A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and c o n d itio n s o f

1 0 th C ir . R . 3 6 .3 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### O c t ob e r5,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT
T HE ODOR E M ONT GOMER Y, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t,
v. THE C I TY O F ARD M OR E, D efe ndant
- A ppel l ee. N o. 05- 7133 ( D . C. N o. 99 - CV - 37 4- P) (E .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *
B efor e HENR Y , AN DE RS ON , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.

P lai n ti ff T h eo d o re M o n tgo m eryap p ea ls from an o rde r of the d istri ct co u rt g ran ti n g d efen d an t T h e C ityo f A rdm o re’s (th e C ity ) m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm enton hi s cl ai m fordeni al of pr e- t erm i nat i on due pr oces s i n connec t i on w ith th e lo ss o f

h is jo b a s p o lice o ffice r. W e h a v e ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffi r m.-2- Backg r ound T h e fa c ts s u rro u n d in g th e ter m in a tio n o f M r. M o n tg o m e ry ’s e m p lo ym e n t as a pol i ce offi cerfort he C i t yar e s etfor th i n det ai l i n Montgom er y v. C i t y of A rdm ore , 3 6 5 F .3 d 9 2 6 , 9 3 0 -3 3 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). W e re s ta te th e m h e re b ri e fly. I n t he s pr i ng of 1997, M r . M ont gom erycl ai m s t hathe found hi m s el f at odds w i t h hi s co- w or ker s conce r ni ng a cr i m i nal i nves t i gat i on of the C i ty ’ s pol i ce chi ef. O n J une 26, 1997, t he s ame dayhe l earned thatt he di s tr i ctatt or neyw as acc us i ng hi m of i nt er fer i ng w i t h the i nves t i gat i on, he bega n s uffe r i ng fr om i nt ens e hea dache s and bl ur r ed vi s i on. A ft erbei ng s enthom e byt he i nt er i m pol i ce chi ef a s a r es ul tof hi s ai l m ent s , he s oughtt r eatm entfors tr es s and hi gh bl ood p re s s u re . A few day s l at er , t he di s t r i ctatt orney ’ s s t at ement s conce rni ng M r. M o n tgo m ery ’s all eg ed interfe ren ce w ith the c ri m inal inv esti g ati o n w ere publ i s hed i n t he l ocal new s paper . Shor t l yt her eaf t er , t he Fr at ernal O r derof Pol i ce (F O P ) p u b lish e d a re sp o n se u rg in g h im to c o o p e ra te in th e in v e stig a tio n . O n Ju ly 1, 1997, s t i l l s uffe r i ng fr om hi s ai l m ent s , he bega n an ext ended medi cal l eave . I n A ugus t1997, M r . M ont gom eryl earned thathe w oul d notbe pai d w hi l e a b se n t f ro m w o rk b e c a u se th e C ityd isp u ted h is e lig ib ili tyfo r lo n g ter m d isa b ili ty benef i t s . T her eaf

t er , he r ece i ved s hor tt erm di s abi l i tybenef i t s t hr ough the pol i ce p e n s io n s y s te m . O k la . S ta t. A n n ., tit. 1 1 , § 5 0 -1 1 6 .1 (1 9 9 4 ).-3-

I tw as notunt i l M ay1998, thatM r . M ont gom eryfi r s tappr oache d the pol i ce d e p a rtm e n t ab o u t re tu rn in g to w o rk , at w h ich tim e th e in ter im p o lice c h ief to ld h i m th a th e c o u l d n o tc o me b a c k t o wo r k u n t i l h e h a d a d o c t o r ’ s r e l e a s e . On A ugus t24, 1998, he t el ephoned the form eri nt er i m chi ef ( now the deputychi ef) and as ked aboutr etur ni ng t o w or k i n Sept ember1998, w hen he a nt i ci pat ed
re c e iv in g th e n e c e ss a ryre lea se . T h e d e p u tyc h ief to ld h im th a t th e C ityw o u ld
n o t a llo w h im to re tu rn to w o rk a n d th a t h e s h o u ld c a ll th e n e w p o lic e c h ie f. D ur i ng a ca l l w i t h t he chi ef, he w as t ol d thathi s j ob had bee n el i m i nat ed and

“ [ h e ] w a s n o t g o in g to b e a b le to re tu rn to w o rk .” A p lt. A p p . a t 9 1 . O n S ep tem b er 2 8 , 1 9 9 8 , the C ityfo rm all yterm inated M r. M o n tgo m ery ’s e m p lo ym e n t (e ffe c tiv e A u g u st 1 5 , 1 9 9 8 ), p u rsu a n t to S e c tio n 1 1 6 .9 o f its E m pl oy ee H andbook, w hi ch pr ovi des that“[a ] n empl oy ee s hal l be r emoved fr om [l ong t erm di s abi l i t y ] l eave , for fei tal l pr i vi l eges thatgo w i th s uch l eave and have
e m p l o ym e n tt e r m i n a t e d i f . . . [ t ] h e e m p l o ye e h a s b e e n o n [ l o n g t e rm d i s a b i l i ty] l eave form or e than 365 day s . ” Id . a t 2 3 4 .

T h e D i st ri ct C ou rt and T en th C i rcu i t Pro ceed i n gs I n M ar ch 1999, M r . M ont gom eryfi l ed a s ui tagai ns tt he C i ty , t he FO P, and t he di s t r i ctat t or ney , al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s under 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 , co n sp ir ac yto v iolate his co n sti tuti o n al ri g h ts, an d stat e law tort cl ai m s fornegl i gence , br eac h of contr act , i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of emot i onal-4-

di s t r es s , and defamat i on. T he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed defendant s ’ m ot i ons for
s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, a n d h e a p p e a le d to th is c o u rt . I n Mon tgo m ery , 365 F. 3d at944, w e affi r m ed s um m aryj udgm entexce ptas t o M r . M ont gom ery ’ s pr e- t erm i nat i on due pr oces s cl ai m agai ns tthe C i ty , hol di ng t hatt he A ugus t24, 1998, t el ephone c onver s at i ons w i th pol i ce offi ci al s di d not
c o n s t i tu t e a p r e - t e r mi n a t i o n h e a r i n g . As t o p o s s i b l e d a ma g e s o n r e ma n d , we e x p lain e d th a t [g] ener al l y , damages forpr ocedur al due pr oces s vi ol at i ons m ay in c lu d e d a m a g e s a risin g o u t o f th e ter m in a tio n o f

e m p lo ym e n t if there is a ca u sal co n n ec ti o n b etw ee n the term ination an d the fail u re to p rov ide a h ea ri n g . H o w ev er, i f [ the C ity ] ca n estab li sh that [M r. M ont gom ery ] w oul d have be en t erm i nat ed eve n i f a pr operhear i ng h a d b e e n g iv e n , [h e ] c a n n o t re c e iv e d a m a g e s s tem m ingfr om the te rm in a tio n in a n a c tio n fo r a p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e s s v io la tio n . Id. at 93 7 (cit ati o n s an d q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). N o ti n g that the re co rd
s ugges t ed thatt he C i t yw oul d have t erm i nat ed M r . M ont gom eryeven i f i thad provided h i m w i t h a p re- t erm i nati on heari ng , w e no nethel ess r em and ed the case to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt fo r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s . Id. In ru li n g o n the C ity ’s m o ti o n fo r sum m aryjud g m en t, the d istri ct co u rt found that : ( 1) M r . M ont gom erybegan a n ext ended medi cal l eave on J ul y1, 1 9 9 7 ; ( 2 ) a s o f

Au g u s t1 4 , 1 9 9 8 , ( th e d a yb e fo r e h i s t e r mi n a t i o n b e c a me effect i ve) he had notr ece i ved a medi cal r el eas e t o r etur n t o w or k; and ( 3) he had been on medi cal l eave form or e than 365 day s w hen hi s empl oym entw as t erm i nat ed. A s t o w hethera pr e- t erm i nat i on hear i ng w oul d have c hanged theA l t hough t he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed compens at orydamages , i taw ar ded 1 M r. M o n tg o m e ry $ 1 in n o m in a l d a m a g e s fo r t h e p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e s s v io la tio n . -5- out come, t he di s t r i cthel d t hatt he “gr ounds for[hi s ] t erm i nat i on w er e cl ear l ys et fo rth ” in th e E m p lo y e e H a n d b o o k , an d th a t “[ th e C ity ’s] ter m in a tio n o f [ h is empl oym ent ] w as j us t i fi ed and i nevi t abl e. ” Id. at318- 19. T he courtgr ant ed the C i t y ’ s m ot i on for s um m ary j udgm ent , and thi s appea l fol l ow ed. 1 A n a ly sis W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entde novo, vi ew i ng t he ev i den ce and draw i ng t he reasonab l e i nferences t herefrom i n the l i gh tm ost fa v o ra b le to th e n o n m o v in g p a rt y . St overv. Mar t i nez , 382 F. 3d 1064, 1070 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) . Sum m aryj udgm enti s pr operi f ther e ar e no genui ne i s s ues of
m a te ri a l fa c t a n d th e m o v in g p a rt yis e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w . Id
. M r . M ont gom eryadvanc es t w o ar gum ent s on appea l . Fi r s t , he cl ai m s t hat t he C i t ycan t erm i nat e hi s empl oym entonl yforj us tcaus e pur s uantt o the C o lle c tiv e B a rg a in in g A g re e m e n t ( C B A ) b e tw e e n th e C ity a n d th e F O P . Al t e r n a t i v e l y , h e a r g u e s t h a ti f t h e E mp l o y e e Ha n d b o o k c o n tr o l s , i to n l ya l l o ws th e C ity to te rm in a te h is e m p lo ym e n t if h e is o n lo n g te rm d is a b ility le a v e . T he C i t y , on t he otherhand, ar gues t hatt he di s tr i ctcourtcorr ect l yfound t hatt he Em pl oy ee H andbook contr ol s , and thati tr equi r es t he t erm i nat i on of any
e mp l o y e e wh o s e me d i c a l l e a v e e x t e n d s b e y o n d 3 6 5 d a y s . Th u s , t h e Ci tyc l a i msT he C B A ’ s s ect i on on s i ck l eave does cont ai n rul es conce rni ng donat ed 2 le a v e , w h ic h a re ir re le v a n t in th is c a s e . -6- t hati tm eti t s bur den of pr ovi ng thatM r . M ont gom ery ’ s empl oym entw oul d have been t erm i nat ed eve n i f he ha d been gi ven a pr operpr e- t erm i nat i on hear i ng. W e a c k n o w led g e th a t ce rta in c o n d iti o n s o f M r. M o n tg o m e ry ’s e m p lo ym e n t ar e governed byt he C B A . T hi s i s notthe end of the i nqui ry , how ever . Sect i on 4 .1 o f C B A p ro v id e s th a t itis th e p re ro g a tiv e o f

th e C ityto o p e ra te a n d m a n a g e its a ffa irs in a ll r es pect s and i n acc or dance w i th i t s r es pons i bi l i t i es , and pow eror author i t yw hi ch the C i t yhas notoffi ci al l yabr i dged, del egat ed, gr ant ed orm odi fi ed by[the C B A ] ar e r et ai ned bythe C i ty , and r e m a i n e x c l u s i v e l y, w i t h o u tl i m i t a t i o n , w i th i n th e r i g h t s o f th e C i ty. A pl t . A pp. at249. A dm i t t edl y , Sect i on 4. 3( a) pr ovi des thatthe C i tyhas the r i ght t o “hi r e, demot e, s us pend ordi s char ge forj us tcaus e, ” Id . , butthati s notthe o n ly
r i ghtr et ai ned byt he C i t y . I ns t ead, Sect i on 4. 3( h) pr ovi des thatthe C i tyhas the
r i ghtt o “es t abl i s h, m odi fyand enfor ce pe r s onnel pol i ci es and pr ocedur es adopt ed byt he C i t y . ” Id. A n d a lth o u g h S e c tio n 4 .6 p ro v id e s th a t th e C B A sh a ll
s uper cede t he C i t y ’ s per s onnel pol i ci es thatconfl i ctw i th i t s t erm s , ther e ar e no c o n flicts h e re . In fa c t, as to sic k lea v e (th e o n lyse c tio n o f th e C B A th a t ar g u a b ly
a p p lies ), S e c tio n 1 2 .1 sta tes th a t “s ick lea v e sh a ll b e a c c ru e d a n d u se d p u rsu a n t to t he t erm s of the [Ci t y ’ s ] Per s onnel R ul es . ” Id. at 260. 2 A s t o w hethert he C i t y ’s personn el po l i cyw as properl yenfo rced against M r . M ont gom ery , w e agr ee w i t h the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s r es ul t , butfora di ffe r ent-7-

r e a s o n . W h i l e i ti s t ru e t h a tt h e C i ty o p p o s e d h i s r e q u e s tfo rl o n g t e r m d i s a b i l i t y, t hi s does notm ean thathe w as notdeemed t o be on l ong t erm di s abi l i tyl eave at t he t i m e hi s empl oym entw as t erm i nat ed. Sect i on 115. 1 of the Em pl oy ee H a n d b o o k p ro v id e s th a t [f] ort he purpos es of thes e rul es , t empora rydi s abi l i tys hal l be d e fin e d a s a n yn o n -jo b re late d inju ry , il ln e ss , o r o th e r m e d ica lly related situ ati o n w h ich p rev en ts an em p loy ee fro m w o rkin g fo r a p e ri o d o f

a t le a s t 2 w e e k s b u t n o t m o re th a n 1 8 0 c a le n d a r d a y s . A ny per i od of

dis abi l i t

y i n exc es s of

180 days w i l lbe cons i der ed l ong te r m d is a b ility
. Id. at 23 3 (em p h asis ad d ed ). In tu rn, as n o ted, S ec ti o n 1 1 6 . 9 p rov ides that “[ a]n empl oy ee sh a llbe r emoved fr om [l ong t erm di s abi l i ty ] l eave , for fei tal l pr i vi l eges t hatgo w i t h s uch l eave and have empl oym entt erm i nat ed i f anyof the fol l ow i ng occur s : [t ] he empl oy ee ha s been on [ l ong t erm di s abi l i ty ] l eave form or e than 365 day s . ” Id. a t 2 3 4 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h e re fo re , the C ityw a s re q u ire d to t erm i nat e hi s empl oym entand no pr e- t erm i nat i on hear i ng w oul d have c hanged the out come. T h e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt is A F F IR M E D . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt St ephen H . A nder s on C i r cui tJ udge