Bryan W. Massman v. City of Prescott
938 N.W.2d 602
Wis. Ct. App.2019Background
- The City of Prescott employed Bryan Massman (hired Oct. 17, 2016) and Ryan Most (hired June 1, 2016) as police officers under a collective bargaining Labor Agreement.
- The Agreement established an 18‑month probationary period for new hires and stated probationary employees "may be discharged without recourse to the grievance procedure."
- After the police chief took leave, the Police Commission appointed Robert Funk interim chief and directed him to handle personnel issues; Funk terminated Massman and Most for "ongoing job performance issues."
- The officers initially filed grievances; the City replied that, because they were probationary, they had no right to a statement of reasons, a hearing, or access to the Agreement's grievance/arbitration procedures.
- Massman and Most sued seeking certiorari relief and reinstatement; the circuit court granted summary judgment to the City, concluding the Agreement unambiguously allowed at‑will termination during the probationary period and that statutory limits did not convert the hires into "for cause" positions.
- On appeal the court affirmed: probationary status under the contract precluded contractual and statutory "just cause" protections and deprived the officers of a protected property interest warranting due process protections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Agreement's "just cause" (Art. 9.02) applies during the 18‑month probationary period | Massman/Most: Agreement covers all employees; "probationary period" only bars grievance access, not just‑cause protection | City: Agreement expressly makes new hires probationary and excludes them from grievance/arbitration, so just cause doesn't apply | Held: Just‑cause protections do not apply to employees still serving the contract's probationary period; the Agreement is read as a whole and unambiguously limits grievance/discipline rights for probationary hires |
| Whether probationary officers are entitled to constitutional procedural due process (notice/hearing) | Massman/Most: Employment terms evince an expectation of continued employment; thus due process applies | City: Probationary hires have only unilateral expectation; no property interest | Held: Probationary officers lack a legitimate property interest in continued employment; no procedural due process protections attach (Kaiser rule) |
| Whether Wis. Stat. § 165.85(4)(a)3. caps municipal probationary employment at one year, entitling Most to § 62.13(5) protections after one year | Most: § 165.85(4)(a)3 limits a recruit's probation to 12 months, so his >1 year service triggers statutory just‑cause protections under § 62.13(5) | City: § 165.85(4)(a)3 governs when a recruit may exercise law‑enforcement powers without certification, not the length of contractual probation | Held: § 165.85(4)(a)3 limits the uncertified recruit's authority to exercise law enforcement powers, not the length of a municipal contractual probation; Kaiser/Kraus bar § 62.13(5) protection for initial probationary hires |
| Whether certiorari or summary‑judgment standard governs review and whether certiorari relief is available | Massman/Most: Case should be treated as certiorari review of municipal action | City: No reviewable municipal decision; case disposed by summary judgment | Held: Because probationary status precludes certiorari review of termination, summary judgment standard applies; the City was entitled to judgment as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaiser v. Board of Police & Fire Comm'rs of Wauwatosa, 104 Wis. 2d 498 (1981) (probationary officers have no constitutional or statutory right to statement of reasons or hearing on nonretention)
- Antisdel v. City of Oak Creek Police & Fire Comm'n, 234 Wis. 2d 154 (2000) (promotion‑probation result: just‑cause hearing available where charges concerned pre‑promotion misconduct and agreement did not classify the promotion as new‑hire probation)
- Kraus v. City of Waukesha Police & Fire Comm'n, 261 Wis. 2d 485 (2003) (statutory just‑cause procedures are not available when an officer fails a probationary promotion based on performance)
- City of Madison v. DWD, 262 Wis. 2d 652 (2003) (definition of "just cause" in disciplinary context requires reasonable rule, adequate investigation, and fair, objective determination)