Lichte v. City of Woodburn
6:14-cv-01521
| D. Or. | Jan 12, 2017Background
- Three Woodburn police officers (Lichte, Bowers, Kelly) allege long‑running retaliation after reporting misconduct by colleagues (notably Sgt. John Mikkola and Capt. Jason Alexander), including multiple IA investigations, adverse assignments, suspensions/demotions, and ultimately terminations of Lichte and Kelly.
- Initial complaints arose in 2009 (sexualized/unsafe conduct and off‑duty misconduct); internal investigations followed with disputed procedures and perceived bias; several alleged retaliatory actions continued into the 2012–2014 period (Brady inquiry, planted drug paraphernalia, hostile work environment complaints).
- Mikkola was placed on administrative leave in November 2011 and medically retired in 2014; plaintiffs sued in September 2014 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Oregon whistleblower statutes.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; court granted summary judgment to Mikkola (statute‑of‑limitations/absence of state action after 2011) and dismissed John Doe defendants; denied summary judgment on First Amendment retaliation and procedural due process claims against the City and individual defendants; dismissed several other federal claims and some state claims.
- Bowers may proceed on Oregon whistleblower claim (Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.203); Lichte's and Kelly's state claims dismissed as moot because requested injunctive relief is unavailable to them post‑termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / liability of Mikkola | Mikkola continued to influence department and engaged in ongoing retaliation; continuing‑violations tolls limitations | Mikkola was on administrative leave after Nov 2011 and lacked state‑action/decisionmaking authority during the limitations period | Granted summary judgment for Mikkola — plaintiffs’ evidence insufficient to show state action after Nov 2011; continuing‑violations doctrine inapplicable |
| First Amendment retaliation (speech) | Plaintiffs reported misconduct (public concern) and were retaliated against via IA investigations, demotions, Brady designation, and terminations | Actions were legitimate discipline and unrelated to protected speech; some events not pleaded or outside discovery | Plaintiffs’ speech claims survive summary judgment against City and individual defendants; factual disputes (causation, continuity) for jury; terminations considered despite not pleaded because defendants had notice; qualified immunity denied |
| Procedural due process | Plaintiffs argue biased, sham IA process denied meaningful hearing on property interest in employment | Defendants point to multi‑step disciplinary procedures providing due process | Procedural due process claims survive summary judgment — jury could find biased decisionmakers and lack of meaningful process; qualified immunity denied |
| Oregon whistleblower claims (Bowers) | Bowers says his confrontation re: victim interview and threat to involve DOJ was protected disclosure leading to retaliation (suspension/demotion) | City argues some statutes don’t apply to public employers and that certain claims are untimely or lack causal link to protected acts | Bowers may proceed on Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.203 (timely, causal link); § 659A.199 and § 659A.230 dismissed as a matter of law or for insufficient evidence; injunctive relief requests largely denied or limited |
Key Cases Cited
- Sain v. City of Bend, 309 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir.) (Oregon two‑year limitations period applies to § 1983 claims)
- National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (Supreme Court) (continuing violations doctrine for hostile‑environment claims)
- Johnson v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 658 F.3d 954 (9th Cir.) (five‑step test for public‑employee First Amendment retaliation)
- Eng v. Cooley, 552 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir.) (public concern and public‑employee speech analysis)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (Supreme Court) (standard for materially adverse action in retaliation context)
- Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir.) (§ 1983 liability requires personal involvement)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (Supreme Court) (qualified immunity framework)
- Ashcroft v. al‑Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (Supreme Court) (scope of qualified immunity protections)
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court) (municipal liability requires official policy or longstanding custom)