Kando v. Rhode Island State Board of Elections
254 F. Supp. 3d 335
D.R.I.2017Background
- Robert Kando was Executive Director ("secretary") of the Rhode Island Board of Elections, an unclassified at-will position under state law.
- The Board terminated Kando before January 11, 2016; at a January 11 meeting the Board voted to "null and void" that prior termination and conditioned a future reevaluation on Kando enrolling in three semesters of management courses. No deadline was set at that meeting.
- The Board then (by letter/e-mail) imposed a January enrollment deadline Kando says was impossible to meet; he missed the deadline but later enrolled and began coursework.
- The Board suspended Kando for six weeks without pay for failing to timely enroll and later gave two days’ notice of a special meeting on August 31, 2016, where it voted to terminate him.
- Kando sued in federal court alleging: (1) § 1983 Due Process violation (property interest in employment); (2) Rhode Island Open Meetings Act violation; (3) Rhode Island constitutional due process violation; and (4) Rhode Island Whistleblower Protection Act violation. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kando had a property interest in continued employment triggering procedural due process | Kando says the Board's January 11 promise to review his status after coursework created an enforceable expectation/contract or an officially sanctioned practice | Board says Kando was an unclassified at-will employee; no statute, contract, or policy created a property interest | Court: No property interest; Kando remained at-will; § 1983 due process claim dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether an implied or unilateral contract arose from the January 11 agreement | Kando contends the Board's conditional offer (take courses → review/no adverse action until review) created a unilateral or implied contract | Board contends no mutual assent, impossible deadline, and Kando failed to satisfy the terms, so no contract formed | Court: No mutual agreement or completed performance; no contract creating property interest |
| Whether Board practice or policy created a legitimate expectation of continued employment | Kando argues an unofficial rule/practice of second chances could create expectation | Board denies any binding policy or established practice guaranteeing continued employment | Court: No rule or policy alleged or shown; no property interest from custom/practice |
| Whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissal of federal claim | Kando sought to keep all claims in federal court | Defendants asked dismissal of federal claim and likely remand of state claims | Court: Declined supplemental jurisdiction; state claims dismissed without prejudice (remand to state court appropriate) |
Key Cases Cited
- Concepcion Chaparro v. Ruiz-Hernandez, 607 F.3d 261 (1st Cir.) (procedural-due-process entitlement requires reasonable expectation of continued employment)
- Wojcik v. Mass. State Lottery Comm’n, 300 F.3d 92 (1st Cir.) (sources of legitimate expectation include statute, contract, or workplace rule)
- Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1972) (property interest in employment arises from existing rules, contracts, or mutually explicit understandings)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (procedural protections for public employees who have a property interest)
- Lynch v. Gontarz, 386 A.2d 184 (R.I.) (unclassified state employees serve at the pleasure of appointing authority)
- Galloway v. Roger Williams Univ., 777 A.2d 148 (R.I.) (at-will employees lack contractual right to continued employment)
- Salisbury v. Stone, 518 A.2d 1355 (R.I.) (unclassified employees cannot claim a property interest requiring due process)