Entmeier v. City of Fort Smith
2016 Ark. App. 517
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Entmeier, a civilian employee hired by the Fort Smith Police Department in 2010, transferred from Communications (Dispatch) to Meter Enforcement in 2011 and later applied to be a sworn officer in 2012.
- In May 2011 Entmeier gave a 29‑page interview in an internal investigation alleging overtime abuse by dispatcher Emily Haney; Captain Alan Haney (Emily’s husband) later accessed those investigatory files without authorization.
- Entmeier was accepted as a probationary officer in July 2012; his year‑long training included field training Nov 2012–Mar 2013, then assignment to Troop 3 under Captain Haney in March 2013.
- From March–June 2013 supervisors documented numerous performance problems (poor legal knowledge, navigation, citation errors, officer‑safety lapses); Entmeier was terminated July 5, 2013 during his probationary period.
- Entmeier sued under the Arkansas Whistle‑Blower Act claiming retaliation for his 2011 interview; defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting termination was for poor job performance. No discovery was conducted by Entmeier before the motion; the circuit court granted summary judgment and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was premature because Entmeier lacked discovery | Entmeier: motion was premature and blocked necessary discovery | City: motion filed ~18 months after suit; documents were provided and Entmeier had not pursued discovery | Court: no abuse of discretion — motion not premature; denial of extra time affirmed |
| Whether Entmeier presented sufficient evidence to meet-proof-with-proof against summary judgment | Entmeier: his interview and circumstantial evidence show retaliatory motive and that Captain Haney accessed investigatory files | City: produced affidavits, training notes, and deposition evidence showing repeated performance failures and affirmative defense of poor job performance | Court: Entmeier failed to meet proof with proof; relied on speculation/innuendo; summary judgment proper |
| Whether appellees met their burden to establish an affirmative defense under the Whistle‑Blower Act | N/A (appellees) | Appellees: termination was due to misconduct/poor performance, an affirmative statutory defense | Court: appellees established defense as matter of law; plaintiff did not raise a genuine factual dispute |
| Whether doubts/inferences were resolved correctly at summary judgment | Entmeier: court shifted burden and failed to construe doubts in his favor | Appellees: evidence required plaintiff to produce specific contradictory proof | Court: no improper burden shift; doubts/inferences resolved against moving party as appropriate and plaintiff did not rebut evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- First National Bank v. Newport Hospital & Clinic, 281 Ark. 332 (1984) (summary judgment should not be granted where discovery "clearly pertinent" remains and plaintiff exercised diligence)
- Gallas v. Alexander, 371 Ark. 106 (2007) (summary judgment proper only if no genuine issue of material fact exists)
- Quarles v. Courtyard Gardens Health & Rehab., LLC, 2016 Ark. 112 (2016) (on summary‑judgment review, resolve doubts and inferences against the moving party)
- Wirth v. Reynolds Metals Co., 58 Ark. App. 161 (1997) (opposing party must "meet proof with proof" and not rest on mere allegations)