Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01295/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01295-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Ciraiit 

OCT 2 1989 

FRANK DEFALCO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant/ 

Cross-Appel lee 

v. 

TOWN OF VAIL, et al., 

Defendant-Appellees/ 

Cross-Appellants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 88-1295 

88-1381 

(D.C. No. 86-K-903) 

(Dist. of Colorado) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and WEST*, District 

Judge. 

*Honorable Lee R. West, United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

*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: 88-1295 Document: 01019974038 Date Filed: 10/02/1989 Page: 1 
Appellant Frank DeFalco brought suit against the town of Vail 

and various officials of the Vail Police Department alleging he 

was dismissed from his position as a police officer without due 

process of law. The district court granted defendants' motion for 

summary judgment, but denied their motion for attorney fees. We 

affirm. We also deny defendants' motion for fees on this appeal. 

We have reviewed the record and the briefs in this case, and 

we substantially agree with the trial court's memorandum opinion 

of February 5, 1988. Although DeFalco did not receive a full 

scale hearing until after his termination became effective, he was 

informed of the grounds for his dismissal by his superiors and was 

given an opportunity to respond. Indeed, DeFalco was permitted to 

and did respond to each of the series of negative employment 

evaluations which ultimately resulted in his dismissal. 

Subsequent to his termination, DeFalco had a six-day hearing in 

which he was represented by counsel, and permitted to present 

evidence and cross-examine witnesses. 

Where a public employer provides a full post-termination 

hearing, the due process clause does not mandate a full scale 

pre-termination hearing. It merely entitles the employee to "oral 

or written notice of the charges against him, an explanation of 

the employer's evidence, and an opportunity to present his side of 

the story." Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 770 U.S. 532, 

546 (1985}; see also Seibert v. State, 867 F.2d 591 (10th Cir. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-1295 Document: 01019974038 Date Filed: 10/02/1989 Page: 2 
1981). "Federal courts do not sit to second guess state decisions 

on the merits of a discharge decision, but only to ensure that 

employees are provided due process when the decision is made." 

Pitts v. Bd. of Educ., U.S.D. 305, 869 F.2d 555, 557 (10th Cir. 

1989). Such process was provided here. 

We also conclude that the district court was correct in 

dismissing DeFalco's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) because of 

the lack of any class-based animus. See Pitts, 869 F.2d at 557. 

Finally, we affirm the trial court's decision to deny 

attorneys fees, and we deny defendants' request for fees for the 

successful defense of this appeal. We are not persuaded that this 

case falls within that category of frivolous or vexatious cases in 

which attorneys fees are awarded to the prevailing party under 42 

U.S.C. § 1988 and Fed. R. App. P. 38 and 39. 

The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-1295 Document: 01019974038 Date Filed: 10/02/1989 Page: 3