# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 5- 32 44

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Iren e Ma ria Zim

bo bwa y Sch wart ze Br am

bl et t

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ci ty of Co lu m

bi a, Mi ss ou ri; Mi ch ael Mat th es

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

Ken ne th Bu rto n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

Cav an au gh Noce

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - J effe rs on Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Ju ne 16 , 20 16 Fil ed : Au gu st 4, 2 01 6

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re SM ITH, GRUENDE R, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SMI TH, Circ ui t J ud ge

.Iren e Mar ia Zim bo bwa y Sch wart ze Bram bl et t ("S ch wart ze" ) su ed th e Ci ty of
Co lu m bi a, Mi ss ou ri ("C it y "); Ci ty Man ag er Mi ch ael Mat th es ; Ch ie f of Po li ce Ken ne th Bu rto n; an d Dep ut y Ci ty Co un se lo r Cav an au gh Noce , all eg in g, in te r a li a ,

un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 th at th e Ci ty v io la te d he r co ns ti tu ti on a l rig ht to pr oc ed ur al
du e pr oc es s in vi ol at io n of th e Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t by te rm in at in g he r

em pl oym en t. The de fen da nt s m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t 1

gr an te d in pa r t a n d de ni ed in pa rt. Rel ev an t to th e pr es en t ap pe al
, th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e de fen se of qu al ifi ed im m un i t y as se rte d by Ch ie f Bu rto n in res po ns e to Sch wart ze's pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s cl ai m

. Ch ie f Bu rto n n ow ap pe al s t he de ni al of 2

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y . W e d is m is s t he ap pe al for lac k o f juri sd ic ti on

.

I. Bac kg ro un d
Sch wart ze is a fo rm er Ci ty em pl oyee. Pri or to May 14
, 20 09
, sh e wor ke d as a Ci ty po li ce cap ta in

. On May 1 4
, 2 0 0 9
, sh e was ap po in te d te m po rary Em erg en cy Co m m un ic at io ns an d Man ag em e n t A d m in is tra to r ("ECM Adm in is tra to r")

. At th e 3
ti m e of he r ap po in tm en t, sh e was ap pr ox im a t e l y two y ears an d ni ne m on th s fro m be co m in g el ig ib le fo r ret ire m e n t u nd er th e po li ce pe ns io n pl an

. Sch wart ze wou ld
ha ve de cl in ed th e ECM Adm in is tra to r po si ti on if he r acce pt an ce wou ld ha ve affe ct ed
he r po li ce pe ns i o n

. To en su re th at Sch wart ze's po li ce-p en si on el ig ib il it y was

un affe ct ed
, sh e was pa id fo r he r wor k as ECM Adm in is tra to r fro m th e C i ty Po li ce Dep a r t m en t bu dg et an d rem ai ne d a cap ta in in th e de pa rtment. On Octo be r 5, 20 09
,

The Hon or ab le Nan et te K. Lau gh rey, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d Sch wart ze's cl ai m s ag ai ns t Noc e, an d Mat th es ha s 2

no t ap pe al ed th e d is tri ct co ur t's de ni al of q ua li fie d i m m un it y

.
Alt ho ug h th e ti tl e of th is po si ti on ch an ge d to "Di rect or of Pu bl ic Safe ty Jo in t 3 Co m m un ic at io ns an d Em erg en cy Man ag em en t Dire ct or " i n 2 01 0, we wil l co nt in ue to refe r to th e p os it io n a s " ECM Ad m in is tra to r."

-2

-Bi ll W at ki ns , th en act in g Cit y Man ag er, offer ed Sch wart ze a p erm an en t p os it io n a s

ECM Adm in is tra to r. The te rm s of th is job of fer were m em or ia li zed in a m em or an du m ("Oc to be r 5, 2 00 9 M em or an du m "), wh ic h p ro vi de d, i n re le va nt pa rt, a s fo ll ows :

I am pl eas e d to of

fer y ou th e po si ti on of ECMA fo r th e Ci ty of Co lu m bi a. Sh ou ld you ag ree to acce pt th is of fer th e fo ll owi ng are th e t e r ms a n d c on di ti on s of yo u r a p p o i n t men t a s Eme r g e n c y Co m m un ic at io ns an d M an ag em en t Ad m in is tra to r.

You wil l rem ai n a Co lu m bi a Po li ce Dep art m en t cap ta in as si gn ed to th e p o s i t i o n o f E m e r g e n c y C o m m u n i c a t i o n s a n d M a n a g e me n t Adm in is tra to r. You r as si gn m en t wil l en d whe n y ou fir st be co m e el ig ib le
to ret ire un de r th e po li ce pe ns io n pl an

. At th at ti m e yo u w il l ha ve th e op ti on of ei th er be in g reas s i g n e d in th e Po li ce Dep art m en t or ret iri ng

un de r t h e po li ce pe ns io n pl an an d co nt in ui ng as th e Em erg en cy Co m m un ic at io ns an d Ma n ag em en t Adm in is tra to r. If y ou co nt in ue as Adm in is tra to r, y ou wil l be co ve red by th e LAGERS ret ire m en t syste m

.

You m us t in fo rm m e of y ou r de ci si on to ret ur n to th e Po li ce Dep art m en t

or rem ai n a s Ad m in is tra to r at le as t six m on th s befo re y ou fir st be co m e el ig ib le for ret ire m en t u nd er t he po li ce p en si on pl an

.

Of co ur se , you r as si gn m en t t o th e po si ti on of Adm in is tra to r as well as yo u r op ti on to co nt in ue as Adm in is tra to r is su bjec t to sa ti sf act or y jo b
pe rfo rm an ce.

The fo ll owi ng da y , W at ki ns se nt a le tt er to th e ECM Adm in is tra to r Sel ect io n Co m m it te e—o f whi ch Chie f Bu rt on w as a m em

be r— tha t cont ai ne d th e rel ev an t te rm s of Sch wart ze's as si gn m en t to ECM Adm in is tra to r. In rel ev an t pa rt, th e le tt er pr ov id ed
th at

Cap ta in Sch wart ze ha s a li tt le ov er two y ears se rv ic e rem ai ni ng wit h th e CPD un ti l sh e is el ig ib le to ret ire an d ha s a g r e e d t o rem ai n in th is
po si ti on un ti l th at ti m e. Her as si gn men t wil l en d whe n sh e be co m es

-3

-el ig ib le to ret ire un de r th e po li ce p en si on pl an . At th at ti m e, su bjec t t o

he r c o n t in ue d sa ti sf

act or y pe rfo rm an ce, sh e wil l ha ve th e op ti on of ei th er be in g reas si gn ed in th e Po li ce Dep art m en t or ret iri ng un d e r th e po li ce pe ns io n pl an an d co nt in ui ng as th e Em erg en cy Co m m un ic at io ns

an d Man ag em en t Adm in is t rat or co ve red by th e LAGERS ret ire m en t syste m

.

Bec au se he r po si ti on as ECM Adm in is tra to r was fu nd ed th ro ug h a cap ta in

po si ti on in th e Ci ty Po li ce Dep art m en t, Sch wart ze was pa id ab ou t $1 5,0 00 m or e th an th e pr ev io us ECM Adm in is tra t or

. Sect io n 21 -1 9 of th e Co lu m bi a Ci ty Ord in an ces ("C it y Ord i n a n c e s " ) st at es th at "[t ]he ch ie f of po li ce sh al l ha ve ge ne ral su pe rv is io n

an d co nt ro l of th e de pa rtmen t , i n c lu di ng th e en fo rcem en t of di sc ip li ne am on g th e

m em be rs th ereo f, an d th e in st ru ct io n of th e m em be rs in th ei r du ti es ." (Em ph as i s ad de d.) Howev er, Sch wart ze pe rfo rm ed no po li ce du ti es an d di d no t rep or t to Ch ie f
Bu rto n aft er be co m in g EC M Adm in is tra to r. Sh e was pa id fro m th e Ci ty Po li ce Dep art m en t bu dg et

. The po li ce cap ta in po si ti on was a "cl as si fie d" po si ti on un de r th e Ci ty O rd in an ces

.

In May 2 0 1 1
, M a t t h e s be cam e th e Ci ty Man ag er. At th at ti m e, th e Ci ty was
op erat in g at a ne arl y $3 m il li on de fic it

. Mat th es in st it ut ed a hi rin g f r e e ze, an d by
20 12
, th e Ci ty ha d accu m

ul at ed a $1 .9 m il li on su rp lu s. Dur in g May an d se ve ral ti m es th erea fte r, Sch wart ze in di cat ed to Mat th es he r in te nt io n to ret ire fro m th e Ci ty Po li ce Dep art m en t i n F eb ru ary 20 12 an d s erv e so le ly as th e ECM Ad m in is tra to r.

In la te 20 11 an d earl y 20 12
, Er i c A nd ers on , an in de pe nd en t co ns ul ta nt ,

rev ie wed th e ad m in is tra ti on of th e C i t y Po li ce Dep art m en t. As pa rt of th e rev ie w, And ers on sp ok e w i t h Sch wart ze who m ad e st at em en ts cri ti cal of Ch ie f Bu rto n bu t

m ad e no su ch co m

m en ts of Mat th es

. Sch wart ze is un aware of an y th in g th at sh e sa id

to And ers on be in g re la y ed to Ch ie f Bu rto n o r Mat th es

.

-4

-On Ja nu ary 18
, 20 12
, aft er Sch wart ze's m eet in g wit h And ers on , Mat th es to ld

Sch wart ze th at he w a s co ns id eri ng el im in at in g th e ECM Adm in is tra to r po si ti on

. Sch wart ze as ke d Mat th es whe th er sh e co ul d ret ur n to th e Ci ty Po li ce Dep art m en t as
a cap ta in . Mat th es in di cat ed th at he wou ld th in k a bo ut it an d g et ba ck to he r.

On Feb ru ary 2, 20 12
, Sch wa r t z e be cam e el ig ib le to dr aw po li ce-p en si on be ne fit s. As pr ov id ed in th e Octo be r 5, 2 00 9 Mem or an du m , Sch wart ze was to ha ve th e op ti on to rem ai n as ECM Adm in is tra to r or ret ur n to th e Ci ty Po li ce Dep art m en t.
In Feb ru ary 20 12
, Mat th es rei te rat ed in a m eet in g wi th Sch wart ze t ha t t he Cit y was in th e pr oc es s of el im in at in g th e ECM Adm in is tra to r po si ti on

. Mat th es to ld
Sch wart ze th at he ha d sp ok en wit h Ch ie f Bu rto n ab ou t th e el im in at io n of Sch wart ze's

p o s i t i on an d he r po ss ib le ret ur n to th e Ci ty Po li ce Dep art m en t. Mat th es to l d
Sch wart ze th at ret ur ni ng to th e Ci ty Po li ce Dep art m en t "was no t an op ti on " an d "n ot hi s de ci si on to m ak e." On Feb ru ary 6, 20 12
, Ch ie f Bu rto n e-m ai le d Ma t t h es an d

co m pl ai ne d t ha t Sc hwa rtz e was "s to ne wall in g."

On May 9, 20 12
, Mat th es ga ve Sch wa r tz e two op ti on s. Fi rs t, sh e co ul d

vo lu nt ari ly res ig n an d reti re from he r job as ECM Adm in is tra to r an d be gi n dr awin g he r po li ce pe ns io n. Seco nd
, if sh e de cl in ed th e fir st op ti on , he r po si ti o n w o u ld be
el im in at ed

. Mat th es ga ve Sch wart ze le ss th an o n e ho ur to de ci de

. Sch wart ze

co ns ul te d wit h he r at to rn ey an d de ci de d no t to res i g n

. A f t er be in g in fo rm ed of
Sch wart ze's de ci si on , Mat th es ga ve Sch wart ze a le t t e r s t a ti ng th at sh e was on ad m ini strat iv e le av e, effe ct iv e im m ed ia te ly. At ap pr ox im at el y 5:0 0 p. m

. , Ma tth es se nt

an e-m ai l to th e m ay or , Ci ty Co un ci l, an d se ni or st aff st at in g th at Sch wart ze was on
pa id ad m in is tra ti ve le av e pe nd in g act io n on th e ne xt Ci ty Co un ci l m eet in g to am en d
th e bu dg e t

. Ch ie f Bu rto n th en se nt an e-m ai l to th e Ci ty Po li ce Dep art m en t st at in g th at Sch wart ze was no lo ng er a Ci ty ad m in is tra to r an d th at he r acce ss to th e bu il di ng

was res tri ct ed to area s op en to th e ge ne ral pu bl ic un le ss sh e was acco m pa ni ed by an

es co rt. Afte r Dep ut y Po li ce Ch ie f St ep he n Mo nt ic elli le ar ne d of Sch wart ze's rem ov al
,

-5

-he e-m ai le d Ch ie f Bu rto n, st at in g, "Wow, th ere ha s to be a st or y t h e r e ? S h e s te p in

it ag ai n? " Ch ie f Bu rto n re sp on de d, " [W] e wil l t al k l at er."

Sect io n 19 -2 38 of th e Ci ty Or din an ce s pr ovi de s tha t "gr ie va nc es or co m

pl ai nt s"

ot he r th an th at reg ard in g a po or job rev ie w "m us t be ta ke n to th e pe rs on who is su ed
th e di sc ip li ne

. Unr es ol ve d gr ie va nc es o r co m pl ai nt s wil l pr oc eed th ro ug h th e d e p art m en t's ch ai n of co m m an d as es ta bl is he d by th e de pa rtment he ad ." The

or di na nc e fu rth er pr ov id es th at "[g ]riev an ces or co m pl ai nt s m us t be ta ke n to th e
pe rs on who is su ed th e di sc ip li ne wit hi n se ve n (7 ) wor ki ng da y s fo ll owi ng kn owl ed ge of th e oc cu rren ce of th e pr ob le m " an d th at "[t ]he pe rs on who i s s ue d th e di sc ip li ne sh al l ha ve fiv e (5 ) wor ki ng da y s fro m rece ip t of th e gr i ev an ce or co m pl ai nt to

res po nd in writ in g."

On May 17, 2012
, Sc hw ar tz e' s at to rn ey fil ed a "Gri ev an ce/ Co m pl ai nt /Ap pe al ."
Sch wart ze ad dr es se d th e gr ie va nc e to , am on g ot he rs , Ch ie f Bu rto n. In th e gr ie va nc e, Sch wart ze's at to rn ey wro te , "Si nc e Mr. Mat th es is th e on e who pu rp or te dl y to ok th e
act io n as to Zim
, th e Grie va nc e/ Co m pl ai nt /Ap pe al is di rect ed to hi m , at th e fir st le ve l,

as pr ov id ed fo r by 'St ep 1' of Sect io n 19 -2 38 of th e Ci ty's Ord in an ces

. Howev er , si nc e Ch ie f Bur to n wa s he r immed ia te su pe ri or , su ch Grie va nc e/ Co m pl ai nt / App eal is al so di rect ed to hi m , as a pa rt o f St ep 1." (Em ph as is ad de d.)

On Ju ne 4, 20 12
, th e Ci ty Co un ci l vo te d to el im in at e th e ECM Adm in is tra to r
po si ti on

. Bu t, be fo re th at da te , M a t t h e s ha d in di cat ed to Sch wart ze th at ev en if th e Ci ty Co un ci l di d no t el im in at e th e po si ti on , he wou ld no t ch an ge hi s de ci si on to

te rm in at e Sch wart ze.

On J un e 1 1, 20 12
, Mat th es de ni ed Sch wart ze's co m pl ai nt

. On Ju ne 14 , 20 12
, Sch wart ze req ue st ed a he ari ng be fo re th e Pers on ne l Adv is or y Bo ard ("B oa rd "). The
Ci ty in fo rm ed Sch wart ze th at la y of fs are no t su bjec t to he ari ng s be fo re th e Bo ard

. At

no ti m e d id Ch ie f Bu rto n re sp on d t o t he gri ev an ce an d re qu es t fo r he ari ng

.

-6

-Ci ty Ord in an ce § 19 -2 11 st at es th at l ai d of f em pl oyees wil l be gi ve n "fi rs t

co ns id erat io n" fo r th e po si ti on th at was el im in at ed or si m il ar po si ti o n s

. Em pl oyees

en ti tl ed to fir st co ns id erat io n ap pe ar on a reem pl oym en t li st

. Fo ll owi ng Sch wart ze's

se pa rat io n of em

pl oym en t f

r o m th e Ci ty, Sch wart ze as ke d to be pl aced on th e

reem pl oym en t li st

. Cap ta in po si ti on s op en ed i n A u g us t 20 12 an d Sep te m be r 20 12
, bu t bo th po si ti on s were fil ed in te rn al ly. In Octo be r 20 12
, Sch wart ze app li ed fo r th e de pu ty chi ef o f po li ce p os it io n a nd was c on si de red bu t n ot sel ect ed

.

Rel ev an t to th e pr es en t ap pe al
, Sch wart ze fil ed a pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s cl ai m

un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 ag ai ns t Ch ie f Bu rto n, co nt en di ng th at he vi ol at ed he r
pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s rig ht s whe n he te rm in at ed he r fro m he r job as EC M
Adm in is tra to r an d refu se d to le t he r r e t u r n t o a job at th e Ci ty Po li ce Dep art m en t. Ch ie f B u r to n m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t on th e cl ai m , as se rti ng qu al ifi ed
im m un it y

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Ch ie f Bu rto n qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. Fi rs t, th e co ur t fo un d th at Sch wart ze ha d a pr op ert y in te res t in he r em pl oym en t un de r § 19 -2 37 of th e Ci ty Ord in an ces , whi ch se ts fo rth a "jus t cau se " req ui rem en t m an da ti ng th at a cl as si fie d em

pl oyee rece iv e du e pr oc es s pr io r to te rm in at io n. Ch ie f Bu rto n co nc ed ed
f o r p u rp os es of su m

m ary jud gm en t th at Sch wart ze was a cl as si fie d em pl oyee

. The refo re, th e co ur t f

o un d th at sh e was en ti tl ed to du e pr oc es s pr io r to be in g

se pa rat ed fro m

he r job for reas on s o th er t ha n a layoff.

Seco nd
, th e co ur t fo un d th at a fact ua l di sp ut e ex is te d as to whe th er Sch wart ze's

po si ti on was te rm in at ed be cau se of (1 ) a la ck of fu nd s or curt ai lm en t of work or (2 )

so m e o th er re as on . Alt ho ug h t he Cit y rep eat ed ly tol d S ch wart ze t ha t s he was b ei ng la id of f an d he r po si ti o n a s EC M A dm in is tra to r was be in g el im in at ed
, th e Ci ty

co nc ed ed ot he r fact s th at th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d su pp or te d Sch wart ze's cl ai m th at he r la y of f was a pr et ex t fo r un la w f ul te rm in at io n. As an ex am pl e, th e co ur t ci te d Ch ie f
Bu rto n's be li ef "t ha t Sch wart ze ha d m ad e co m m en ts cri ti cal of h im

an d h ow he ran th e Co lu m

bi a Po li ce Dep art m en t an d th ou gh t th at sh e was a co nt rib ut or to th e to xi c

su pe rv is or y

cu lt ur e."

-7

-Thi rd
, th e co ur t fo un d th at th e pr ed ep riv at io n pr oc es s affo rd ed Sch wart ze was

in su ffi ci en t if sh e was fir ed in st ead of la id of f. Fo ur th
, it co nc lu de d th at as su m in g th e la y of f was a pr et ex t fo r Sch wart ze's te rm in at io n, sh e w as al so de ni ed su ffi ci en t

po st de pr iv at io n p ro ces s.

Fi na ll y , th e co ur t reject ed Ch ie f Bu r t o n ' s a ss ert io n th at he was en ti tl ed to

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y on th e p ro ced ur al du e p ro ces s cl ai m , st at in g:

Bu rto n co nt en ds th at he is in di vi du al ly en ti tl ed to su m m ary jud gm en t on th is cl ai m be cau se Sch wart ze ha s pr es en te d no ev id en ce th at he w a s in vo lv ed in th e de ci si on to el im in at e th e ECM[] Adm in is tra to r po si ti on , te rm in at e Sch wart ze, or no t al lo w he r to ret ur n to th e Po li ce Dep art m en t. Howev er, Sch wart z e h a s pr es en te d fact s to in di cat e th at Bu rto n ha d co nv ers at io ns wit h Mat th es ab ou t th e de ci si on to te rm in at e Sch wart ze. Mo reo ve r, Sch wart ze co nt en ds th at Mat th es in fo rm ed he r th at he was no t th e on e res po ns ib le for de ci di ng whe th er Sch wart ze co ul d be reem pl oyed at th e Po li ce D e p a r t ment

. It can be

reas on ab ly in ferr ed fro m th es e fac ts th at Bu rto n, t he Po li ce Ch ie f, was in vo lv ed in m ak in g th is de ci si on

. In ad di ti on , th ere are fact s to su pp or t

an in fere nc e th at Bu rto n ha d a ne ga ti ve rel at io ns hi p wit h Sch wart z e. Giv en t h e f

a c tu al di sp ut es reg ard in g Bu rto n's ro le in Sch wart ze's
te rm in at io n, h e is no t en ti tl ed to su m m ary jud gm en t o n t hi s cl ai m

.

II. Dis cu ss io n On ap pe al
, Ch ie f Bu rto n a r g u e s t ha t th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi m
qu al ifi ed im m

un it y

. He as se rts th at th e di st ric t co ur t's ru li ng erro ne ou sl y eq ua t e s "h av in g a ro le in th e de ci si on to la y -o ff Pl ai nt iff Sch wart ze (p ret ex ua l or ot he rwis e)

. . . wit h t he Cit y

an d C it y Man ag er's de te rm in at io n t ha t Schwa rtz e was no t ent it le d

to pr e or po st de pr iv at io n du e pr oc es s." Acco rd in g to Ch ie f Bu rto n, su ch a ho ld i n g "i m po s es a du ty an d ob li ga ti on on each an d ev ery st at e act or act in g un de r co lo r of
la w to pe rs o n a l ly pr ov id e ad eq ua te du e pr oc es s by vi rtu e of ha vi ng an y ro le in th e de ci si o n t o s e p a r at e a go ve rn m en ta l em pl oyee's em

pl oym en t

. . . ." Ch ie f Bu rto n

-8

-co nt en ds th at he "i s en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y be cau se he pl ay ed no ro le in th e de ci si on no t to pr ov id e Sch wart ze wit h du e pr oc es s an d ha d no cl earl y es ta bl is he d
du ty to pr ov id e du e pr oc es s or in te rv en e to en su re th e Ci ty Man ag er an d/ or th e Ci ty's
le ga l d ep art m en t p ro vi de d d ue pro ces s."

Sch wart ze ha s m ov ed to di sm is s th e ap pe al fo r la ck of juri sd ic ti on on two

gr ou nd s. Fi rs t, sh e arg ue s t ha t an in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al aft er th e de ni al of a

su m m ary-j ud gm en t m ot io n as to qu al ifi ed im m un it y is on ly al lo wed whe re th ere are is su es of la w an d no di sp ut ed is su es of fact

. Acco rd in g to Sch wart ze, Ch ie f Bu rto n's

qu al ifi ed -imm

un it y ap pe al cl earl y arg ue s di sp ut ed is su es of fact

. Seco nd
, Sch wart ze

co nt en ds th at Ch ie f Bu rto n h as rai se d fo r th e fi rs t t im e on ap pe al th e arg um en t th at th e de ci si on to te rm in at e Sch wart ze's em pl oym en t was un rel at ed to th e de ci si on no t

to pro vi de Sch wart ze an y pro ced ur al du e p ro ces s.

A go ve rn m en t of

fic ia l is sh ie ld ed fro m li ab il it y by qu al ifi ed im m un it y "u nl es s hi s con du ct vi ol at es 'cl earl y es ta bl is he d st at ut or y or co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s of whi ch a

reas on ab le pe rs on wou ld ha ve kn own .'" Mal la k v. Ci ty of Bax te r , 82 3 F.3 d 44 1, 44 5 (8 th Cir . 20 16 ) (q uo ti ng Har lo w v. Fit zg er al d
, 45 7 U.S. 80 0, 8 18 (19 82 )). Wheth er

a go ve rn m en t of

fic ia l is en ti tl ed to qu al i f i e d im m un it y sh ou ld be res ol ve d "at th e earl ie st po ss ib le st ag e in li ti ga ti on ." Id

. (q uo ti ng Hun te r v. Brya nt , 50 2 U.S. 22 4, 22 7 (1 99 1) ). W he n th e pa rti es do no t di sp ut e th e rel ev an t fact s, "a co ur t sh ou ld al way s be
ab le to de te rm in e as a m at te r of la w whe th er or no t an of fic er is el ig ib le fo r qu al ifi ed
im m un it y

. . . ." Id

. (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Pac e v. Ci ty of Des Moi ne s , 20 1
F.3 d 10 50
, 10 56 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 )). "We rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t co ur t's de ni al of

su m m ary jud g men t b a se d on qu al ifi ed im m un it y ." Id

. (q uo ta ti on an d ci ta ti on

om it te d)

.

W hi le "[a ]n or de r de nyin g qu al ifi ed im m un it y can be im m ed ia te ly ap pe al ab le
de sp it e th e fact th at it is in te rlo cu to ry ," "o ur in te rlo cu to ry juri sd ic ti on is li m it ed ." Id

. at 44 5– 46 (ci ti ng Co op er v. Mar ti n , 63 4 F.3 d 47 7, 47 9– 80 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ); Jo hn so n

-9

-v. Jo ne s , 51 5 U.S. 30 4, 31 9– 20 ( 1 9 9 5 ) )

. W he n a di st ric t co ur t de ni es a de fen da nt

su m m ary jud gm en t ba se d on qu al ifi ed i mm un it y , th at de fen da nt "m ay ap pe al th e 'pu rel y le ga l is su e' of 'whe th er th e fact s al le ge d

. . . su pp or t a c l a i m o f v i ol at io n of
cl earl y es ta bl is he d la w.'" Id

. at 44 6 (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Jo hn so n , 51 5 U.S.

at 31 3)

. Bu t a de fen da nt is pr oh ib it ed fro m ap pe al in g th e di st ric t co ur t's de ni al of

su m m ary jud gm en t bas ed on qu al ifi ed im m un it y whe n su ch de ni al is pr em is ed on a de te rm in at io n th at "t he pr et ria l reco rd se ts fo rth a 'ge nu in e' is su e of fact fo r tri al ." Id

. (q uo ti ng Jo hn so n , 5 15 U.S. a t 31 9– 20 ). In su m m ary, "we m ay he ar an ap pe al of a n

or de r d e n yi n g qu al ifi ed im m un it y whe re th e reco rd pl ai nl y fo recl os es th e di st ric t

co ur t's fin di ng of a m at eri al fact ua l d is pu te ." Id

.

"[K]ey fact ua l qu es ti on s in th e pr e s en t cas e are bo th m at eri al an d di sp ut ed ."
Se e i d

. C h i e f B ur to n do es no t ch al le ng e on ap pe al th at he ha d a ro le as a de ci si on m ak er in te rm in at in g Sch wart ze or th at Sch wart ze ha d a pr op ert y in te res t in
he r em pl oym en t fo r whi ch sh e was en ti tl ed to du e pr oc es s; in st ead
, he arg ue s th at he

was no t th e de ci si on m ak er res po ns ib le fo r pr ov id in g he r wit h du e pr o c e s s

. B u t th e

ext en t of Ch ie f Bu rto n's ro le as a de ci si on m ak er an d hi s du e-p r oc es s ob li ga ti on s to Sch wart ze ar e u nr es ol ve d fa ct ua l q ue st io ns

.

Bec au se ge nu in e is su es of m at eri al fact ex is t reg ard in g Ch ie f Bu rto n's ro le in
th e te rm in at io n of Sch wart z e , w e l a c k juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w t he de ni al of qu al ifi ed
im m un it y

. 4

Eve n i f m at eri al fact ua l di sp ut es do no t p recl ud e juri sd ic ti on , we agr ee wi th 4 Sch wart ze th at Ch ie f Bu rto n rai se d fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al hi s arg um en t th at th e de ci si on to te rmi n a te Sch wart ze's em pl oym en t is se pa rat e an d di st in ct fro m th e de ci si on no t to pr ov id e Sch wart ze an y pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s. "Ord in ari ly, we do no t

co ns id er an arg um en t rai se d fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al ." Orr v. W al -Ma rt S t or es , In c. , 29 7 F .3d 72 0, 7 25 (8t h C ir. 2 00 2) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)

.

-1 0-III. Co nc lu si on

Acco rd in gl y , we di sm is s t he ap pe al for lac k o f juri sd ic ti on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 1-