Murray v. City of Elizabeth

661 F.Supp.3d 786

Aubrey S. MURRAY, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ELIZABETHTON, TENNESSEE; Daniel Estes,in his individual capacity; and Barry Carrier, in his individual capacity, Defendants.

No.: 2:21-CV-123-TAV-CRW

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee

Filed March 15, 2023

Arthur F. Knight, III, Taylor & Knight, GP, Knoxville, TN, for Plaintiff.

K. Erickson Herrin, Hunter Storm Shepard, Herrin, Booze & McPeak, Johnson City, TN, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Thomas A. Varlan, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This civil matter is before the Court on defendant City of Elizabethton, Tennessee's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 25] and defendants Daniel Estes and Barry Carrier's Alternative Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment [Doc. 27]. Elizabethton moves the Court to dismiss plaintiff's First Amended Complaint [Doc. 24] under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted [Doc. 25, p. 1]. Estes and Carrier adopt Elizabethton's motion and move, in the alternative, for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 based on the defense of qualified immunity [Doc. 27; Doc. 28, p. 2].

The parties have filed their respective responses and replies to these motions [Docs. 36, 37, 40, 41]. The motions are therefore ripe. See E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.1(a), 7.2. For the reasons explained below, Elizabethton's motion [Doc. 25] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Estes and Carrier's motion [Doc. 27] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The parties' Joint Motion to Stay [Doc. 43], which requests the Court stay the case pending ruling on the motions, is accordingly DENIED as moot.

I. Background¹

Plaintiff was employed as Deputy Chief of Elizabethton's fire department for over two and a half years [Doc. 24 ¶ 7]. His employment with Elizabethton began in 1993, and he was consistently employed in various positions within the fire department until he was constructively discharged [Id.]. Plaintiff has a mentally disabled adult son named Austin Murray ("Austin"), who was employed as a janitor by Elizabethton's school system at Elizabethton High School [Id. ¶ 8]. Plaintiff is married to Amy Murray ("Amy") [Id. ¶ 9].

In early December 2020, plaintiff attended a meeting at the Carter County Health Department where various state and local officials met to discuss having a mass COVID-19 vaccination event for eligible individuals in Carter County, Tennessee [Id. ¶ 10]. During this meeting, it was decided that Elizabethton and Carter County agencies would submit lists of individuals eligible to receive the COVID-19 vaccine so that these individuals could receive their vaccinations during the mass vaccination event being planning in Carter County [Id. ¶ 11]. Two officials from the Tennessee Department of Health ("TDH") attended this meeting [Id. ¶ 12].

After the meeting concluded, plaintiff went outside and began talking with acquaintances, including one of the individuals who works for the TDH [Id. ¶ 13]. He asked this individual when school employees would likely be able to receive their vaccines. She responded that she did not know the date and then asked why plaintiff wanted to know this information. Plaintiff explained that his adult son was disabled and worked at one of the local schools [Id.]. After learning this information, the TDH representative told plaintiff that his son needed the COVID-19 vaccine and to add him to the Elizabethton fire department's list of people eligible to receive the vaccine at the upcoming mass vaccination event [Id. ¶ 14]. Plaintiff advised the representative that he could not and would not place his son on the fire department's list [Id. ¶ 15].

The now former Assistant Director of the Carter County Emergency Medical Services ("CCEMS") was also participating in the conversation [Id. ¶ 16]. This individual volunteered to place Austin on CCEMS's list of people eligible to receive the COVID-19 vaccination. Plaintiff did not ask this individual to do this, nor did he use his position to persuade the individual to add Austin to the agency's list [Id.].

Plaintiff's wife Amy has never been employed by the CCEMS, but she has volunteered for the agency for approximately four years [Id. ¶ 17]. Without plaintiff's knowledge, CCEMS added Amy to its list of people eligible to receive the COVID-19 vaccine at the upcoming mass vaccination event [Id. ¶ 18]. Plaintiff did not ask anyone to add his wife to the CCEMS list, nor did he use his position to persuade anyone associated with CCEMS to add his wife to the organization's list [Id. ¶ 19]. Amy received her vaccination at the mass vaccination event on December 22, 2020 [Id. ¶ 20]. Prior to receiving his COVID-19 vaccination, plaintiff's son received a message advising that Elizabethton's school system employees were eligible to receive their COVID-19 vaccinations [Id. ¶ 21]. After learning this information, Austin received his COVID-19 vaccination at the mass vaccination event on December 23, 2020 [Id. ¶ 22].

In late January or early February 2021, Fire Department Battalion Chief Andy Wetzel came into plaintiff's office with Fire Marshal Andy Hardin and told him that people were talking about his son and wife receiving their COVID-19 vaccinations [Id. ¶ 23]. They accused plaintiff of improperly using his position as Deputy Fire Chief to get his wife and son vaccinated. Upset by their accusations, plaintiff requested that Fire Chief Carrier be called [Id.].

Plaintiff explained to Carrier that he had never requested that Amy or Austin be added to any list for their COVID-19 vaccines [Id. ¶ 24]. He further explained that the now former Assistant Director of the CCEMS volunteered to add Austin to the CCEMS's list of people eligible to receive the vaccine and that Austin was eligible to receive the vaccine as an employee of Elizabethton's school system on December 23, 2020. In addition, plaintiff told Carrier that he had no knowledge that Amy had been placed on CCEMS's list. Plaintiff adamantly denied using his position to obtain COVID-19 vaccinations for either Amy or Austin [Id.]. Carrier told Wetzel that he would investigate the situation [Id. ¶ 25].

Approximately 10 days later, Carrier told plaintiff that a meeting had been scheduled at City Hall to discuss the vaccination issue [Id. ¶ 26]. Elizabethton's Human Resources Director Angie Lyons, Carrier, City Manager Estes, and plaintiff attended this meeting [Id.]. During the meeting, Lyons, Carrier, and Estes asked plaintiff how his wife and son had come to be vaccinated against COVID-19 [Id. ¶ 27]. Plaintiff explained that unbeknownst to him, CCEMS had placed his wife on its list of eligible individuals and his son was eligible to receive a vaccination because he was an employee of Elizabethton's school system. Plaintiff denied using his position to obtain their vaccinations [Id.].

About one week later, Carrier passed by plaintiff's desk and engaged plaintiff in conversation about the vaccination issue [Id. ¶ 28]. Plaintiff told Carrier that he could not understand why Carrier, Estes, and Lyons were upset with him when he had not done anything wrong. He also criticized defendants'² investigation into his alleged wrongdoings, given that defendants could simply confirm with CCEMS and/or Elizabethton's school system that Amy and Austin had been vaccinated with no input or influence from him [Id.].

On February 22, 2021, Carrier advised plaintiff that another meeting had been set for that day at City Hall [Id. ¶ 30]. Carrier, Estes, Lyons, and plaintiff attended this meeting [Id.]. When plaintiff arrived at the meeting, Estes asked him how things were going at the fire department, and plaintiff told him that things were going fine [Id. ¶ 31]. Estes then said, "No, they're not," and asked whether plaintiff had anything to tell him [Id.]. Plaintiff advised Estes that he did not have anything to tell him. Estes then began accusing plaintiff of blackmailing Carrier [Id. ¶ 32]. Plaintiff adamantly denied making the alleged threat or blackmailing Carrier [Id.].

Estes and Lyons then began having a discussion between themselves about retirement rates, referencing the "1.575 percent" and "the other way - one percent" [Id. ¶ 34]. As an employee of the fire department, plaintiff knew that he received 1.575 percent of his average annual salary for his five highest-paid years of employment toward retirement for every year that he worked for the fire department [Id. ¶ 35]. He also knew that employees who are terminated receive just one percent of their annual salary for their five highest-paid years of employment toward retirement for every year worked [Id.]. When Estes and Lyons began discussing the 1.575 percent retirement rate and "the other way - one percent," plaintiff realized they were discussing terminating him from the fire department [Id. ¶ 36]. Estes then told plaintiff that their offer to him was that he could work until April 22, 2021, and that he could then take vacation time and comp time until July 31, 2021, at which point he could retire [Id. ¶ 37]. Furthermore, Estes told plaintiff that he would no longer be allowed to work as Deputy Fire Chief during this time and that he would be demoted to Fire Marshal [Id.]. The position of Fire Marshal pays more than one thousand dollars per month less than Deputy Chief [Id. ¶ 38].

Because plaintiff heard Estes and Lyons discussing the 1.575 percent retirement rate and "the other way - one percent" rate, plaintiff knew that if he did not accept defendants' "offer," he would be terminated and would lose a substantial portion of his retirement benefits [Id. ¶ 39]. Plaintiff had not determined in February 2021 that he wanted to retire effective August 1, 2021 [Id. ¶ 40]. However, he was forced to do so or be immediately terminated and lose a significant amount of his retirement benefits [Id.]. In addition, had he not retired, plaintiff could have continued accruing money toward his retirement [Id. ¶...