Opinion ID: 486639
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: 19 The Commission alleges two errors committed by the district court. First, the Commission alleges that the district court erred in granting Mrs. Nicholson's motion for a directed verdict both with respect to the alleged due process deprivations under the fourteenth amendment and her alleged freedom of speech violation under the first amendment. The Commission also alleges that the district court erred by not allowing the introduction of Mrs. Nicholson's complaint with the EEOC into evidence.
20 Nicholson's claim that the Commission denied her due process depends on whether she had a property right in continued employment as a Jackson County employee. Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 538, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 1491, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 576-78, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2708-10, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); Thompson v. Bass, 616 F.2d 1259, 1264 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 983, 101 S.Ct. 399, 66 L.Ed.2d 245 (1980). 7 In Roth, the Supreme Court stated: 21 To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it. It is a purpose of the ancient institution of property to protect those claims upon which people rely in their daily lives, reliance that must not be arbitrarily undermined. 22 Roth, 408 U.S. at 577, 92 S.Ct. at 2709. The existence of a legitimate claim of entitlement to a property interest in continued employment is to be determined in accordance with state law. Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 344, 96 S.Ct. 2074, 2077, 48 L.Ed.2d 684 (1976); see e.g., Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 538, 105 S.Ct. at 1491; Thompson, 616 F.2d at 1264-65. Although Alabama law provides that the County Commission has the authority to appoint and employ county personnel, see Ala.Code Sec. 11-8-14 (1977), it is silent with respect to the discharging of county employees. However, in the present case the Commission adopted a handbook of employee personnel policies which provided that a permanent employee such as Mrs. Nicholson could only be terminated for cause after a hearing. We hold that the Commission's handbook of employee policies and procedures and the conduct of the parties establishes the existence of rules or mutually explicit understandings, Winkler v. County of Dekalb, 648 F.2d 411, 414 (5th Cir.1981) (quoting Perry v. Sinderman, 408 U.S. 593, 601, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 2699, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972)) supporting Nicholson's claim to a property interest. See Glenn v. Newman, 614 F.2d 467, 471-72 (5th Cir.1980) (a permanent employee has a constitutionally protected property interest in his or her job where a city defines rules governing the employee's dismissal and subsequent review procedure). 23 The district court found that based on the Commission's employee handbook, Mrs. Nicholson was a permanent employee and had a reasonable expectation of continued employment entitling her to procedural due process prior to the termination of her employment. 8 We think the district court was correct in this conclusion. 24 Having concluded Mrs. Nicholson was entitled to due process, the question remains what process is due. Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 541, 105 S.Ct. at 1493 (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2600, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)); Marshall v. City of Cape Coral Fla., 797 F.2d 1555, 1559 (11th Cir.1986); see Hatcher v. Bd. of Educ., 809 F.2d 1546, 1552, 1567, 1574 (11th Cir.1987). 25 The essential requirements of due process ... are notice and an opportunity to respond. The opportunity to present reasons, either in person or in writing, why proposed action should not be taken is a fundamental due process requirement.... The tenured public employee is entitled 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. 26 Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 546, 105 S.Ct. at 1495 (citations omitted); Kelly v. Smith, 764 F.2d 1412, 1414 (11th Cir.1985). In Thurston v. Dekle, 531 F.2d 1264, 1273 (5th Cir.1976), rev'd on other grounds, 438 U.S. 901, 98 S.Ct. 3118, 57 L.Ed.2d 1144 (1978), this court outlined a procedure to satisfy minimum due process requirements. This includes written notice of the reasons for termination and an effective opportunity to rebut those reasons prior to termination. Thurston, 531 F.2d at 1273. Effective rebuttal means giving the employee the right to respond in writing to the charges made and to respond orally before the official charged with the responsibility of making the termination decision. Glenn, 614 F.2d at 472. The Supreme Court has stated that providing some opportunity for the employee to present his side of the case is recurringly of obvious value in a pretermination hearing for a public employee. Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 543, 105 S.Ct. at 1494. It is the opportunity to be heard which is protected by the fourteenth amendment. Washington v. Kirksey, 811 F.2d 561, 564 (11th Cir.1987). With this in mind, it is clear that the meeting between Nicholson and the Commission on May 18, 1981, did not satisfy the requirements of due process. At no time did [Nicholson] have the opportunity to present to the [Commission her] version of what happened. Id. The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 1020, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970) (quoting Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394, 34 S.Ct. 779, 783, 58 L.Ed. 1363 (1914)). Under these circumstances, we feel [d]ue process requires a more formalistic confrontation of facts and positions. Ferguson v. Thomas, 430 F.2d 852, 857 (5th Cir.1970). 27 The Commission argues however, that Mrs. Nicholson was not entitled to a directed verdict because there was substantial evidence opposed to the motion in the form of testimony at trial and depositions previously taken. 9 We disagree. In Michigan Abrasive Co., Inc. v. Poole, 805 F.2d 1001 (11th Cir.1986), this court recently reiterated the proper standard of review with respect to motions for a directed verdict: 28 [o]n motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict the Court should consider all of the evidence--not just that evidence which supports the non-mover's case--but in the light and with all reasonable inferences most favorable to the party opposed to the motion. If the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the Court believes that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary verdict, granting of motions is proper. On the other hand, if there is substantial evidence opposed to the motions, that is, evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motions should be denied, and the case submitted to the jury. A mere scintilla of evidence is insufficient to present a question for the jury.... There must be a conflict in substantial evidence to create a jury question. 29 Michigan Abrasive, 805 F.2d at 1004 (quoting Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374-75 (5th Cir.1969)). After carefully reviewing the record, we find no merit in the Commission's assertion that there was substantial evidence opposed to the motion and accordingly affirm the district court with respect to the due process violation.
30 The Commission next argues the district court erred in granting a directed verdict with respect to Nicholson's alleged freedom of speech violation under the first amendment. We analyze this first amendment claim under the test set forth by the Supreme Court in Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287, 97 S.Ct. 568, 576, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977); see Berry v. Bailey, 726 F.2d 670, 674 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1101, 105 S.Ct. 2326, 85 L.Ed.2d 844 (1985). Under that test Nicholson first must show that the speech for which she alleged she was fired was constitutionally protected and that this speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the decision to discharge her. Once this is shown the burden shifts to the Commission to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Nicholson would have been dismissed in the absence of the protected speech. Mt. Healthy, 429 U.S. at 287, 97 S.Ct. at 576; Berry, 726 F.2d at 674 (citation omitted). The record reveals that Nicholson clearly expressed her desire not to read the prepared statement at the political rally. This court has recently held that [a] public employee who positively asserts the right not to speak when ordered to support his employer is within the protection of the first amendment. Sykes v. McDowell, 786 F.2d 1098, 1104 (11th Cir.1986); See Berry, 726 F.2d at 673. For the purposes of first amendment analysis we see no meaningful distinction between a public employee who asserts the right not to speak in support of his employer and a public employee who asserts the right not to speak, but ultimately makes the speech. However, the protections afforded the employee are not absolute, a balance must be struck between the employee's first amendment interest and the government's interest in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 140, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 1686, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983) (quoting Pickering v. Board of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 1734, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968)); Mt. Healthy, 429 U.S. at 284, 97 S.Ct. at 574; Berry, 726 F.2d at 674-75; Tanner v. McCall, 625 F.2d 1183, 1189 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 907, 101 S.Ct. 1975, 68 L.Ed.2d 295 (1981). There is no suggestion in the record that the discharge of Nicholson promoted the efficiency of the public services performed by the Commission. 10 We therefore conclude that Nicholson's speech was constitutionally protected. 31 In determining whether Nicholson's speech was a substantial or motivating factor in her discharge, the record is very clear. Gant testified that he knew of no situation indicating that Nicholson was not loyal as an employee of the Commission. Nevertheless, Gant testified that based on the speech Nicholson delivered at the political rally, he did not feel that Nicholson would be loyal to him. Gant testified that it was his goal, from the time he was elected, to terminate Nicholson. Gant's testimony adduced at trial led the district court to state at the reinstatement hearing, I haven't seen such a blatant wrong since I've been on the bench as was committed by Mr. Gant. Purely for political reasons. Old line politics. Since the record is devoid of any evidence indicating that Nicholson would have been discharged in the absence of the speech, we affirm the district court with respect to the first amendment claim. 32 The Commission next alleges the district court erred by not allowing the Commission to cross-examine Nicholson regarding the complaint filed by Nicholson with the EEOC alleging that she was discharged on the basis of her sex and age. The Commission contends that the complaint would be admissible as a prior inconsistent statement concerning the reasons for Nicholson's discharge. The admissibility of evidence is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Rulings concerning the admissibility of evidence should be reversed only where it can be shown that the trial court abused its broad discretion and where the ruling adversely affected appellant's substantial rights. Woods v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 768 F.2d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir.1985), cert. granted, sub nom. Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Woods, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 1456, 89 L.Ed.2d 714 (1986); Murphy v. City of Flagler Beach, 761 F.2d 622, 626 (11th Cir.1985). No such showing has been demonstrated in this case. Affirmed.