Truman v. Jackson

Kimberly Truman, Plaintiff, v. Jackson, City of, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 13-13446

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

September 30, 2016

Hon. Denise Page Hood

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. # 31 AND DOC. # 32)

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Kimberly Truman ("Truman") is suing Defendants City of Jackson (the "City"), Jackson Housing Commission ("JHC"), Jackson Housing Commission Board of Directors ("JHC Board"), former Mayor Martin J. Griffin ("Mayor Griffin"), and JHC Board members James Starks, Gerald Montgomery, and Michelle L Pultz-Orthaus ("JHC Board Members") (collectively, "Defendants"). Truman alleges violations of her First Amendment rights, along with violations of the Michigan Whistleblower Protection Act ("WPA") and Michigan public policy. Defendants filed Motions for Summary Judgment. The Motions for Summary Judgment are fully briefed and GRANTED.

II. BACKGROUND

Truman worked for JHC in various positions between 1987 and June 2013. On March 20, 2013, Truman became the Interim Executive Director for the JHC. On February 13, 2013, prior to Truman obtaining her Interim Executive position, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") placed the JHC on a "zero threshold" status for release of operating and capital program funds in HUD's Line of Credit Control System. (Doc. 32-3). The "zero threshold" status was the result of the Detroit Field Office's ("DFO") concern that the JHC failed to follow HUD's rules, regulations, and procurement policies when securing services such as payroll processing and health care coverage for its employees. Id. The "zero threshold" status required the JHC to submit supporting documentation that would be reviewed by HUD in order for the JHC's funding request to be available for drawdown. In addition, the JHC would have to submit all contracts to HUD for review and approval before the JHC could execute the contract. (Doc. 32-3 at 5). The DFO also noted a conflict of interest existed between the JHC and the City because the City Manager, Patrick Burtch, and City council member, Derek Dobies, were currently serving on the JHC Board. (Doc. 32-3 at 4).

On March 15, 2013, City officials and HUD representatives had a meeting. Truman did not attend this meeting, but Defendant Michelle L. Pultz-Orthaus ("Pultz-Orthaus") did, although at this point she was not yet a member of the JHC Board. After the meeting, Nakisha Paul, who worked for the DFO, allegedly informed Truman that City officials and HUD representatives had discussed the conflict of interests resulting from Burtch's and Dobies' participation on the JHC Board and other pertinent issues. (Doc. # 31-3 at 5). As noted above, Truman was named Interim Executive Director of the JHC five days later.

On April 19, 2013, Truman wrote a letter to HUD Secretary Shaun Donavan (the "Donavan Letter"). In the letter, Truman noted the conflict of interest that existed on the JHC Board as result of Dobies' and Burtch's positions, Mayor Griffin's violation of the "Annual Contribution Contract," and the seeming lack of solutions from the City and JHC Board to other problems. Truman voiced that citizens were concerned about their housing. She also noted that DFO officials gave directives to City officials as to what City officials could and could not do. For instance, Truman stated that officials were informed that they: (a) must hire an Executive Director soon, (b) could not restrict the JHC from seeking legal counsel, or (c) hold the JHC under any restricted terms. (Doc. # 31-7 at 3).

In May 2013, then-Mayor Griffin appointed James Stark ("Stark") and Pultz-Orthaus to the JHC Board as replacements for Dobies and Burtch.

Truman's tenure as Interim Executive Director of the JHC was brief, and it is readily apparent that Truman and the JHC Board were not working cohesively. For instance, Truman and the JHC did not agree on the JHC Board's ability to obtain legal representation. As a result of the JHC's efforts to separate healthcare services from the City, the City obtained a temporary restraining order banning the JHC from seeking its own healthcare services. (Doc. # 38-13). Truman asked the JHC Board for permission to seek legal counsel to defend against the restraining order. (Doc. # 38-12). Pultz-Orthaus informed Truman that her request violated the Open Meetings Act. (Doc. # 38-14). HUD was copied on the entire email exchange. After seeing Pultz-Orthaus' response, HUD official Nakisha Paul essentially reprimanded the JHC Board by stating:

The fact that the interim ED has to make such as (sic) request is quite disturbing to me. Is there a reason that the Interim Executive Director does not have the authority to seek legal representation and guidance to defend against (sic) lawsuit. . . If the Board has denied the Housing Commission the ability to defend itself against legal action, not only is the Board working against the best interest of the Commission but each Board member is opening themselves up to legal ramifications.

(Doc. # 38-14 at 2). This is just one example of how Truman and the JHC Board did not work together or discuss ways in which to solve problems.

Another example of the disarray resulting from the lack of communication between Truman and the JHC Board was reflected in the events surrounding the choice of a healthcare plan for employees. On May 15, 2013, Truman and the JHC Board had a meeting during which Truman informed the JHC Board that it needed to approve a healthcare plan for JHC employees or else the employees would lose healthcare coverage. (Doc. 32-2 at 43-45). At the meeting, Truman did not provide background information regarding the healthcare plan. Id. at 44; (Doc. 31-5 at 4-5). Truman's failure to provide background information allegedly violated procurement procedures. (Doc. 32-11). Truman admits that, at the time she presented the information to the JHC Board, she was under the impression the JHC Board had to act quickly and approve the healthcare plan Truman presented at the May 15, 2013 meeting or employees would lose coverage. (Doc. 32-2 at 41-42). The JHC Board approved the healthcare plan Truman presented. (Doc. 31-5). Soon afterwards, Pultz-Orthaus conducted a cost analysis and determined that Truman's plan was more expensive than a plan that Pultz-Orthaus proposed. (Doc. 32-11). The Board eventually voted to switch healthcare providers because the new plan wasallegedly cheaper and provided coverage to former employees who lived outside the state of Michigan. (Doc. 31 at 16 - 17); (Doc. 31-6).

On June 6, 2013, the Board held a special meeting. (Doc. 38-19). The Board voted 3-1 to terminate Truman's employment. Those in favor of terminating Truman's employment were Pultz-Orthaus, Stark, and Montgomery. (Doc. 31 at 16-17). The three Board members cited the following reasons for her termination: (1) Truman's alleged condescending attitude and disrespectful behavior (by treating the Board as if it worked for her); (2) Truman allegedly misled the Board regarding the urgency of voting on and adopting a health care plan; and (3) Truman did not provide more information regarding the healthcare plan. Id.

On August 12, 2013, Truman filed suit against the City, Mayor Griffin, Pultz-Orthaus, Stark, and Montgomery, JHC, and the JHC Board. Truman alleges: (1) a violation of her First Amendment right to free speech pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) a violation of the WPA, M.C.L. § 15.361 et al; and (3) that her wrongful termination violates Michigan public policy. Truman bases her claims on the Donavan Letter and her correspondence with HUD. (Doc. 1).

Mayor Griffin and the City filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. # 32). Pultz-Orthaus, Stark, and Gerald Montgomery ("Montgomery"), JHC, and the JHC Board (the "JHC Defendants") filed a separate motion for summary judgement. (Doc. # 31).

All Defendants contend that Truman's First Amendment Claim should be dismissed because Truman did not engage in any protected speech, and she cannotestablish a prima facie case of retaliation. Furthermore, they contend there were legitimate reasons to fire Truman.

All Defendants argue that Truman's WPA claim fails because Truman's speech was not protected under the WPA. In addition, Mayor Griffin and the City specifically argue that Truman was not a city employee and therefore she cannot sustain the WPA claim against the City. They also argue that Truman's contact with HUD did not inform HUD of anything it did not already know.

The JHC Defendants argue that Truman's WPA claim fails because she cannot sustain a prima facie case and did not report any information to a public body.

All Defendants argue that Truman's public policy claim is preempted by the WPA.

Many of the Defendants also argue they should be dismissed from the suit for various reasons. The City and Mayor Griffin argue that they had nothing to do with Truman's termination and that they are immune from suit. The JHC Board argues it is not a legal entity and naming it is redundant of naming JHC, such that the JHC Board should be dismissed. Individual Defendants Pultz-Orthaus, Stark, and Montgomery contend that they should be dismissed because there is an absence of a genuine issue of material fact with respect to Truman's claims against them.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A court should grant summary judgment if "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250-57(1986). A fact is material if it could affect the outcome of the case based on the governing substantive law. Id. at 248. A dispute about a material fact is genuine if on review of the evidence, a reasonable jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party. Id.

The moving party bears the initial burden to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact....