Johnson v. City of Murray, 909 F. Supp. 2d 1265

Plaintiff began as Animal Control Officer for Murray City in 1998 under the Police Department.
She signed a application disclaimer stating documents are not contracts of employment; the current handbook also contains a contract disclaimer.
2003 complaints about supervisor Cory Bowman alleged gender-based verbal abuse toward women; Lieutenant Skaggs briefly supervised and then left.
2008 complaint to Chief Burnett about Bowman’s verbal abuse and animal mistreatment; Bowman's demotion occurred in December 2008 after investigation.
2009–2010: Plaintiff sought modified schedules and no-contact accommodations; a night shift was created for her; she later filed an EEOC complaint alleging retaliation and disability discrimination.
In 2010 Murray City outsourced animal control to West Jordan, terminated Plaintiff, and West Jordan took over on September 1, 2010; surrounding events included media coverage and public backlash.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Title VII discrimination (gender) claim	Plaintiff argues gender-based discrimination occurred.	No evidence of gender-based rationale; shift changes and demotion were not gender-specific.	Discrimination claim dismissed; insufficient evidence of gender-based acts within Title VII time frame.
Title VII retaliation claim	Outsourcing and night shift were retaliatory for EEOC complaint.	Reasons were budget-driven and independent of Plaintiff’s protected activity.	Summary judgment granted for retaliation; actions were not pretextual for retaliation.
§1983 Equal Protection claim	City policy or custom caused gender discrimination or retaliation.	No policy or custom tied to gender; retaliation claims fall outside §1983 scope.	Claim dismissed; no municipal policy or custom established.
Procedural and Substantive Due Process	Outsourcing deprived her of property interest in employment without due process.	Hearing occurred; process adequate given the circumstances.	Substantive due process dismissed; procedural due process satisfied via hearing.
ADA/ADAAA claim	Known disabilities warranted accommodation; failure to accommodate.	Plaintiff not disabled under ADA/ADAAA; not substantially limited in major life activities.	ADA claim dismissed; Plaintiff not shown a qualifying disability.

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (landmark speech-rights framework for public employees)
National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (discrete acts/time-bar rules for Title VII hostile environment claims)
Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (U.S. 1987) (speech-based protections and balancing in First Amendment claims)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (employer liability and retaliation standards under Title VII)
Brmer-Hoelter v. Twin Peaks Charter Acad., 492 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2007) (pretext and employer-motivated action analysis in retaliation/Title VII)