Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02214/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02214-0/pdf.json

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

---

., 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

STEVE SANCHEZ and DONALD SANDOVAL, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FI LED 

United States O:>urt ~f Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

OCT 19 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 89-2214 

GILBERT SANCHEZ, ALLEN JAHNER, 

and WILTON ROGERS, 

Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

CARL CLAYTON, 

Defendant. 

) (D.C. No. 87-1258-JC) 

) (D. N.M.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN,** 

District Judge. 

**Honorable A. Sherman Christensen, Senior District Judge, United 

States District Court for the District of Utah, sitting by 

designation. 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-2214 Document: 010110060416 Date Filed: 10/19/1990 Page: 1 
, 

Steve Sanchez and Donald Sandoval (plaintiffs) lost their 

jobs at New Mexico Highlands University (the university). They 

brought an action in the federal district court under 

42 u.s.c. § 1983 (1988), claiming that their jobs were terminated 

in retaliation for their exercise of protected first amendment 

speech. Individual defendants Gilbert Sanchez (apparently no 

relation to plaintiff-appellee Steve Sanchez), Alan Jahner, and 

Wilton Rogers, officers of the university during the events in 

question (collectively referred to herein as the university 

officials), moved for summary judgment based on the defense of 

qualified immunity. The district court denied this motion on the 

ground that there were numerous disputed questions of material 

fact. The university officials appealed. We affirm. 1 

In July of 1987, plaintiff Steve Sanchez had been employed by 

the university for fourteen years in a variety of positions. At 

the time of the events involved in this action, his job title was 

1 Parties to this appeal have filed various motions with this 

court. We hereby deny as moot appellant's Motion to Expedite. We 

hereby deny appellee's Motion to Supplement Designation of the 

Record with R. Vol. 2, tab 200, a document filed with the district 

court after that court certified the interlocutory appeal to 

appeal to this court. It is axiomatic that in an interlocutory 

appeal we will not consider materials not before the district 

court when it ruled on the motion below. We hereby deny 

appellee's Motion to Strike or Dismiss Appellant's Brief and 

Appeal, and appellee's Motion to Dismiss or Summarily Affirm for 

Lack of Jurisdiction and for Frivolity (sic), pursuant to Tenth 

Cir. R. 27.2.1. Cf. Stewart v. Donges, __ F.2d __ , Nos. 88-2454 

& 88-3020, slip op. at 9-15 (10th Cir. Sept. 17, 1990)(outlining 

procedure for filing motions for frivolous interlocutory appeal 

with the district court prior to the district court's 

certification of the appeal to the circuit court, as well as 

elements of review of such motions by the district court; citing 

cases from the Third, Fifth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits). 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-2214 Document: 010110060416 Date Filed: 10/19/1990 Page: 2 
· locksmith. At that same time, plaintiff Sandoval had been 

employed by the university for seventeen years. In 1987, his job 

title was that of purchasing agent for the physical plant. Both 

plaintiffs had a variety of tasks for which they were responsible, 

notwithstanding these job titles, including coaching the 

university's intercollegiate wrestling team. The parties do not 

agree as to the percentage of working time expended by plaintiffs 

in their noncoaching duties. 

During the winter of 1986-1987, university officials 

announced that, due to fiscal constraints, the university's 

wrestling program would be cancelled, effective at the close of 

the season in March 1987. At least partially in response to this 

program curtailment, in -April and May of 1987, plaintiffs 

circulated a petition describing fiscal abuses of the university 

officials, citing examples of personal gain through university 

monies and property, alleging extremely wasteful management of 

certain physical plant responsibilities, and questioning 

cancellation of the wrestling program in the face of these alleged 

improprieties. The petition garnered fifty-nine signatures and 

was mailed to at least two regents of the university, the governor 

of New Mexico, and officials of the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation. 

At the time the petition was circulated, it was plaintiffs' 

understanding that they would have continued university employment 

with salary increases in redefined physical plant positions, 

notwithstanding loss of their coaching responsibilities. This 

understanding is vigorously disputed by the university officials. 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-2214 Document: 010110060416 Date Filed: 10/19/1990 Page: 3 
At the end of July 1987, one month into the new fiscal year for 

the university, both plaintiffs received summary termination 

notices. These notices stated that the responsibilities for the 

physical plant had been reorganized and that their positions had 

been abolished. After they received notices of termination, 

plaintiffs filed grievances under the procedure outlined in the 

university's personnel policies manual. One of the university 

officials appointed a committee to review plaintiffs' grievance. 

That committee convened a hearing which the plaintiffs were not 

allowed to tape record. In addition, the plaintiffs were not 

allowed to be in the room during the testimony of the university 

officials' representatives. The committee found that it did not 

have jurisdiction to act upon the grievance, but recommended that 

the plaintiffs be allowed to apply for other jobs with the 

university because they had worked for the university for such an 

extended period of time. Plaintiffs declined to submit such 

applications. 

The university officials claim that restructuring of 

university personnel, mandated by fiscal crisis, was planned as 

early as February 1986 under a resolution of the Board of Regents, 

and that the reorganization of the physical plant employees had no 

relation to the petition circulated by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs 

counter with evidence that the reorganization begun in 1986 was to 

have involved only teaching faculty. They claim that the 

university officials' justification for their terminations was 

pretextual. Plaintiffs base their section 1983 claims on the 

allegation that they were in fact terminated in retaliation for 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-2214 Document: 010110060416 Date Filed: 10/19/1990 Page: 4 
circulating the petition. There is a disputed question of fact 

concerning which of the university officials made the decision 

concerning plaintiffs' positions, as well as a factual controversy 

as to the timing of that decision. 

The university officials' motion for summary judgment was 

specifically grounded in the claim that they were protected by 

qualified immunity. In the face of the vigorous disputes as to 

questions of fact summarized above, the district court denied the 

motion for summary judgment. 

Denial of a motion for summary judgment based on the defense 

of qualified immunity is a final judgment under 28 u.s.c. § 1291 

(1988), Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985), and is 

immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine of 

Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 

546-47 (1949); Pueblo Neighborhood Health Centers, Inc. v. 

Losavio, 847 F.2d 642, 644 (10th Cir. 1988). We review denial of 

such motions de novo. England v. Hendricks, 880 F.2d 281, 283 

(10th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 s.ct. 1130 (1990). 

"Neither we, nor the district court, are entitled to weigh 

evidence or pass on the credibility of witnesses in deciding 

summary judgment issues." Zuchel v. Spinharney, 890 F.2d 273, 

275-76 (10th Cir. 1989)(citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 

477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)). "Our task in such an appeal is not to 

determine liability on a battle of affidavits, but to determine 

whether, on the basis of the pretrial record, there exists a 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-2214 Document: 010110060416 Date Filed: 10/19/1990 Page: 5 
· conflict sufficiently material to defendants' claim of immunity to 

require them to stand trial." Devargas v. Mason & Hanger-Silas 

Mason Co., 844 F.2d 714, 719 (10th Cir. 1988). 

It is axiomatic that the university officials must be held to 

the knowledge that employees of the university could not be 

terminated in retaliation for exercise of speech protected by the 

first amendment. "[G]overnment officials cannot alter the 

employment status of a public employee for exercising first 

amendment guarantees." McEvoy v. Shoemaker, 882 F.2d 463, 465 

(10th Cir. 1989)(citing Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479 (1960)). 

The university officials base their defense of qualified 

immunity on their position that, since their actions with regard 

to plaintiffs' employment in the summer of 1987 were not in 

retaliation for the circulation of the petition, the actions were 

objectively reasonable. 

After a complete review of the record on appeal, we agree 

with the district court. There are material issues of fact 

vigorously disputed and documented by competent pretrial evidence 

to support both parties' contentions. 

the evidence are drawn in 

"[W]hen all inferences from 

the plaintiff[s'] favor, 

plaintiff[s have] raised a genuine issue of material fact as to 

whether [their] exercise of protected First Amendment activity was 

a termination." Laidley v. McClain, F.2d __ , No. 89-5016, 

slip op. at 6 (10th Cir. Sept. 13, 1990)(citing Mt. Healthy City 

School Dist. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977)). Under the 

6 

Appellate Case: 89-2214 Document: 010110060416 Date Filed: 10/19/1990 Page: 6 
circumstances of this case, summary judgment must be denied, and 

the matter must proceed in the district court. In so holding, we 

express no opinion as to the merits of the case. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

7 

Appellate Case: 89-2214 Document: 010110060416 Date Filed: 10/19/1990 Page: 7