 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Todd v. Kelley3/10/2000
y recognized and given effect to the principle that a municipal official does not have final policymaking authority over a particular subject matter when that official's decisions are subject to meaningful administrative review." Scala v. City of Winter Park, 116 F.3d 1396, 1401 (11th Cir. 1997) (holding that the power of a city's civil service board to reverse a termination decision by the city manager and public-safety director provided a discharged employee with the opportunity for "meaningful administrative review"). In our judgment, the fact that Todd's dismissal was subject to review by an arbitration panel does not negate the conclusion that the mayor had the "final policymaking authority" over the matter of Todd's termination. The ability to seek arbitration- panel review -- when the panel's decision is "advisory only" and can be accepted, rejected or modified as the mayor and council "see fit" -- does not, we conclude, constitute "meaningful administrative review." Compare Morro v. City of Birmingham, 117 F.3d 508, 514 (11th Cir. 1997) (stating that a city personnel board's reversal of a police officer's suspension by the chief of police "demonstrates that the Personnel Board is not merely a rubber stamp for the Chief"); Manor Healthcare Corp. v. Lomelo, 929 F.2d 633 (11th Cir. 1991) (holding that a mayor did not have final policymaking authority over zoning decisions when the city counsel could override the mayor's veto of zoning ordinances); Vincent v. City of Talladega, 980 F. Supp. 410, 411 (N.D. Ala. 1997) (stating that a city personnel board's reversal of a firefighter's suspension proved that the "personnel board was not a `rubber stamp' for the City").
III. The City's Liability for the State-law Tort Claim
Section 11-47-190, Ala. Code 1975, provides for an action against a municipality for the "neglect, carelessness, or unskillfulness" of its agents, not for their intentional torts. See Couch v. City of Sheffield, 708 So. 2d 144, 154 (Ala. 1998). Todd's state-law wrongful-discharge claim alleged that the defendants had "maliciously, willfully, and wantonly" caused him to be terminated from his employment. The acts as alleged in his complaint were purely intentional; there were no facts supporting a negligence theory of recovery. Accordingly, the trial court correctly entered the summary judgment on this claim.
IV. The First Amendment Claim
Todd contends that he presented substantial evidence indicating that he was discharged in retaliation for reporting misconduct by Mayor Kelley and Sgt. Fields, and therefore that his discharge was in violation of his right to free speech.
In Roberts v. Joiner, supra, the Alabama Supreme Court stated the following principles governing First Amendment claims such as Todd's:
"`It is clear that a state may not discharge an employee on a basis that infringes that employee's constitutionally protected interest in freedom of speech.' Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 383 (1987). The threshold question in determining whether an adverse employment decision violates the right to freedom of speech is whether the speech at issue may be fairly characterized as speech on a public concern. Id. at 384. If it is, the court must balance the interests of the employee as a citizen in commenting upon public concern with the interest of the state, as employer , in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees. Id.
"Whether speech is protected is an issue of law, reviewable de novo on appeal. Id. at 385-86. If it is determined as a matter of law that the speech is protected, the plaintiff must prove that the speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the ch
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|