Iles v. De Jongh
55 V.I. 1251
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Governor de Jongh terminated Gerard and Iles from the Virgin Islands government in January 2007 without notice or a hearing.
- In 2004, Iles and Gerard were transferred to exempt positions (Permits Coordinator, Assistant Director) in the Division of Coastal Zone Management and signed exempt-status letters.
- Virgin Islands law divides employees into career service and exempt service; exempt requires designation by the Governor and submission to the Legislature.
- Career service has regular vs non-regular employees; regular employees gain a property interest in continued employment and due process protections.
- District Court granted preliminary injunction reinstating both employees and awarding back pay; Governor appeals the injunction.
- Court reverses, finding neither Gerard nor Iles qualified as exempt or regular under VI law, and vacates the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Gerard and Iles have a property interest in public employment? | Gerard/Iles are deprived of property without due process. | They were not exempt or regular under VI law; no property interest. | No property interest; not exempt or regular. |
| Were Gerard and Iles in exempt positions under §451a(b)(8)? | Positions designated as exempt by Governor and submitted to Legislature. | Designations were submitted; positions were exempt. | No designation/submission shown; not exempt. |
| Did the 2010 amendment to §530 apply retroactively to Gerard and Iles? | Amendment expands regular-employee definition, supporting due process. | Amendment should apply retroactively to protect reliance on old law. | Amendment not retroactive; apply pre-amendment definition. |
| Did the district court err in awarding back pay under §1983? | Back pay is a legitimate injunctive remedy for deprivation of due process. | Back pay is retrospective damages not actionable against territorial officials under §1983. | Back pay improper; only prospective relief allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez-Sanes v. Turnbull, 318 F.3d 483 (3d Cir. 2003) (two-tier VI exemption and career service framework)
- Richardson v. Felix, 856 F.2d 505 (3d Cir. 1988) (regular employee defined by merit-based appointment)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1994) (two-step retroactivity analysis for post-enactment statutes)
- Biliski v. Red Clay Consol. School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 574 F.3d 214 (3d Cir. 2009) (due process notice and pretermination procedures)
- McTernan v. City of York, 577 F.3d 521 (3d Cir. 2009) (test for preliminary injunction factors)