Case Title: LOVELL v WOLF

Citation: 

Docket Number: 81-065

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1982-04-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 81-65 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 HELEN L. LOVELL, Plaintiff and Appellant, VS. JOSEPH G. WOLF, City-County Manager for Anaconda-Deer Lodge County; and ANACONDA DEER LODGE COUNTY, a political subdivision, Defendants and Respondents. l e a l from: District Court of the Third Judicial District, In and for the County of Deer Lodge, Montana Honorable Robert Boyd, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Michael J. McKeon argued, Anaconda, Montana For Respondents: John Radonich, County Attorney, argued, Anaconda, Montana Submitted: February 24, 1982 r p - ' \ Filed: APR 1 Decided : #&i% $ @ Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s is an appeal fro~rl a judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court; of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , i n and f o r t h e County of Deer Lodge, denying Helen Lovell r e i n s t a t e m e n t and back- pay r e s u l t i n g from her d i s c h a r g e from county employment. The a p p e l l a n t , Helen L o v e l l , is a sixty-five-year-old woman, who was e l e c t e d t o t h r e e , four-year terms a s t h e c l e r k and r e c o r d e r of Deer Lodge County, Montana, Her f i r s t e l e c t e d term began on January 3, 1967. She then was e l e c t e d f o r a term begining i n January 1971, and a n o t h e r beginning i n January 1975, The l a s t term was t o run u n t i l J a n u a r y 1979, b u t on May 2 , 1977, a county form of government, c o n s o l i d a t i n g t h e c i t y and county governments, was p u t i n t o e f f e c t , That c h a r t e r had c e r t a i n p r o v i s i o n s which a r e important t o t h e d e c i s i o n i n t h i s c a s e . The c h a r t e r p r o v i d e s : " A r t i c l e I V , S e c t i o n 3, D u t i e s . "1. The Anaconda-Deer Lodge County Manager s h a l l be t h e c h i e f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e r of t h e l o c a l government and s h a l l be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a l l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s of Anaconda- Deer Lodge County, u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e provided by t h i s C h a r t e r . " 2 . The Manager's r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s s h a l l be t o : . . . c. a p p o i n t and remove department heads with t h e approval of t h e Commission. " A r t i c l e V , S e c t i o n 2. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Code. "1. The A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Code s h a l l provide t h e complete plan of o r g a n i z a t i o n and s t r u c - t u r e of Anaconda-Deer Lodge County. "2. The A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Code s h a l l i n c l u d e : " a . t h e departmental o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e government, t h e n a t u r e and scope of each d e p a r t m e n t and r u l e s and p r o c e d u r e s f o r department o p e r a t i o n . . . " A r t i c l e V , S e c t i o n 3 . Personnel System. "1. The Anaconda-Deer Lodge County Person- n e l System s h a l l provide f o r h i r i n g on t h e b a s i s of m e r i t and s h a l l i n c l u d e a s a l a r y s c h e d u l e , p r o v i s i o n s f o r v a c a t i o n s , s i c k l e a v e s , i n s u r a n c e and o t h e r b e n e f i t s f o r a l l employees i n accordance with p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s C h a r t e r ; procedures f o r employees t o have an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be heard upon t h e i r r e q u e s t pending d i s c h a r g e , suspension o r any d e s i g n a t e d d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n and s h a l l provide f o r such o t h e r procedures a s neces- s a r y f o r an e q u i t a b l e P e r s o n n e l System i n c l u d i n g h o n o r i n g o f a l l c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g agreements. " A r t i c l e X , S e c t i o n 2 . C o n t i n u i t y . "5. A l l Anaconda and Deer Lodge County o f f i - c i a l s o r employees, except t h e Mayor, C i t y Council members, and County Commissioners, may c o n t i n u e i n t h e performance of t h e i r d u t i e s a c c o r d i n g t o e x i s t i n g p e r s o n n e l p r o c e d u r e s o r u n t i l t h e i r p o s i t i o n s a r e t e r m i n a t e d by t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Code. Employees whose p o s i t i o n s a r e t e r m i n a t e d by p r o v i s i o n s of t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Code s h a l l be g i v e n f i r s t c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r o t h e r Anaconda-Deer Lodge County employment. " A r t i c l e X , S e c t i o n 4. Manager, A d m i n i s t r a - t i v e Code, and Personnel System. "1. The Commission s h a l l a p p o i n t t h e Manager on o r b e f o r e August 1, 1977. " 2 . Within n i n e ( 9 ) months of t h e appoint- ment o f t h e Manager, t h e Manager s h a l l p r e p a r e and submit an A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Code and P e r s o n n e l System t o t h e Commission f o r review, amendment, and a d o p t i o n by o r d i n a n c e . The Code and Personnel System s h a l l n o t be i n v i o l a t i o n of any union c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g c o n t r a c t i n f o r c e a t t h e time of adoption of s a i d Code and System. " 3 . The Commission s h a l l adopt t h e Adminis- t r a t i v e Code and Personnel System by o r d i - nance a s submitted o r amended w i t h i n t h r e e ( 3 ) months of t h e d a t e of submission by t h e Manager . "4. The method a11d schedule f o r implementa- t i o n of t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Code and Personnel System s h a l l be provided i n t h e o r d i n a n c e s adopting them . . ." A t t h e time of t h e i n s t i t u t i o n of t h e new form of government, May 2, 1977, t h e Board of County Commissioners o f Anaconda-Deer Lodge County passed a r e s o l u t i o n providing f o r a personnel system pursuant t o A r t i c l e V, S e c t i o n 3 , which i n e f f e c t appointed Helen L. Love11 s u p e r v i s o r , c l e r k and r e c o r d e r ' s o f f i c e , and provided a s f o l l o w s : ". . . be it f u r t h e r r e s o l v e d t h a t t h e above named i n d i v i d u a l s s e r v e i n t h e above e n t i t l e d c a p a c i t i e s u n t i l such time a s t h e c h a r t e r of t h e Anaconda-Deer Lodge County is implemented and t h e v a r i o u s o f f i c e s and departments a r e merged and c o n s o l i d a t e d and u n t i l f u r t h e r r e s o l u t i o n of t h e Anaconda-Deer Lodge County Commission." The e f f e c t of t h e r e s o l u t i o n a s t o Helen Love11 was t o make her p o s i t i o n one of appointment r a t h e r than e l e c t i o n . I n J u l y 1977, t h e defendant-respondent, Joseph G , Wolf, was appointed manager of t h e Anaconda-Deer Lodge County. In February 1978, a f t e r s i x months i n o f f i c e , Wolf informed t h e a p p e l l a n t t h a t s h e was t o record and h e l p Regina Connor, who had been moved a t t h e time of t h e con- s o l i d a t i o n from t h e c i t y c l e r k ' s job t o t h e o f f i c e of c l e r k and r e c o r d e r . Wolf t e s t i f i e d t h a t sometime a t t h e end of 1977 he c a l l e d t h e c i t y and county employees t o a meeting i n t h e courtroom of t h e county courthouse t o d i s c u s s t h e job s i t u a t i o n and t h e combining of t h e c i t y and county o f f i c e s , H e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t a t t h i s time he informed county employees t h a t Connor was t o be t h e c l e r k and r e c o r d e r a f t e r t h e f i r s t of t h e y e a r . The a p p e l l a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e was n o t t o l d she was no l o n g e r c l e r k and r e c o r d e r b u t simply was a s s i g n e d t o o t h e r j o b s i n t h e o f f i c e and t o l d t o a s s i s t Connor and show her around t h e o f f i c e . A t no time was t h e r e any r e s o l u t i o n by t h e board of commissioners t e r m i n a t i n g a p p e l l a n t ' s job o r t r a n s f e r r i n g her t o a l e s s e r job i n t h e c i t y - c o u n t y s e t u p . The a p p e l l a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t sometime i n mid-February s h e was c a l l e d t o Wolf's o f f i c e where he informed her he was n o t s a t i s f i e d w i t h her work. A t t h a t time he asked her i f s h e had considered r e t i r i n g , and she informed him she was unable f i n a n c i a l l y t o r e t i r e . On March 15, 1978, Wolf a g a i n suggested t h a t a p p e l l a n t r e t i r e . He t o l d her t h a t her work was u n s a t i s f a c t o r y and t h a t he had had c o m p l a i n t s from a b s t r a c t o r s . H e then informed h e r s h e would be t e r m i n a t e d a s of March 17. Wolf t e s t i f i e d t h a t a t t h e time he went t o work i n August 1977 he was f a m i l i a r with t h e R e s o l u t i o n No. 1, passed by t h e commissioners making a p p e l l a n t t h e s u p e r v i s o r of t h e c l e r k and r e c o r d e r ' s o f f i c e . He a l s o t e s t i f i e d he was f a m i l i a r with t h e c h a r t e r which c r e a t e d t h e Anaconda- Deer Lodge County government and t h a t he was aware of t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e code t o be provided by t h e commissioners. I n a d d i t i o n , Wolf was aware t h a t t h e c h a r t e r d i r e c t e d t h e Anaconda-Deer Lodye county commission t o adopt a person- n e l system w i t h i n n i n e t o twelve months. During t h a t p e r i o d no personnel o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e code was adopted by t h e commission nor was any personnel system adopted o r i n e f f e c t when Wolf demanded t h e a p p e l l a n t 1 s r e s i g n a t i o n . H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t while no changes had been made o f f i c i a l l y , " i n h i s mind" Connor became t h e c l e r k and r e c o r d e r a s of t h e f i r s t of t h e y e a r , 1978. However, it was not u n t i l March 9 , 1978, s e v e r a l months l a t e r , t h a t Connor was appointed t h e s u p e r v i s o r of t h e c l e r k and r e c o r d e r ' s o f f i c e . During t h i s p e r i o d , from January 1 t o March 1 7 , i n s p i t e of a change of d u t i e s , t h e a p p e l l a n t was paid t h e same s a l a r y s h e was paid a s c l e r k and r e c o r d e r . Wolf's recommendation and t h e commissioners' a c t on March 9 , 1978, were s e v e r a l weeks a f t e r Wolf had h i s f i r s t c o n v e r s a t i o n with t h e a p p e l l a n t and j u s t a couple of days b e f o r e t h e t e r m i n a t i o n of her job i n t h e c l e r k and r e c o r d e r ' s o f f i c e . Wolf t e s t i f i e d t h a t following t h e R e s o l u t i o n No. 1, d a t e d May 2 , 1977, t h e r e was no r e s o l u t i o n changing t h e a p p e l l a n t f s s t a t u s u n t i l March 1978. Wolf a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t p r i o r t o t h a t time, he had g i v e n a p p e l l a n t a v e r b a l warning b u t had n o t g i v e n h e r any w r i t t e n n o t i f i c a t i o n t h a t she was under c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r s u s p e n s i o n o r t e r m i n a t i o n . A p p e l l a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t d u r i n g t h e time s h e was c l e r k and r e c o r d e r of Deer Lodge County, a s an e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l , s h e could n o t j o i n a union because of h e r e l e c t i v e s t a t u s . Some q u e s t i o n is r a i s e d by t h e respondents a l l e g i n g t h a t when a p p e l l a n t was demoted from c l e r k and r e c o r d e r t o a l e s s e r p o s i t i o n i n January o r February s h e was r e q u i r e d t o j o i n t h e union and, having f a i l e d t o do s o , s h e h a s waived her r i g h t s t o a c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g h e a r i n g . However, testimony of both t h e a p p e l l a n t and t h e courthouse union shop steward i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t made an e f f o r t t o j o i n t h e union b u t was e i t h e r denied membership o r t o l d t h a t t h e u n i o n would l o o k i n t o t h e m a t t e r f o r h e r . Her t e r m i n a t i o n came b e f o r e anything could be done i n her c a p a c i t y a s a n o n o f f i c i a l employee of t h e Anaconda-Deer Lodge County o f f i c e . Three i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r review: 1. Whether t h e p l a i n t i f f - a p p e l l a n t was denied due p r o c e s s when she was d i s c h a r g e d from her p o s i t i o n a s c l e r k and r e c o r d e r of Anaconda-Deer Lodge County without a h e a r i n g t o determine i f t h e r e was cause f o r her t e r m i n a t i o n . 2. Whether t h e p l a i n t i f f - a p p e l l a n t was denied due p r o c e s s r i g h t s when a new s u p e r v i s o r of c l e r k and r e c o r d e r ' s o f f i c e of Anaconda-Deer Lodge County was appointed w h i l e t h e a p p e l l a n t had never been removed o f f i c i a l l y a s c l e r k and r e c o r d e r of Deer Lodge County, a s r e q u i r e d by s t a t u t e and t h e l o c a l government c h a r t e r . 3 . Whether t h e p l a i n t i f f - a p p e l l a n t is precluded from m a i n t a i n i n g t h i s a c t i o n i f s h e f a i l e d t o e x h a u s t t h e a d r n i n i s t r a t i v e remedies which may have been a v a i l a b l e t o her. I n view o f t h e f a c t t h a t i s s u e s o n e and two, concerning t h e due p r o c e s s q u e s t i o n , a r e c o n t r o l l i n y i n t h i s c a s e and r e q u i r e r e v e r s a l of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s judgment, t h e two w i l l be combined f o r d i s c u s s i o n . The respondents a r g u e t h a t t h e i s s u e s of due p r o c e s s were n o t r a i s e d a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t l e v e l and, t h e r e f o r e , cannot be considered on a p p e a l . Chadwick v. Giberson (1980) t Mont. , 618 P.2d 1213, 37 St.Rep. 1723. W e do n o t a g r e e . Here, t h e due p r o c e s s i s s u e ran through t h e e n t i r e t r i a l and was brought t o t h e a t t e n t i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t Court b y t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s proposed f i n d i n g s of f a c t . There was a s p e c i f i c c h a r g e t h a t t h e c o u n t y ' s f a i l u r e t o a d o p t a "personnel s y s t e n ~ " providing f o r a h e a r i n g b e f o r e d i s c h a r g e s was a " v i o l a t i o n of . . . due process.'' The c a s e was t r i e d a s a due p r o c e s s q u e s t i o n i n s p i t e of t h e f a c t t h a t t h e words "due p r o c e s s n do n o t appear i n e i t h e r t h e p l e a d i n g s o r t h e t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t and t h e due p r o c e s s concern is t h e p i v o t a l i s s u e p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s appeal. From t h e c i t y - c o u n t y manager's f i r s t t r a n s f e r of a p p e l l a n t ' s d u t i e s t o h i s f i n a l t e r m i n a t i o n of her employ- ment, a p p e l l a n t ' s r i g h t s under t h e c h a r t e r were n e i t h e r recognized nor p r o t e c t e d . The c h a r t e r d i c t a t e d how each appointed department head was t o be rernoved, and it r e q u i r e d any removal t o be approved by t h e commission. The c h a r t e r p r o v i s i o n s were never followed i n t h e t r a n s f e r of appel- l a n t ' s d u t i e s a f t e r her appointment a s s u p e r v i s o r of t h e c l e r k and r e c o r d e r ' s o f f i c e , and t h e y were not followed i n removii~g her from her job u n t i l e a r l y March. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e n o t a r y p u b l i c s e a l o b t a i n e d by a p p e l l a n t d u r i n g t h e time s h e was c l e r k and r e c o r d e r was still being used up u n t i l t h e time s h e was f i r e d . I n a d d i t i o n , appel- l a n t was paid t h e same s a l a r y throughout t h e e n t i r e p e r i o d u n t i l she was t e r m i n a t e d . I n her c a p a c i t y a s c l e r k and r e c o r d e r b e f o r e t h e c o n s o l i d a t i o n , t h e a p p e l l a n t was t h e g e n e r a l s u p e r v i s o r of her o f f i c e and d i d n o t perform t h e s p e c i f i c j o b s w i t h i n t h e o f f i c e which r e q u i r e d s p e c i a l s k i l l s . R a t h e r , s h e was always a v a i l a b l e t o t h e board of county commissioners a s t h e i r c l e r k and c a r r i e d o u t o t h e r d u t i e s of t h e o f f i c e which d i d n o t r e q u i r e t h e s p e c i a l i z a t i o n c a l l e d f o r under t h e new form of government. Following her t r a n s f e r t o r e c o r d s c l e r k s h e was c a l l e d upon t o do t e c h n i c a l j o b s w i t h i n t h e o f f i c e f o r which she had no e x p e r t i s e . One of t h e r e a s o n s g i v e n by Manager Wolf f o r her t e r m i n a t i o n was t h a t he had c o m p l a i n t s from two a b s t r a c t o r s i n town t h a t a p p e l l a n t d i d n o t p r o p e r l y record instruments and her w r i t i n g was so bad m i s t a k e s were being made i n t h e r e c o r d i n g . However, t h e record is a l s o c l e a r t h a t Wolf d i d n o t c a l l t h i s t o her a t t e n t i o n u n t i l t h e day he n o t i f i e d her t h a t she was no l o n g e r employed, nor was any e f f o r t made t o t r a i n her f o r t h e s k i l l s n e c e s s a r y t o s t a y on t h e job. I n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e due p r o c e s s p r o t e c t i o n argument of t h e a p p e l l a n t , we look t o t h r e e r e c e n t c a s e s of t h i s Court: R e i t e r v. Yellowstone County (1981) , - Mont. , 627 P.2d - 845, 38 St.Rep. 686; G a t e s v. L i f e of Montana I n s u r a n c e Company ( 1 9 8 2 ) , - Mont. - , 638 P.2d 1063, 39 St.Rep. 16; and Nye v. Department of Livestock ( 1 9 8 2 ) , Ivlon t . 1 639 P.2d 498, 39 St.Rep. 49. See: Love, Damages: A Remedy f o r t h e V i o l a t i o n of C o n s t i t u t i o n a l R i g h t s , 67 Cal. Law Rev. T h i s Court held i n R e i t e r , s u p r a , t h a t t o show a p r o p e r t y i n t e r e s t o r l i b e r t y i n t e r e s t i n h i s job, and t h u s be e n t i t l e d t o c l a i m due p r o c e s s p r o t e c t i o n , an ernployee must be a b l e t o p o i n t t o an independent s o u r c e such a s s t a t e l a w o r an u n d e r s t a n d i n g between t h e e m p l o y e r and t h e employee. Here, we f i n d t h r e e s o u r c e s by which a p p e l l a n t can e s t a b l i s h a due p r o c e s s p r o t e c t i o n : (1) t h e c h a r t e r ; ( 2 ) t h e s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 16-5115.12, R.C.M. 1947; and ( 3 ) t h e c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g a g r e e m e n t which we f i n d unnecessary t o c o n s i d e r i n d e c i d i n g t h i s c a s e . W e n o t e t h a t n e i t h e r G a t e s nor - Nye had been decided when t h e p a r t i e s i n t h i s c a s e f i l e d t h e i r b r i e f s so t h e y were n o t d i s c u s s e d t h e r e . However, i n a d d i t i o n t o R e i t e r , t h i s C o u r t ' s holding i n - Nye adds s t r e n g t h t o a p p e l l a n t ' s c a u s e i n t h i s m a t t e r . There, t h i s Court held on t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m of wrongful d i s c h a r g e t h a t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r u l e s may become t h e s o u r c e of a p u b l i c p o l i c y which would s u p p o r t a c l a i m of wrongful d i s c h a r g e . I n - Nye, a s i n t h i s c a s e , t h e r e was no showing of " j u s t cause" f o r removal from her s t a t u s a s permit c l e r k . She was, a s t h e a p p e l l a n t h e r e , e n t i t l e d t o a proper hearing b e f o r e t e r m i n a t i o n from her permanent p o s i t i o n . W e r e v e r s e t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court denying a p p e l l a n t r e i n s t a t e m e n t i n h e r p o s i t i o n a s c l e r k and r e c o r d e r . The c a u s e is remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court w i t h t h e following i n s t r u c t i o n s : t h a t a p p e l l a n t be r e i n s t a t e d t o h e r p o s i t i o n a s c l e r k and r e c o r d e r ; t h a t s h e be paid backpay f o r t h e period from March 1978 t o p r e s e n t , s u b j e c t t o any o f f s e t s ; and t h a t h e a r i n g s be h e l d t o determine her f u t u r e s t a t u s a s an employee of t h e C i t y of Anaconda-County of Deer Lodge. W e concur: J u s t i c e P - - -- -- ,Chief J u s t i c e r, Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell. s p e c i a l l y c o n c u r r i n g : I c o n c u r i n t h e r e s u l t on t h e b a s i s t h a t a p p e l l a n t Love11 was d e n i e d due p r o c e s s b e c a u s e t h e r e was no v a l i d change i n h e r s t a t u s and s h e was d i s c h a r g e d w i t h o u t a h e a r i n g . P aAt~%&- C h i e f J u s t i c e