Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07094/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07094-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Fl L~J1ppet,1P 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT United Sf~h Circuit 

NANNETTE WELLS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

JOHN H. SCAGGS, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MAY 11 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) No. 92-7094 

) (D.C. No. CV-91-568-P) 

) (E.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE and BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and VAN BEBBER,** 

District Judge. 

**Honorable G. Thomas Van Bebber, District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determi nation of this appeal. ~ Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff Nannette Wells appeals from an order of the 

district court granting summary judgment to defendant, the 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit , 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel . 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-7094 Document: 010110114158 Date Filed: 05/11/1993 Page: 1 
Honorable John H. Scaggs, a district judge of the Twentieth 

Judicial District of Oklahoma. We affirm. 

Plaintiff, a former deputy court clerk, sued defendant after 

learning he had written a letter to the court clerk stating he 

would no longer approve any claims plaintiff made for wages 

payable from the court fund after learning she was to be bound 

over on felony embezzlement charges. Plaintiff was suspended with 

pay at the time the letter was written. Plaintiff alleged she had 

a property interest in wages accrued but unpaid for the month in 

which the letter was written, and defendant's action deprived her 

of that property interest without due process. Plaintiff further 

alleged that as a result of this letter, she was terminated from 

her position, and defendant's action, therefore, constituted 

interference by a third party into her property interest in her 

employment contract. 

The matter was adjudicated by a magistrate judge by agreement 

of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1). Defendant raised the 

defense of qualified immunity and moved for summary judgment. The 

magistrate judge found defendant was entitled to qualified 

immunity because plaintiff, an at-will employee, had no property 

interest in her continued employment and, therefore, was not 

entitled to the protections of due process. 

We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de 

novo, applying the same standards used by the district court. 

Osgood v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 848 F.2d 141, 143 (10th 

Cir. 1988). Summary judgment is appropriate where the record 

shows "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-7094 Document: 010110114158 Date Filed: 05/11/1993 Page: 2 
that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of 

law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 

The first inquiry in reviewing the district court's grant of 

qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff alleged a violation of 

any right secured by the Constitution. See Siegert v. Gilley. 111 

S . Ct . 178 9 , 179 3 ( 19 91) . 

On appeal, plaintiff argues she had a property interest in 

both her accrued but unpaid wages and in her employment contract. 

Plaintiff argues that she was deprived of these interests without 

due process of law. 

Plaintiff argues that Oklahoma recognizes a property interest 

in preadjudicated claims against a court fund and, therefore, she 

is entitled to the protections of due process. Plaintiff, a 

part-time employee, was paid out of the court fund. She signed a 

claim against the court fund monthly for her wages. Defendant 

approved all claims against the fund. See Okla. Stat. tit. 20, 

§ 1304. In his letter, defendant stated he would no longer 

approve any claims plaintiff made against the fund. Plaintiff did 

not file a claim against the fund for wages at any time after the 

letter was written. Therefore, defendant never denied her claim. 

If he had, plaintiff could have pursued established post-rejection 

procedures. See Court Fund of Tulsa County v. Cook, 557 P.2d 875, 

878 (Okla. 1976). Even if plaintiff had a property right to her 

pay while she was suspended, redress for any deprivation of that 

right was available. 

Plaintiff argues that under Oklahoma law, an employment 

contract is a property interest, although, because she was an 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-7094 Document: 010110114158 Date Filed: 05/11/1993 Page: 3 
at-will employee, that interest did not survive her termination. 

Plaintiff argues that defendant's letter, written while she was 

still employed, interfered with that property interest because the 

letter was the instigating factor in her firing. 

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has held that a third party "who 

intentionally interferes with · an employment relationship by 

unlawful means or without justifiable cause, becomes liable to the 

employee for any proximately caused harm." Hinson v. Cameron, 742 

P.2d 549, 551 n.3 (Okla. 1987) (citing Del State Bank v. Salmon, 

548 P.2d 1024, 1026 (Okla. 1976)). Here, even assuming both that 

plaintiff had a property interest in her employment status and 

that defendant interfered with that interest, defendant's decision 

to no longer approve claims for plaintiff was justifiable. 

In conclusion, assuming that plaintiff possessed all the 

property interests claimed, she was not unconstitutionally 

deprived of those interests. Lacking any violation of her 

constitutional rights, the district court properly entered summary 

judgment for defendant. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

,, 

Entered for the Court 

Wade Brorby 

Circuit Judge 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-7094 Document: 010110114158 Date Filed: 05/11/1993 Page: 4