T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T K RI STI N E M . PH I LLI PS, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. M A R IO N C O U N T Y S H E R IF F ’S O F F IC E , a d ep artm en to f M ari o n C o u n ty; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 35833 D . C . N o . 6 : 0 9 - c v - 0 6 0 6 1 - MO ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon M i c ha e l W . M os m a n, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r9, 2012

P ort l a nd, O r e gon B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , C L IF T O N , an d N . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P l a i nt i f f K r i s t i ne P hi l l i ps appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de rgr a nt i ng j udgm e nt as a m att er o f l aw an d an ev i d en t i ary ru l i n g m ad e d u ri n g tri al . S p eci fi cal l y, P h illip s ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s o r d e rh o ld in g th a t s h e la c k e d ac o n s titu tio n a lly 

# FI LED OC T 15 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

prot ec t ed prop erty i nt er es ti n the arbi tra t i on aw ar d g rant i ng re i nst at em entof her e m pl oy m e nta nd tha tD e f e nda ntI s ha m w a s e nt i t l e d t o qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty . S he a l s o appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s e vi de nt i a ry rul i ng tha te xc l ude d e vi de nc e of I s h a m ’s r e s ig n a tio n a s th e C o u n ty s h e r if f o n th e g r o u n d s th a t it w a s u n d u ly p r e ju d ic ia l. W e r e v ie w ag r a n t o f

ju d g m e n t a s am a tte ro f la w d e n o v o . C o sta v. D esert P alace, Inc. , 2 9 9 F .3 d 8 3 8 , 8 5 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . B e c aus e the r e w e r e no f a c t s i n di s put e , w he the rP hi l l i ps ha d a c o n s titu tio n a lly p r o te c te d p r o p e rty in te r e s t w a s aq u e s tio n o f la w f o rth e ju d g e . Se e e . g. , W

alke r v . C i t

y of B erke ley , 9 5 1 F .2 d 1 8 2 , 1 8 3 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtappe a r s t o ha ve m i s r e a d the C ol l e c t i ve B a r ga i ni ng A gr e e m e ntbe tw e e n the C ounty a nd S he r i f f’ s A s s oc i a t i on. T he C B A r e qui r e s the C ou nty t o eng age i n b i nd i ng arbi tra t i on i f the A s s oc i at i on (th e e m p lo ye e’s ba r ga i ni ng a ge nt ) w i s he s t o e nga ge i n a rbi tr a t i on. T he C B A r e f e r s t o the de c i s i on t o p art i ci pat e i n b i nd i ng arbi tra t i on as the A ss oci at i on ’ s “ ri gh t . ” O re go n l aw spec i fi ca l l y a l l ow s f

or such an arr angem entas a w ayt o res ol ve em pl oyee g r ie v a n c e s . O r . R e v . S ta t. § 2 4 3 .7 0 6 ( 1 ) . T h e C o u n ty ’s a g r e e m e n t in th e C B A to s ubm i tt o a rbi tr a t i on f

ora l l gr i e va nc e s , and t o a c c e ptthe de c i s i on of the a rbi tr a t or a s bi ndi ng, w a s “ i nt e nde d t o be as i gni f i c a nts ubs t a nt i ve r e s tr i c t i on on [ the3

C ou nty’ s] deci si on m aki ng . ” Se e Mu s ta fa v . C la rk

Cn ty . Sc h . D is t. , 157 F . 3d 1169, 1178 ( 9th C i r . 1998) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons m a rks om i tt e d) . W he n the a rbi tr a t orr e i ns t a t e d P hi l l i ps , the C ounty di d notha ve di s c r e t i on t o i gnor e the r e in s ta te m e n t a w a r d ; it had to ab id e b y it. P h illip s , th e r e f o r e , h a d a“le g itim a te c la im o f e n title m e n t,” to th e o u tc o m e o f th e a rb itr a to r ’s a w a r d a n d h a d ap r o p e rty in te r e s t in h e ra rb itr a to r - o r d e r e d r e in s ta te m e n t. Se e Sanc hezv . C i t y of Santa A na , 91 5 F . 2d 42 4, 42 8 (9th C i r. 19 90 ). A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourterre d i n h ol di ng thatP hi l l i ps di d n othave a c o n s titu tio n a lly p r o te c te d p r o p e rty in te r e s t in h e ra rb itr a to r - o r d e r e d r e in s ta te m e n t. A s f o rw h e th e rI s h a m s h o u ld b e e n title d to q u a lif ie d im m u n ity , th e o n ly que s t i on i s w he the ri tw a s c l e a r l y e s t abl i s he d tha tI s ha m ha d t o abi de by the a rb itr a to r ’s a w a r d . I s h a m a r g u e s h e r e a s o n ab ly b e lie v e dth a t, p u r s u a n t to § 243. 706( 1) , r e i ns t a t i ng P hi l l i ps a f t e rhe rm i s c onduc tw a s c l e a r l y c ontr a ry t o the p u b lic p o lic ie s b a rr in g th e m is tr e a tm e n t o f , a n d th e u n

ju s tif ie d u s e o f

f o r c e a g a in s t, in m a te s . A r e a s o n ab le o f

f ic ia l w o u ld u n d e r s ta n d th a t P h illip s h a d to b e r e in s ta te d . T hi s i s s ue w a s de f

i ni t e l y r e s ol ve d s e ve r a l y e a r s be f or e the e ve nt s a ti s s ue he r e by W a s h in g to n C o u n tyP o lic e O ffic e rs ’A s s o c ia tio n v . W a s h in g to n C o u n ty , 33 5 O r. 1 9 8 , 2 0 5

– 0 6 ( 2 0 0 3 ) , r e m ande d to 1 8 7 O r . A p p . 6 8 6 ( 2 0 0 3 ) . Th e O r e g o n Su p r e me4

C ou rthel d that , un der § 24 3. 70 6(1), “ the enforce abi l i ty of the arbi tra t or’ s aw ar d d o e s n o t tu rn o n w h e th e rth e e m p lo y e e ’s [ m is c o n d u c t] v io la te d s o m e p u b lic p o lic y . T he pr ope ri nqui ry , i ns t e a d, i s w he the rthe a w a rd its e lf com pl i es w i th the spec i fi ed ki nd of pu bl i c pol i cyre qu i re m ent s. ” Id . at20 5 (em ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ). T here fore , i tshou l d h ave been suff i ci ent l y c l ear t o Isham , i n Jun e 200 8, that h e c o u ld n o t r e f

u s e to f o llo w th e a rb itr a to r ’s a w a r d o r d e r in g r e in s ta te m e n t s im p ly base d o n P hi l l i ps’ s m i sc on du ct . T he on l y w ayIs ham coul d h ave r ef used t o enforce the arbi tra t i on aw ar d w as i f “ som e s t atut e or j ud i ci al op i ni on ou t l i ne, char ac t er i ze , orde l i m i tapubl i c pol i c y a ga i ns tr e i ns t a t i ng apol i c e of f i c e rw hom a n i nve s t i ga t i on ha s f ound [ t o ha ve e nga ge d i n the m i s c onduc tP hi l l i ps w a s f ound t o ha ve c om m i tt e d] a nd [ onl y i f ] the s t a tut e orde c i s i on a rt i c ul a t e [ s ] tha tpol i c y i n s uc h a w a y a s t o l e a ve no s e r i ous doubtorque s t i on r e s pe c t i ng the c ont e ntori m portof thatpo l i cy [. ] ” See W

a s h in g to n C o u n ty , 187 O r . A pp. a t691–92 ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m arks om i tt ed). Is ham di d n otre l y on any st atut e or j ud i ci al deci si on that prec l ud es re i nst at em enti n P hi l l i ps’ s i nst ance atthe t i m e he r ef used t o rei nst at e her , n o rd o e s h e id e n tif

yo n e n o w . A s th e O r e g o n S u p r e m e C o u rt m a d e c le a rin W a s h in g to n C o u n ty , Is ham coul d n otre fuse t o enforce the arbi tra t or’ s aw ar d u nd er § 2 43 . 70 6(1) base d o n P hi l l i ps’ m i sc on du ct , as he di d. A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ct co u rterred i n g ran t i n g Ish am q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty.5

B e c aus e w e a r e r e ve r s i ng the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de rgr a nt i ng j udgm e ntf or D e f e nda nt s , w e ne e d nota ddr e s s P hi l l i ps ’ a l t e rna t i ve gr ound f orappe a l r e ga r di ng the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s e vi de nt i a ry rul i ng. F or the foregoi ng re as on s, w e R EVER SE th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s j u d g m en tas a m att er o f l aw fo r D efen d an t s, an d o rd er th e d i stri ctco u rtt o en t er j u d g m en tas a m a tte ro f la w f o rP h illip s a n d to r e in s ta te th e ju ry ’s d a m a g e s v e r d ic t. W e VA C A TE the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s a w a r d of c os t s a ga i ns tP hi l l i ps a nd RE MAND the is s u e o f c o s ts f o rd e te rm in a tio n b y th e d is tr ic t c o u rt.