Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03019/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03019-0/pdf.json

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

---

\.,, ·1 I ;' D £' .• LJ .l.!J 

United Stat~ Court of Ap;:~b Tenth Circui~ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TEHTII CIRCUIT 

r:EJ O i 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

EDWARD W. ELAM and MICHAEL ) 

C. BYERS, ) 

) 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

GARY WILLIAMS, as Mayor of the ) 

City of Mulvane and Individ- ) 

dually, and CITY OF MULVANE, ) 

KANSAS, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellants. ) 

No. 91-3019 

(D.C. No. 88-1283-C) 

(D. Kansas) 

ORDER AND JODGMBNT* 

Clerk . 

Before MOORE and BBBL, Circuit Judges, and ALLEY, District 

Judge.** 

This is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a 

Harlow v. Fitzgerald motion to dismiss on the grounds of qualified 

immunity. The defendant asserting the motion has died, and the 

parties have not addressed the effect of his death on 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. 

**The Honorable Wayne Alley, United States District Court Judge 

for the Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 91-3019 Document: 010110221664 Date Filed: 02/04/1992 Page: 1 
viability of the motion. We nonetheless affirm because the trial 

court did not err by denying it. We decline appellants' offer to 

expand the scope of the appeal. 

Plaintiffs are two former officers of the City of Mulvane, 

Kansas, who have filed action against the City and its former 

mayor, Gary Williams. Pertinent to the issue before us is 

plaintiffs' claim that Mr. Williams constructively discharged them 

from their employment under circumstances prejudicial to their 

First Amendment liberty interests. 

Specifically, plaintiffs contend the mayor took action 

against them on the basis of unfounded accusations which were 

later publicized to their detriment, hence adversely affecting 

their right to pursue employment. Defendant Williams filed a 

motion for summary judgment contending, among other things, he was 

immune under Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982). At oral 

argument in this court, counsel for the mayor asserted the factual 

basis for the mayor's claim of immunity was that he did not 

publicize the accusations leveled against plaintiffs. 

Conducting a proper Harlow review, the trial court determined 

it could not grant relief because material facts were in dispute. 

Reviewing the mayor's contention that he made an effort to 

preserve the confidentiality of the accusations he brought against 

the plaintiffs, the district court stated, "the facts are 

controverted as to how the letters came into the hands of the 

media. The plaintiffs deny they were responsible and, therefore, 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3019 Document: 010110221664 Date Filed: 02/04/1992 Page: 2 
some official of the City, possibly Williams himself, was 

responsible." We agree with the district court's analysis. 

It is certainly clear that the accusatory statements were 

publicized. Whether the defendants are liable for violating 

plaintiffs' protected liberty interest as we have defined that 

liability, Melton v. City of Oklahoma City, 928 F.2d 920, 927 

(10th Cir.) (en bane), cert. denied, 112 s. Ct. 296 (1991), is 

partly dependent upon whether Mr. Williams disclosed or caused the 

disclosure of his accusations. 1 From the record and the arguments 

presented to us, we believe that responsibility for disclosure can 

only be determined though a fact-finding process in the district 

court. 2 

Because a material issue relevant to the defendant's claim of 

immunity (if such a claim has survived his death) is in 

controversy, the district court properly denied the motion for 

summary judgment. See Salmon v. Schwarz, 948 F.2d 1131, 1141 

(10th Cir. 1991); Devargas v. Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., 844 

F.2d 714, 719 (10th Cir. 1988). Additionally, we are not 

persuaded by appellants' arguments that we should expand the 

interlocutory nature of the review permitted under Mitchell v. 

1

we draw no conclusion whether the facts asserted by plaintiffs 

will support their claim. 

2

Mr. Williams' counsel asserts the record is uncontroverted that 

defendant himself did not make the disclosure. Assuming that to 

be true, we do not know the state of the evidence about whether he 

caused the disclosure. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-3019 Document: 010110221664 Date Filed: 02/04/1992 Page: 3 
Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985), to encompass a full scale review of 

other issues which are appealable following final judgment. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-3019 Document: 010110221664 Date Filed: 02/04/1992 Page: 4