Craw v. City of Lincoln
24 Neb. Ct. App. 788
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- John Craw was engaged as the PGA Professional at Holmes Golf Course; his last day was alleged to be October 30, 2011, and his engagement was set to expire or be renewable April 30, 2012.
- Craw filed administrative claims under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA) and later sued the City of Lincoln in county, then district, court asserting five causes of action: (1) PSTCA tort claim, (2) constitutional inverse condemnation, (3) statutory inverse condemnation under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-705, (4) violations of due process and equal protection, and (5) Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act claim.
- The City moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The district court dismissed Craw’s amended complaint with prejudice, finding: the statutory inverse condemnation claim belonged in county court; the tort/PSTCA claim was really contractual and not a PSTCA tort; inverse condemnation inapplicable to a job; Crawford failed to plead a protected property interest for due process; and Craw had not shown procedural compliance for his wage claim under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 15-840.
- Craw appealed. The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo, applying Nebraska’s notice-pleading standard (liberal pleading rules) and the plausibility standard for motions to dismiss.
- The appellate court: affirmed dismissal with prejudice of (1) the PSTCA tort claim (as effectively a contract/contract-interference issue excluded by PSTCA) and (2) both inverse condemnation claims (a job is not compensable as a taking); reversed dismissal of the due process/equal protection claim (gave fair notice and may proceed); and reversed only the dismissal-with-prejudice of the wage claim to allow Craw an opportunity to amend to plead statutory compliance with § 15-840 (otherwise the court affirmed the need to satisfy those procedural prerequisites).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Craw stated a PSTCA tort claim vs. contract claim | Craw: alleged misclassification, negligent conduct, and tort damages; filed a PSTCA claim | City: allegations are contractual (an "engagement"); PSTCA covers only certain torts and excludes interference with contract rights | Held: Dismiss affirmed — pleading shows a contract/contract-related dispute, not a PSTCA tort; PSTCA excludes interference-with-contract claims |
| Whether employment termination constituted inverse condemnation (constitutional and statutory) | Craw: alleged City damaged property rights (his job) and deprived use, invoking takings/inverse condemnation remedies | City: job/contractual interests are not the kind of vested property for takings; inverse condemnation is for land/vested property | Held: Dismiss affirmed — a job/contract is not the kind of property compensable under inverse condemnation |
| Whether Craw sufficiently pleaded due process and equal protection claims (property interest in employment) | Craw: alleged public employment, misclassification, and procedural/substantive due process and discriminatory treatment; facts may be developed in discovery | City: insufficient factual allegations to show a protected property interest or plausibly plead the claims | Held: Dismiss reversed — under Nebraska notice pleading, Craw gave fair notice; plausible that discovery could establish a property interest and disparate treatment |
| Whether Craw pleaded prerequisites for a Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act claim against a primary-class city (§ 15-840) | Craw: asserted timely filing under PSTCA and alleged misclassification led to unpaid wages | City: Craw did not plead compliance with § 15-840 claim-filing requirements and thus cannot maintain the wage claim | Held: Partial reversal — district court correct that § 15-840 compliance is required and PSTCA filing does not substitute, but dismissal with prejudice was error; Craw must be allowed to amend to plead compliance and employee status |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacob v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., 294 Neb. 735 (standard for de novo review of dismissal) (discussing accepting allegations as true and drawing inferences for nonmoving party)
- Tryon v. City of North Platte, 295 Neb. 706 (notice pleading and plausibility standard; discovery may reveal facts when plaintiff cannot allege them yet)
- Employers Reins. Corp. v. Santee Pub. Sch. Dist. No. C-5, 231 Neb. 744 (breach of contract is not a tort claim under PSTCA)
- Pittman v. Chicago Bd. of Educ., 64 F.3d 1098 (job tenure may be property for due process but not for takings clause purposes)
- Leach v. Texas Tech Univ., 335 S.W.3d 386 (takings clause does not cover contractual disputes over withheld contract compensation)
- Tracy v. City of Deshler, 253 Neb. 170 (permits and conditional privileges do not create a vested property right for takings)
- Johnston v. Panhandle Co-op Assn., 225 Neb. 732 (to have property interest in employment, one must have a legitimate claim of entitlement)
- Hickey v. Civil Serv. Comm. of Douglas Cty., 274 Neb. 554 (due process protections attach when public employer deprives employee of a property interest in continued employment)