Opinion ID: 676151
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: 11 This court has jurisdiction pursuant to the collateral order doctrine to review the district court's denial of the qualified immunity motions to dismiss. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291; Pueblo Neighborhood Health Ctrs., Inc. v. Losavio, 847 F.2d 642, 644 (10th Cir.1988) (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815-16, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985)). The district court entered a final judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) on Captain Workman's First Amendment claim; therefore, we also have jurisdiction over Captain Workman's cross-appeal. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291; see Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7, 100 S.Ct. 1460, 1464, 64 L.Ed.2d 1 (1980) (district court must determine it is dealing with a final judgment). 12 We review de novo the district court's denial of qualified immunity. Bella v. Chamberlain, 24 F.3d 1251, 1254 (10th Cir.1994); Powell v. Gallentine, 992 F.2d 1088, 1090 (10th Cir.1993). QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 13 Qualified immunity protects public officials from individual liability in a Sec. 1983 action unless the officials violated clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). Once a defendant to a Sec. 1983 action raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show both facts and law to establish that the defendant is not entitled to a qualified immunity. Dixon v. Richer, 922 F.2d 1456, 1460 (10th Cir.1991). The plaintiff must come forward with facts or allegations sufficient to show both that the defendant's alleged conduct violated the law and that that law was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred. Pueblo Neighborhood, 847 F.2d at 646. If the plaintiff meets this burden, then the normal burden of the movant for a motion to dismiss falls again upon the defendant. See id. 14 Since Sheriff Jordan and Undersheriff Dill have raised the defense of qualified immunity, our analysis will focus on whether Captain Workman has met his burden of showing Sheriff Jordan and Undersheriff Dill violated a clearly established federal right. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). The three federal rights involved in this case are deprivation of a property right without the due process of law, deprivation of a liberty right without the due process of law, and violation of Captain Workman's First Amendment right to free speech. After examining each alleged constitutional violation separately, we conclude Captain Workman has failed to show Sheriff Jordan and Undersheriff Dill violated a clearly established federal constitutional right.
DEPRIVATION OF A PROPERTY INTEREST 15 Captain Workman asserts that Sheriff Jordan and Undersheriff Dill deprived him of a property interest without the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause. Captain Workman claims his property interest is his continued employment with the Sheriff's Department. Weld County, Colorado, is a home rule county and the applicable county employee policy provides employment can only be terminated for cause. Sheriff Jordan and Undersheriff Dill concede that Captain Workman does have a state-defined property interest in continued employment with the Sheriff's Department. See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 538, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 1491, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985) (citing Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 576-78, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2708-10, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972)). 16 Although Captain Workman has a property interest in continued public employment, we fail to find a deprivation of that property interest. Because a procedurally adequate posttermination hearing actually resulted in Captain Workman's reinstatement, together with back pay for the temporary deprivation of his employment, he cannot now state claim under Sec. 1983 for loss of a constitutionally protected property interest in employment. Our decision in Archuleta v. Colorado Dep't of Institutions, 936 F.2d 483 (10th Cir.1991), controls. In Archuleta, a public employee was terminated without cause but was later reinstated with back pay by the state personnel board. Id. at 489. When the employee claimed a Sec. 1983 violation of her substantive due process rights to continued employment, we held the procedure required by the Due Process Clause served its purpose--it protected the plaintiff against arbitrary state action by restoring to her the property that was taken. Id. at 491. Similarly, the restoration of Captain Workman's job leaves us without a reason to test the propriety of the initial discharge. 3 17 Captain Workman alleges a long list of procedural errors during his investigation and pretermination hearing, but the fact of his reinstatement remains. The categories of substance and procedure are distinct.... 'Property' cannot be defined by the procedures provided for its deprivation any more than can life or liberty. Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 541, 105 S.Ct. at 1493. Captain Workman's alleged procedural errors do not enlarge his property rights. 18 Captain Workman also contends the posttermination hearing was inadequate because Sheriff Jordan and Undersheriff Dill would not comply with his requests for documents and because they encouraged witnesses not to participate in the hearing. He further argues the Hearing Officer's lack of authority to enforce subpoenas, rule on motions in limine, or grant prehearing motions to dismiss marred the hearing. Again, we find it difficult to evaluate any grievance procedure as inadequate when the employee was reinstated and given full back pay. 4 19 On Captain Workman's allegations, he has not shown a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. A full posttermination hearing is understood to include the right to representation by an attorney and the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses. See Melton v. City of Oklahoma City, 928 F.2d 920, 939 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 296, 116 L.Ed.2d 241 (1991); Prebble v. Brodrick, 535 F.2d 605, 616 (10th Cir.1976). The lack of subpoena power available to the plaintiff or the unavailability of some witnesses does not, under the facts of this case, create unconstitutional process. See Prebble, 535 F.2d at 615-16. Captain Workman's claim of unlawful deprivation of a property interest fails to meet his burden of showing a violation of clearly established law. 20 When a procedure produces full protection, we need not examine the procedure for error. We thus reverse the district court's denial of the motion to dismiss this claim.
21 Captain Workman also claims he has been deprived of his liberty interest without due process of law. His liberty claim is based on damage to his reputation due to allegedly stigmatizing documents placed in his personnel file by Sheriff Jordan and Undersheriff Dill after his reinstatement. The documents were the letter of reprimand, the termination letter, and the poor job evaluation. The district court denied Sheriff Jordan and Undersheriff Dill qualified immunity against Captain Workman's assertion that they violated his right to due process associated with the deprivation of a liberty interest. 22 Once a liberty interest is implicated, the due process protections of the Fourteenth Amendment are innervated and Captain Workman must show he was not afforded an adequate name-clearing hearing. See Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 437, 91 S.Ct. 507, 510, 27 L.Ed.2d 515 (1971); Jensen v. Redevelopment Agency of Sandy City, 998 F.2d 1550, 1558 (10th Cir.1993). However, Captain Workman must first show a liberty interest exists and then that the liberty interest was infringed upon. 23 Captain Workman does have a liberty interest in his good name and reputation as it affects his protected property interest in continued employment. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 701, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 1160, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976); McGhee v. Draper, 639 F.2d 639, 643 (10th Cir.1981). However, Captain Workman must show how the government infringed upon this liberty interest. First, to be actionable, the statements must impugn the good name, reputation, honor, or integrity of the employee. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. at 573, 92 S.Ct. at 2707. Second, the statements must be false. Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 628, 97 S.Ct. 882, 884, 51 L.Ed.2d 92 (1977); Flanagan v. Munger, 890 F.2d 1557, 1571-72 (10th Cir.1989); Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 869 (10th Cir.1989). Third, the statements must occur in the course of terminating the employee or must foreclose other employment opportunities. Paul, 424 U.S. at 710, 96 S.Ct. at 1165; Sullivan v. Stark, 808 F.2d 737, 739 (10th Cir.1987). And fourth, the statements must be published. Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 348, 96 S.Ct. 2074, 2079, 48 L.Ed.2d 684 (1976). These elements are not disjunctive, all must be satisfied to demonstrate deprivation of the liberty interest. See, e.g., Melton v. City of Oklahoma City, 928 F.2d 920 (en banc) (trial court erred in instructing jury to find either stigmatization or loss of employment opportunities), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 296, 116 L.Ed.2d 241 (1991). 24 Captain Workman has not established a colorable showing of falsity. His primary contention is that the letter of reprimand, the performance evaluation, and the letter of termination include the allegations from the two female employees. These allegations, he contends, were rejected by the Hearing Officer. This contention misconstrues the documents and the Hearing Officer's decision. 25 The Hearing Officer determined the evidence from the independent investigation was accurate. The Hearing Officer concluded, however, the evidence did not amount to sexual harassment or misconduct sufficient to justify immediate termination. The documents in Captain Workman's personnel file do not contradict this conclusion. The letter of reprimand in fact quotes the Hearing Officer's decision. The documents repeat the evidence of the investigation. Captain Workman has not denied the evidence disclosed by the investigation, nor has he offered any other explanation of the documents falsity. We find the reprinting of the investigator's findings does not establish falsity. Cf. Melton, 928 F.2d at 928 (repetition of a third party's allegations is not a false statement). 26 We recognize one inconsistency between the documents and the Hearing Officer's decision. The letter of reprimand states: 27 [Captain Workman's] behavior is contrary to supervisory responsibility set forth in standard 02.B.001 Command and Direction and the Weld County Personnel Manual, page 14, F, Deliberate, offensive language or conduct toward the public or fellow employees. The Hearing Officer's Decision states: 28 Given the rather common practice of telling jokes involving sexual innuendos, the use of terms such as bitch or bimbo or other vulgar language within the agency and with no effort to halt such activity, the actions of Captain Workman could not be considered deliberate, offensive language or conduct toward the public or fellow employees, which would warrant termination. 29 Finding one inaccurate statement in a personnel document, we turn to whether the statement is shown to harm present employment opportunities. See Jensen, 998 F.2d at 1558. Captain Workman contends the defamatory statements in his file caused the FBI to ban him from their educational program, thereby destroying the possibility of other jobs in law enforcement administration. However, Captain Workman has not lost his present position. See Melton, 928 F.2d at 927 n. 11 (employee need not prove actual denial of a job opportunity if the employee can prove termination based on published false charge). His loss of future positions are too speculative. [D]amage to 'prospective employment opportunities' is too intangible to constitute a deprivation of a liberty ... interest. Phelps v. Wichita Eagle-Beacon, 886 F.2d 1262, 1269 (10th Cir.1989); Jensen, 998 F.2d at 1559. Therefore, we find Captain Workman has not shown lost employment opportunities. 30 Based on our review of Captain Workman's allegations, we are unable to find a sufficient showing of false stigmatizing statements entangled with his interest in employment. We need not inquire whether the posttermination hearing afforded procedural protections of his liberty interest. Since Captain Workman was not deprived a liberty interest, due process does not require an adequate name-clearing hearing. We thus reverse the district court's denial of the motion to dismiss this claim.
31 Captain Workman's claim of a First Amendment violation has two components. He contends Sheriff Jordan and Undersheriff Dill retaliated against him (1) for testifying at a Weld County grievance board hearing on behalf of a coworker who had been demoted and (2) for testifying at his own posttermination hearing. The district court dismissed this claim by determining the speech at issue is not a matter of public concern under established law. Captain Workman appeals this ruling in his cross-appeal. 32 Captain Workman avers the first incident of retaliation was in response to his testimony at a coworker's grievance hearing. Sheriff Jordan and Undersheriff Dill retaliated by imposing a poor employment evaluation within twenty-four hours of his testimony and without notice. This first claim of retaliation is barred by the statute of limitations. The poor evaluation was given to Captain Workman in July of 1987, and this suit was filed in November of 1990. 33 Congress provided no statute of limitations for actions under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. However, it is well established that state limitations periods, particularly personal injury limitation periods, are the primary guide for determining time limitations on civil rights actions. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985). Therefore, Colorado's two-year limitations period applies to this claim. Colo.Rev.Stat. Sec. 13-80-102 (1987). 5 Section 1983 claims accrue when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury that is the basis of the action. Hunt v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1263, 1266 (10th Cir.1994) (quoting Johnson v. Johnson County Comm'n Bd., 925 F.2d 1299, 1301 (10th Cir.1991)), petition for cert. filed May 9, 1994 (S.Ct. No. 93-9079). The alleged retaliatory act occurred more than three years before the suit was filed. Captain Workman does not allege any facts or doctrine that would extend the period of filing. Cf. Hunt, 17 F.3d at 1266 (declining to decide of doctrine of continuing violations applies to Sec. 1983 actions). His claim of retaliation against his right to testify at the coworker's hearing is therefore time barred. 34 Captain Workman avers the second incident of retaliation was in response to his successful appeal of his termination. He claims Sheriff Jordan and Undersheriff Dill retaliated against him for testifying at his termination appeal. The retaliatory act, according to Captain Workman, was the letter of reprimand and the low performance evaluation. 35 To proceed with his First Amendment claim, Captain Workman must show the testimony he gave at his own grievance proceeding touches upon a matter of public concern. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 146, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 1689, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983); Powell v. Gallentine, 992 F.2d at 1090. Captain Workman contends some of his testimony disclosed the Sheriff's Department's tolerance of a sexist environment, and therefore, the speech touched upon a matter of public concern. A sexist atmosphere in the Sheriff's Department is a matter of concern for the community; however, the Supreme Court in Connick explained speech relating to internal personnel disputes is not regarded as a matter of public concern. 461 U.S. at 147-48, 103 S.Ct. at 1690-91. 36 To determine if the speech related only to internal personnel matters and not to the discharge of governmental responsibilities, the court must consider the content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record. Connick, 461 U.S. at 147-48, 103 S.Ct. at 1690. The court will also consider the motive of the speaker to learn if the speech was calculated to redress personal grievances or to address a broader public purpose. Patrick v. Miller, 953 F.2d 1240, 1248 (10th Cir.1992); Conaway v. Smith, 853 F.2d 789, 796 (10th Cir.1988). In drawing the thin line between a public employee's speech which touches on matters of public concern, and speech from the same employee which only deals with personal employment matters, we have looked to the subjective intent of the speaker. Schalk v. Gallemore, 906 F.2d 491, 495 (10th Cir.1990). 37 Captain Workman's testimony, at his posttermination hearing, was clearly limited to his termination grievance and was not calculated to address concerns of the public. He spoke of the department's tolerance of a sexist environment only to argue to the factfinder that his behavior was not anomalous and thus could not support a termination decision. Captain Workman's motive was to address his personnel conflict and reverse his termination. Considering the content and context of the speech, Captain Workman was airing a grievance of a personal nature, and thus the speech in this case is not protected. Schalk, 906 F.2d at 495. 38 Captain Workman also argues his speech regarded a matter of public concern because it was sworn testimony before a governmental fact-finding body. However, the cases Captain Workman cites to support this proposition are not dispositive. In Langley v. Adams County, 987 F.2d 1473, 1478 (10th Cir.1993), the plaintiff claimed she was retaliated against in response to her testimony against the county in a coworker's federal district court case and for her later reports of discriminatory practices in the county. Captain Workman's testimony was given at his own posttermination proceeding, and he never filed reports of the department's tolerance of sexual harassment. In Johnston v. Harris County Flood Control Dist., the Fifth Circuit pointed out under certain circumstances ... the context in which the employee speaks may be sufficient to elevate the speech to the level of public concern. 869 F.2d 1565, 1577 (5th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1019, 110 S.Ct. 718, 107 L.Ed.2d 738 (1990). The Johnston court determined the sworn testimony before the county commissioners regarding an employment dispute was a matter of public concern. However, the plaintiff's testimony was given at a coworker's Equal Employment Opportunity hearing. 39 Captain Workman has not cited any cases holding that sworn testimony in an employee's own grievance proceeding is necessarily of a public concern. Captain Workman has not cited any Tenth Circuit or Supreme Court cases holding that sworn testimony outside of a court or grand jury is necessarily protected speech. See Langley, 987 F.2d at 1479; Melton v. City of Oklahoma City, 879 F.2d 706, 713-14 (10th Cir.1989), appeal after remand 928 F.2d 920 (10th Cir.), cert. denied --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 296, 116 L.Ed.2d 241 (1991) (testimony at a friend's trial). Without such case law support, we are not satisfied that Captain Workman's testimony on his own behalf is per se a matter of public concern. We thus find the dismissal of the First Amendment claim appropriate.