580 F. App'x 288
6th Cir.2014Background
- In July 2004 Chief Judge Linda Davis fired three Clinton Township 41B District Court employees (Barachkov, Englar, Diehl). They sued Davis (individual and official capacities) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of their Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights for termination without pretermination notice or hearing.
- Clinton Township’s Judge Cannon purportedly followed a just-cause practice (progressive discipline, notice) and circulated a Disciplinary Action Procedure (DAP) in the 1990s, but much of this policy was unwritten and its dissemination was disputed.
- In early 2004 Davis participated in a merger feasibility study and repeatedly requested Clinton Township personnel policies; she received no written policies or employment contracts and concluded employees were at-will.
- The State Court Administrator’s Office (SCAO) conducted interviews; SCAO representative Deborah Green reported the Employees lied in interviews. Davis then terminated the Employees without prior notice or hearing in July 2004.
- A jury found for the Employees and awarded compensatory and punitive damages (~$2.28M). On appeal, the Sixth Circuit considered (1) whether Employees had a protected property interest in continued employment and (2) whether Davis was entitled to qualified immunity; it also addressed whether 41B waived Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Employees have a property interest (just-cause) in continued employment? | Cannon’s long‑standing practice and circulation of the DAP created a legitimate expectation of just-cause employment. | Policy was undocumented and not communicated to the workforce generally; employment presumptively at-will. | Jury reasonably could find a legitimate-expectation property interest; constitutional violation established because no pre-termination process was provided. |
| Was Davis entitled to qualified immunity for monetary damages? | If Employees had a property interest, right to pre-termination process was clearly established; absence of hearing defeats immunity. | A reasonable official in Davis’s position could conclude Employees were at-will based on the feasibility study and Cannon’s failure to produce written policies; therefore she is entitled to qualified immunity. | Davis entitled to qualified immunity: based on facts known to her (no written policy received, inquiries made), it was objectively reasonable to conclude employees were at-will; damages vacated. |
| Did 41B (the court) waive Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity by litigation conduct? | 41B’s late invocation of immunity and active participation in merits could constitute a waiver. | 41B raised immunity in its answer/amended defenses and raised it again in summary-judgment reply before the court ruled on the merits. | 41B did not clearly waive sovereign immunity; the district court’s dismissal of 41B stands. |
| Remedy on remand: Are Employees entitled to equitable relief against Davis in her official capacity? | Employees sought prospective equitable relief notwithstanding qualified immunity for damages. | Davis’s qualified-immunity defense does not bar official-capacity equitable relief; trial court must consider relief. | Case remanded for district court to consider Employees’ entitlement to equitable relief (damages vacated). |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (due process requires pretermination notice/hearing for property interests)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (qualified-immunity framework and reasonableness inquiry)
- Pucci v. Nineteenth Dist. Court, 628 F.3d 752 (6th Cir. 2010) (if property interest exists, right to some pretermination process is clearly established)
- Silberstein v. City of Dayton, 440 F.3d 306 (6th Cir. 2006) (objective‑reasonableness inquiry for qualified immunity in procedural‑due‑process context)
- Miller v. Admin. Office of the Courts, 448 F.3d 887 (6th Cir. 2006) (precautionary measures and reasonableness in failure-to-provide-hearing claims)
- Barachkov v. 41B Dist. Court, [citation="311 F. App'x 863"] (6th Cir. 2009) (prior panel opinion identifying disputed facts about Cannon’s termination policy)
- Farhat v. Jopke, 370 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2004) (just-cause employment is a cognizable property interest)
- Singfield v. Akron Metro. Hous. Auth., 389 F.3d 555 (6th Cir. 2004) (state law defines property interests and legitimate-expectation test)
- Lytle v. Malady, 579 N.W.2d 906 (Mich. 1998) (Michigan two-step legitimate‑expectation analysis)
- Lapides v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga., 535 U.S. 613 (U.S. 2002) (state sovereign-immunity waiver by litigation conduct)
- Ku v. Tennessee, 322 F.3d 431 (6th Cir. 2003) (extensive merits litigation can preclude later assertion of sovereign immunity)