Craw v. City of Lincoln
24 Neb. Ct. App. 788
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Craw was hired as the PGA Professional at Holmes Golf Course; his last engagement was to expire/ be renewable on April 30, 2012, but his last day was October 30, 2011. He alleges misclassification as an independent contractor and wrongful termination.
- Craw submitted a PSTCA claim to the City of Lincoln, which was denied; he then sued asserting (1) PSTCA tort claim, (2) constitutional inverse condemnation, (3) statutory inverse condemnation under § 76-705, (4) due process and equal protection violations, and (5) Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act claim.
- The county court transferred the case to district court. The City moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; the district court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice.
- The district court held: (a) no jurisdiction over the statutory inverse condemnation claim (county court is proper forum for § 76-705); (b) the PSTCA claim was really contract-based (not tort) and barred as a PSTCA tort; (c) inverse condemnation (constitutional and statutory) inapplicable to loss of a job; (d) Craw failed to plead a protected property interest for due process; and (e) Craw failed to plead required § 15-840 compliance for his Wage Payment Act claim.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the PSTCA tort claim and both inverse condemnation claims, reversed dismissal of the due process/equal protection claim (giving Craw leave to proceed), and reversed only the dismissal-with-prejudice of the Wage Payment Act claim to permit amendment to plead procedural compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Craw's Argument | City of Lincoln's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory inverse condemnation (§ 76-705) properly brought in district court | Craw treated loss of his position as property damage recoverable under § 76-705 | § 76-705 claims must be filed in county court; job is not the kind of property protected by inverse condemnation | Dismissed: statutory inverse condemnation belongs in county court and job loss is not compensable by inverse condemnation (affirmed) |
| Whether the PSTCA tort claim pleads a tort (vs. contract) and is cognizable under PSTCA | Craw alleges duties of fair treatment and negligent misclassification, seeks tort damages (pain, emotional distress) | Allegations show an "engagement" that sounds contractual; PSTCA excludes contract interference and contract-based claims | Dismissed: claim is contractual in nature/not a PSTCA tort; PSTCA does not cover interference with contract rights (affirmed) |
| Whether Craw pled a protected property interest for due process and an equal protection claim | Craw alleges public employment/misclassification and unfair termination; seeks procedural and substantive due process and equal protection relief | Craw failed to allege the nature of the engagement or any legitimate entitlement to continued employment | Reversed: amended complaint gives fair notice of due process and equal protection claims; factual development may show a property interest (remanded) |
| Whether Craw stated a Wage Payment and Collection Act claim and complied with § 15-840 municipal claim prerequisites | Craw contends he filed timely PSTCA claim and alleges underpayment from misclassification | PSTCA filing is not a substitute for § 15-840 claim presentation; Craw did not plead § 15-840 compliance | Reversed in part: dismissal with prejudice was error; Craw may amend to plead compliance with municipal claim procedures before pursuing Wage Act claim (remanded) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacob v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., 294 Neb. 735 (standard for de novo review of motion to dismiss)
- Tryon v. City of North Platte, 295 Neb. 706 (notice-pleading standard; plausibility and discovery expectations)
- Pittman v. Chicago Bd. of Educ., 64 F.3d 1098 (job/tenure treated as property for due process but not broadly within takings clause)
- Tracy v. City of Deshler, 253 Neb. 170 (permit/conditional business does not create vested property right for takings claim)
- Employers Reins. Corp. v. Santee Pub. Sch. Dist. No. C-5, 231 Neb. 744 (breach of contract is not a tort under PSTCA)