Lampman v. Ternus

AMY LAMPMAN, AMY LUTGEN, JACKIE THOMPSON SCHAFFNER,

JESSICA SAVITS, KIMBERLY KURTH, JODI VANDERHEIDEN,

and SUSAN HANAN, Plaintiffs,

v.MARSHA K. TERNUS, DAVID K. BOYD, LINDA A. NILGES, SCOTT S.

HAND, LEESA A. MCNEIL, KENT v. WIRTH, ELIZABETH J. BALDWIN,

CARROLL EDMONDSON, HOWARD THOMAS, and DEBORAH M. DICE,

all in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.

No. C10-3025-MWB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION

Date: February 6, 2012

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND

ORDER REGARDING THE

PARTIES' CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

A. Procedural Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

B. Factual Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

A. Summary Judgment Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

B. Due Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1. Property interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172. Reorganization exception . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

III. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Many euphemisms have been coined for "(permanent) layoff", including "downsizing", "excess reduction", "rightsizing", "delayering", "smartsizing", "redeployment", "workforce reduction", "workforce optimization", "simplification", "force shaping", "recussion", and "reduction in force" (also called "RIF", especially in the government employment sector).¹

The business of state government is an increasingly difficult one in these times of economic hardships. This litigation requires me to determine whether plaintiff court reporters have a federally protected constitutional "due process" property interest in continued employment with the state? If so, were they laid off or their hours permanently reduced as part of a legitimate governmental reorganization? If these layoffs were legitimate does the judicially created doctrine "reorganization exception" strip the plaintiffs of their federally protected constitutional entitlement to pre termination notice and hearing?

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

On December 7, 2010, plaintiffs, court reporters who are or were employed by the State of Iowa, filed an Amended Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that they were terminated or had their hours reduced in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. On December 21, 2010, defendants, the former Chief Justice of the Iowa Supreme Court, the Iowa State Court Administrator, and the Court Administrators for each of the eight Iowa judicial districts, filed their Answer to the Amended Complaint. Defendants filed an Amended Answer on June 28, 2011.

On December 16, 2011, defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 42). Defendants make three arguments in their motion. First, defendants contend that plaintiffs have failed to make out a due process claim because the relevant Iowa statutes do not create a legitimate claim of entitlement to continued employment. Second, defendants alternatively argue that, assuming arguendo that Iowa law creates a property interest in plaintiffs' employment, plaintiffs were not entitled to pre-termination notice and an opportunity to be heard under the "reorganization exception" to the general rule that requires due process prior to a public employee's termination. Third, defendants alternatively argue they are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages on plaintiffs' due process claims.

On December 30, 2011, plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion for Summary Judgment on January 3, 2012 (Docket no. 51). In contrast to defendants' motion, plaintiffs contend that summary judgment should be granted in their favor. They argue that they were entitled to due process, including notice and an opportunity to be heard, prior to employment termination orreduction in hours. Plaintiffs further argue that defendants failed to provide them with such notice and opportunity to be heard prior to terminating their employment or reducing their employment hours, violating their right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

On January 9, 2012, plaintiffs filed their resistance to defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In their resistance, plaintiffs argue the relevant Iowa statutes create a legitimate claim of entitlement to continued employment entitling them to due process. Plaintiffs also contend that the "reorganization exception" is inapplicable here because the only the Iowa legislature had the authority to extinguish their property interest in their jobs. Finally, plaintiffs argue defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages on plaintiffs' Due Process claims because it was clear that the relevant Iowa statutes gave plaintiffs a property interest in their jobs. In addition, plaintiffs argue that, even if qualified immunity did apply, qualified immunity would only protect the defendants in their individual liability and would not bar plaintiffs' claim for reinstatement. On January 17, 2012, defendants filed their reply brief in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment on February 3, 2012.

B. Factual Background

I set forth those facts, both undisputed and disputed, sufficient to put in context the parties' arguments concerning the cross-motions for summary judgment. Unless otherwise indicated, the facts recited here are undisputed, at least for purposes of summary judgment. Additional factual allegations and the extent to which they are or are not disputed or material will be discussed, if necessary, in my legal analysis.

Plaintiffs Amy Lampman, Amy Lutgen, Jackie Thompson Schaffner, Jessica Savits, Kimberly Kurth, Jodi Vanderheiden, and Susan Hanan were all appointed by a district associate judge with the approval of a chief judge and a state court administrator and prior authorization by the Iowa Supreme Court in accordance with Iowa Code §§ 602.602.1402, and 602.6603(2). There are no jobs for the State of Iowa entitled "District Associate Court Reporter" or "District Court Reporter." The pay scale for court reporters is the same whether they work for a district judge, a district associate judge, or a juvenile judge. The qualifications for all court reporters is the same.

On April 23, 1990, District Associate Judge John R. Sladek appointed Kurth to work as a court reporter in Iowa's Sixth Judicial District. Kurth's personnel file was destroyed by a flood in 2008. Following Judge Sladek's retirement in 1995, his successor, District Associate Judge Stephen C. Gerrard II, appointed Kurth to continue work as a court reporter in Iowa's Sixth Judicial District. In December 2004, District Associate Judge Sylvia A. Lewis appointed Kurth to continue her work as a court reporter. Kurth worked full time as a court reporter for the State of Iowa from April 1990 until December 11, 2009.

On September 15, 1992, District Judge Harlan Bainter appointed Hanan to work as a court reporter in Iowa's Eighth Judicial District. In 1993, District Associate Judge Gary R. Noneman appointed Hanan to work as a court reporter in the Eighth Judicial District.

On September 22, 1995, Vanderheiden was hired by the State of Iowa to work as a roving court reporter in Iowa's Second Judicial District. On June 13, 1997, District Associate Judge Frederick Breen appointed Vanderheiden as his court reporter in the Second Judicial District. On June 13, 2006, Vanderheiden's appointment was rescinded by operation of law due to Judge Breen's retirement. On October 1, 2007, DistrictAssociate Judge Susan Larsen Christensen appointed Vanderheiden to work as a court reporter in Iowa's Fourth Judicial District. Vanderheiden worked full time as a court reporter for Judge Christensen.

In September 1997, Associate Juvenile Judge Alan D. Allbee appointed Lutgen to work as a court reporter in Iowa's First Judicial District. In September 1999, Associate Juvenile Judge James McGlynn appointed Lutgen to work as a court reporter in Iowa's Second Judicial District.

On September 4, 1998, District Judge Gerald W. Magee appointed Lampman to work as a court reporter in Iowa's Second Judicial District. Judge Magee viewed Lampman as a hard worker and a dedicated state employee. On October 1, 2008, District Associate Judge Gregg Rosenbladt appointed Lampman to work as a court reporter in Iowa's Second Judicial District. Judge Rosenbladt's order states in pertinent part: "This Order is effective immediately and is to continue until terminated by subsequent order or by operation of law, and the compensation shall be at the rate as provided by law." Order and Oath at 1, Plaintiffs' Am. App. at 107. On October 29, 1999, District Associate Judge Kim M. Riley appointed Lampamn to work as a court reporter in Iowa's Second Judicial District.

On July 14, 2006, District Associate Judge Kurt J. Stoebe appointed Schaffner to work as a court reporter for Iowa's Second Judicial District. Judge Stoebe's order states in pertinent part: "This order is effective immediately and is to continue until terminated by subsequent order or by operation of law, and the compensation shall be at the rate as provided by law." Order and Oath at 1, Plaintiffs' Am. App. at 106.

Defendant Marsha Ternus was, at all times relevant, the Chief Justice of the Iowa Supreme Court. Defendant David K. Boyd is the Iowa State Court Administrator.Defendant Scott S. Hand is the District Court Administrator for the Second Judicial District and defendant Kent V. Wirth occupies the same position with the Fourth Judicial District. Defendant Carroll Edmondson is the District Court Administrator for the Sixth Judicial District while defendant Deborah M. Dice is the Eighth Judicial District's Court Administrator. Hand, Wirth, Edmondson, and Dice were all appointed in accordance with Iowa Code § 602.1214.

In 2009, Iowa's judicial...