Kaibel v. Mun. Bldg. Comm'n

920 F.Supp.2d 1000

Brian KAIBEL, Daniel Dotse, Garfield Campbell, and Rick Iskierka, Plaintiffs,

v.MUNICIPAL BUILDING COMMISSION, Mike Opat, individually and in his representative capacity, R.T. Rybak, individually and in his representative capacity, Mark Stenglein, individually and in his representative capacity, and Lisa Goodman, individually and in her representative capacity, Defendants.

Civil No. 11–1231 (SRN/JJK).

United States District Court, D. Minnesota.

Jan. 31, 2013.

Daniel W. Schermer, Daniel W. Schermer, P.A., and Judith K. Schermer, Judith K. Schermer, PLLC, Minneapolis, MN.

Amanda M. Trelstad and Timothy S. Skarda, Minneapolis City Attorney's Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendants Municipal Building Commission, Rybak and Goodman; Charles H. Salter, Hennepin County Attorney's Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendants Opat and Stenglein.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and to Determine Attorneys' Lien [Doc. No. 78]; the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Mike Opat and Mark Stenglein [Doc. No. 84]; and the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants the Municipal Building Commission (“MBC”), R.T. Rybak, and Lisa Goodman [Doc. No. 89]. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs' motion is denied, the motion filed by Opat and Stenglein is granted, and the motion filed by the MBC, Rybak, and Goodman is granted in part, and denied in part.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Brian Kaibel, Daniel Dotse, Garfield Campbell, and Rick Iskierka are tenured security officers who worked in the Minneapolis City Hall–Courthouse building and were employed by the MBC until their discharge in March 2011. The MBC is charged with the care of the Hennepin County and Minneapolis City Hall–Courthouse buildings by virtue of Minn.Stat. § 383B.751 (the “MBC statute”). The MBC consists of four members who are individual Defendants in this action—Hennepin County Commissioners Mike Opat and Mark Stenglein, Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, and Minneapolis City Council Member Lisa Goodman.

The MBC statute provides certain protections to tenured MBC employees related to termination:

Persons employed by the municipal building commission on or before August 1, 1977, or thereafter, and having at least six months service, shall have tenure based on length of service.... No employee after six months continuous employment shall be removed or discharged except upon a majority vote of the members of the municipal building commission for cause, upon written charges and after an opportunity to be heard at a hearing conducted by the municipal building commission. The Minneapolis civil service rules relating to cause for removal shall govern. An employee removed for cause may appeal to district court, which decision shall be final.

Minn.Stat. § 383B.751 (2010).

In late 2009, at the request of the MBC, Minneapolis city employees provided a summary of the City's “baseline security needs for the City Hall/Courthouse facility.” ( See Letter of 12/16/09 from A. Thomas to M. Opat & Exec. Summ. at 1, Ex. 1 to Affidavit of Charles H. Salter [Doc. No. 87–1].) In prefatory remarks regarding the options for improving security, the authors of the report, Art Thomas, City of Minneapolis Security Manager, and Greg Goeke, Director of Property Services, noted certain perceived shortcomings of the security program in place at the time:

The key to an effective baseline security program is having a dedicated, properly-trained and educated security supervisor/manager to lead the program. It is the opinion of the City's staff that the current MBC Security and Custodial Manager does not posses [sic] the skill set needed for a successful program. The current security staff will continue to lack the proper training and professional direction needed to be successful at their jobs. This will leave both the City and the County at risk.

( Id. at 2.) The authors identified three alternative options for improving security services at the Minneapolis City Hall–Courthouse: (1) improving the security services then provided by the MBC; (2) utilizing the City's Security Management staff to develop and implement improved security; or (3) using Hennepin County's security staff. ( Id. at 2–3.) The report also contemplated the possible retention of existing MBC security staff. ( Id. at 3.) Noting that Hennepin County had recently transitioned the City's existing library staff in a similar shift in services to the county, the authors commented that “[s]imilarly, MBC could be transitioned into County employment if deemed to be in the best interest of the involved parties. The County's training program is exemplary and employees would have promotional opportunities.” ( Id.) Of the three options for security services, the authors of the report recommended the third option—using Hennepin County's security services. ( Id.) In December 2010, the MBC voted to approve the Hennepin County security services option. (12/16/10 MBC Meeting Minutes at 3, Ex. 3 to Salter Aff. [Doc. No. 87–3].)

Plaintiffs were advised by letter in February 2011 that they would be laid off from their respective MBC security positions effective March 12, 2011. ( See, e.g., Letter of 2/23/11 from J. Cervantes to B. Kaibel, Ex. 3 to Notice of Removal [Doc. No. 1–3].) The MBC advised Plaintiffs of their right to request a hearing pursuant to the Veterans' Preference Act, if applicable, if they believed that the change in their employment status was not made in good faith. ( Id.)

Plaintiff Kaibel apparently asked for a hearing before the MBC, but the MBC denied his request “[d]ue to the circumstances surrounding [his] layoff.” (Letter of 3/9/11 from J. Cervantes to B. Kaibel, Ex. 3 to Notice of Removal [Doc. No. 1–3].) The MBC advised Kaibel of his right under Minn.Stat. § 179A.25 to contest his layoff by presenting a grievance to the Commissioner of the Bureau of Mediation Services. ( Id.) Plaintiffs Dotse, Iskierka and Campbell likewise sought a hearing before the MBC, but were told that they were not entitled to such a hearing and could instead contact their union representatives in order to contest their layoffs. (Letters of 3/3/11 from J. Cervantes to D. Dotse, R. Iskierka, & G. Campbell, Ex. 3 to Notice of Removal [Doc. No. 1–3].)

In May 2011, Plaintiffs brought suit in Hennepin County District Court, alleging that under Minn.Stat. § 393D.751, Defendants were not permitted to remove Plaintiffs from employment without a majority vote of the MBC for cause, upon written charges, after having an opportunity to be heard at a hearing before the MBC. (Compl., Ex. 2 to Notice of Removal [Doc. No. 1–2].) Plaintiffs' action was filed as a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, alleging a violation of Minn.Stat. § 393D.751, for which Plaintiffs sought reinstatement, back pay, and attorneys' fees, and as a Complaint, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and certain provisions of Minnesota's Payment of Wages Act, under which Plaintiffs sought damages and attorneys' fees. ( Id.) Defendants removed the case to this Court shortly after it was filed. (Notice of Removal [Doc. No. 1].)

Following a hearing on the Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, the Court issued a ruling on November 2, 2011, concluding that, based on the MBC statute, Plaintiffs were entitled to the issuance of an alternative writ of mandamus. (Order of 11/2/11, 829 F.Supp.2d 779, 786 (D.Minn.2011).) The Court found that as tenured employees of the MBC, Plaintiffs were removed or discharged, not for cause, without written charges, and without a hearing, in violation of the Minn.Stat. § 383B.751. However, because Minnesota case law provided some discretion for the removal of public employees based on the elimination or abolishment of positions, the Court concluded that a valid excuse for nonperformance could be given. ( Id.) (emphasis in original). But because the Court found that the record was not well-developed as to whether Plaintiffs' positions had been legitimately eliminated, the Court presented Defendants with a choice. ( Id. at 787.) Defendants could either reinstate Plaintiffs and provide them back pay, or they could show cause at a full evidentiary hearing as to why Defendants had not complied with the MBC statute. ( Id.) The Court noted that its decision was based entirely on Plaintiffs' request for mandamus relief arising under the MBC statute, and did not address Plaintiffs' claims for relief arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or their statutory claims for unpaid wages arising under the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act. ( Id.)

In connection with its November 2 Order, the Court also issued an Alternative Writ of Mandamus [Doc. No. 54]. In the Writ, the Court noted that mandamus was the appropriate remedy to compel Plaintiffs' reinstatement to their former positions, and that pursuant to provisions in the Payment of Wages Act, Minn.Stat. § 181.101 and § 181.171, Plaintiffs were entitled to recover back wages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. (Writ ¶ 13 [Doc. No. 54].) If Defendants chose to reinstate Plaintiffs and to provide back pay and all other lost compensation from the date of their discharge to the date of their reinstatement, the Writ permitted Plaintiffs' counsel to file a fee petition. ( Id. at 4.)

On November 22, 2011, Defendants filed a Return to the Writ, indicating that they had chosen to reinstate Plaintiffs, providing them with no loss in their tenure and all applicable back pay and lost compensation. (Return to Writ at 2 [Doc. No. 55].) Defendants, however, expressed their opposition to any fee petition that Plaintiffs' counsel might file. ( Id.) Defendants promptly issued back pay checks to Plaintiffs, less applicable taxes and other withholdings, including an offset for unemployment benefits. ( See Letter of 11/18/11 from T. Skarda to J. Schermer, Ex. 11 to Aff. of Daniel W. Schemer...