Bales v. City of Fort Smith
2016 Ark. App. 491
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Appellants (Bales, Entmeier, Sampson) sued the City of Fort Smith and Police Chief Lindsey under the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act (AWBA) after disciplinary actions following internal reports and support for a probationary officer (Addisen).
- Addisen reported alleged overtime abuse; he was terminated during probation. Bales and Entmeier publicly supported Addisen and met with Chief Lindsey, prompting an investigation. Sampson reported alleged misuse of overtime and harassment by a sergeant.
- Disciplinary actions followed: Bales received multi-day suspensions and a memo; Entmeier received a one-day suspension; Sampson received a formal reprimand. Other internal grievances and investigations (e.g., involving dispatcher Angela McCabe) contributed to sanctions.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing all adverse actions resulted from misconduct or poor performance (affirmative defense under Ark. Code Ann. § 21-1-604(e)). The circuit court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- On appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals reviewed whether defendants established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment and whether appellants met proof with proof; the court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on AWBA claims | Appellants: affirmative defense cannot resolve at summary judgment without factfinder; evidence supports retaliation | Defendants: offered affidavits showing discipline was for misconduct/poor performance unrelated to protected reports | Court: Defendants established prima facie entitlement; then plaintiffs had to meet proof with proof; some claims survived, others did not |
| Whether causation is always a question of fact | Appellants: causation is for the jury; factual disputes preclude summary judgment | Defendants: evidence shows nondiscriminatory reasons; no causal link as a matter of law | Court: Causation is usually factual but can be decided as law if reasonable minds could not differ; here causation disputed for Bales and Entmeier (remanded), but not shown for Sampson (affirmed) |
| Whether appellants’ communications qualified as protected whistle-blowing | Bales/Entmeier: reports re Addisen’s termination and overtime misuse are protected; Sampson: overtime report and harassment report are protected | Defendants: harassment/bullying not within AWBA; overtime was legitimate staffing—no waste | Court: Harassment/bullying not protected; Sampson’s overtime report could be a good-faith whistle-blowing issue of fact; Bales/Entmeier communications could be protected |
| Whether incomplete discovery precluded summary judgment | Appellants: discovery responses were inadequate, so summary judgment was premature | Defendants: court allowed ample discovery; no further relief warranted | Court: No abuse of discretion; discovery denial proper as to Sampson; moot for Bales/Entmeier because their claims remanded (court may permit additional discovery there) |
Key Cases Cited
- New Maumelle Harbor v. Rochelle, 338 Ark. 43 (1999) (movant bears burden to sustain summary-judgment motion)
- Bomar v. Moser, 369 Ark. 123 (2007) (once movant makes prima facie showing, nonmovant must meet proof with proof)
- Meadors v. Still, 344 Ark. 307 (2001) (summary-judgment evidence viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Thomas v. Stewart, 347 Ark. 33 (2001) (evaluate whether reasonable minds could differ on the facts)
- Wirth v. Reynolds Metal Co., 58 Ark. App. 161 (1997) (proximate cause requires more than allegations)
- Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Twin City Bank, 320 Ark. 231 (1995) (movant must establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment)
- Lancaster v. Red Robin Int’l, Inc., 386 S.W.3d 662 (Ark. App. 2011) (appellate review of discovery rulings for abuse of discretion)
- First Nat’l Bank v. Newport Hosp. & Clinic, Inc., 281 Ark. 332 (1984) (plaintiff entitled to adequate discovery before being required to produce evidence in response to summary-judgment motion)
- Barrows v. City of Fort Smith, 360 S.W.3d 117 (Ark. 2010) (discussing summary-judgment procedure in employment contexts)