Ribeau v. Katt
681 F.3d 1190
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Ribeau, employed by USD 290 in Ottawa, KS since 1984 as maintenance mechanic with upward duties; terminations discussed by supervisor Smith and superintendent Katt on Feb 27, 2008.
- Board approval of Ribeau’s termination occurred after initial discussions, with Board final approval in March 2008; Ribeau believed grievance rights were moot.
- Ribeau signed 23 separate at-will employment agreements stating termination can occur by either party at any time for any reason.
- Handbook provided suspension, termination, and grievance provisions; Board had authority to terminate classified employees but not a pre-termination Board hearing.
- Handbook language: Board may terminate at any time, with or without cause; grievance process did not create a pre-termination Board hearing.
- District court granted summary judgment finding no property interest in continued employment; Rule 59(e) denial followed; appeal contested only the pre-termination hearing entitlement
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-termination Board hearing entitlement under Kansas law | Ribeau claimed implied contract right to a pre-termination Board hearing | Express contract plus Handbook do not create such entitlement | No pre-termination hearing entitlement under state law |
| Constitutional status of any such entitlement as a property interest | If exists, entitlement is a due process property interest | No state-law entitlement; no protected property interest | Not reached (no entitlement under Kansas law) |
Key Cases Cited
- Dickens v. Snodgrass, Dunlap & Co., 872 P.2d 252 (Kan. 1994) (implied-contract theory not used when express contract governs)
- Havens v. Safeway Stores, 678 P.2d 625 (Kan. 1984) (unambiguous written contract; parol evidence not admitted to vary terms)
- Allsup v. Mount Carmel Med. Ctr., 922 P.2d 1097 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996) (implied contract in absence of express contract; policy not applicable here)
- Stover v. Superior Indus. Int’l, Inc., 29 P.3d 967 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000) (recognizes distinction between express and implied contracts)
- Town of Castle Rock, Colo. v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) (tests entitlement to a property interest; federal standard)
- Dickens v. Snodgrass, Dunlap & Co., 872 P.2d 252 (Kan. 1994) (see above)
- Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1982) (property interest requires entitlement)
- Jones v. Reliable Sec. Inc., 28 P.3d 1051 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001) (due process considerations; avoid ambiguities)