent from that part of the majority opinion that remands the case to the trial court for retrial of the First Amendment issue, and I concur in the result regarding the alleged denial of due process.
[1]  Rule 25(d)(1), A.R.Civ.P., states:

"When a public officer is a party to an action in his official capacity and during its pendency dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office, the action does not abate and his successor is automatically substituted as a party."
The corresponding federal rule has been interpreted in the following manner:
"Should the official die [resign, or otherwise cease to hold office] pending final resolution of a personal-capacity action, the plaintiff would have to pursue his action against the decedent's estate. In an official-capacity action in federal court, death or replacement of the named official will result in automatic substitution of the official's successor in office. See Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 25(d)(1); Fed. R.App.Proc. 43(c)(1); [United States Supreme Court] Rule 40.3."
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 n. 11, 105 S. Ct. 3099, 3105 n. 11, 87 L. Ed. 2d 114 (1985).
[2]  A recent United States Supreme Court decision seems to hold that an action may be maintained against a municipality when the highest policy-making authority of the municipality has made a single decision. City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 123, 108 S. Ct. 915, 923-24 (1989). The Supreme Court held that under certain circumstances a single decision could represent the "policy" of the governmental entity. Id. In Praprotnik, the respondent was not successful in alleging a cause of action against the City of St. Louis because he had failed to allege and to prove the existence of an unconstitutional policy, and he had not contended that anyone had ever promulgated such a policy. He also failed to prove that the deprivation of his rights was the "custom" of St. Louis. Id. at 128, 108 S. Ct.  at 926.