Jason O'Neal v. County of Tulare
1:16-cv-01027
E.D. Cal.Oct 25, 2017Background
- Jason O’Neal was a Tulare County Deputy assigned to the jail’s gang intelligence unit since 2009 and was subject to departmental rules prohibiting personal relationships with inmates/former inmates and other confidentiality/fraternization restrictions.
- Investigation began after an inmate debriefing revealed a personal relationship between O’Neal and former inmate Ashley H.; Ashley confirmed contacts, money transfers, visits, and communications.
- O’Neal was placed on administrative leave, interviewed with counsel present, and investigated by Internal Affairs; four captains and the assistant sheriff recommended termination.
- O’Neal received a Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action, was given the investigative materials, had a Skelly (pre-disciplinary) hearing with counsel, and was served with a Final Notice of Dismissal; he did not dispute the underlying facts.
- Termination was for violating policies by associating with a known drug user/gang affiliate, giving her money, handling/intercepting her mail, accessing inmate records improperly, and meeting her at his home.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process — was adequate pre-termination process provided? | O’Neal contends he had a property interest and was denied adequate process. | County contends O’Neal received notice, evidence, counsel, and a pre-disciplinary hearing. | Court: Process was adequate (notice, explanation of evidence, opportunity to respond); procedural due process claim fails. |
| Substantive due process — wrongful deprivation by arbitrary government action? | O’Neal says termination violated rights to privacy and freedom of association. | County says termination was based on admitted violation of clear departmental rules tied to public safety. | Court: Conduct not constitutionally protected; termination not arbitrary or conscience-shocking; substantive due process claim fails. |
| Section 1983 adverse-employment framework — was protected conduct a motivating factor and would same action occur absent it? | O’Neal argued his associational/privacy rights were implicated. | County: Employment action based on policy violations unrelated to protected conduct. | Court: O’Neal’s conduct not protected; §1983 claim fails as a matter of law. |
| Equal protection / retaliation — was he treated differently for prior complaints? | O’Neal alleges disparate treatment in retaliation for past complaints about employees. | County argued the equal protection/retaliation claim is nonviable and was not defended in opposition. | Court: Claim not viable; O’Neal did not contest defendants’ arguments and summary judgment on equal protection stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (recognition of required pre-deprivation notice, explanation of evidence, and opportunity to respond)
- Board of County Comm’rs v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668 (adverse government employment action test for protected conduct)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (substantive due process requires conduct that shocks the conscience)
- Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard for substantive due process and conscience-shocking conduct)
- Lebbos v. Judges of Superior Ct., 883 F.2d 810 (9th Cir. 1989) (substantive due process requires actions arbitrary and unrelated to public welfare)
- Keyser v. Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist., 265 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2001) (three-part adverse employment analysis under § 1983)