Rooney v. City of Cut Bank
2012 MT 149
Mont.2012Background
- Rooney, a long-time Cut Bank police captain, was terminated after witnesses said he appeared to sleep on duty.
- The Mayor terminated Rooney after Chief Abbott investigated and considered Rooney’s disciplinary history.
- Rooney appealed to the Police Commission; the Commission held an evidentiary hearing and found substantial evidence of neglect of duty.
- Rooney presented evidence about vehicle exhaust issues and possible exhaust exposure, and the Police Commission considered it but still upheld termination.
- Rooney then sued for wrongful discharge under the WDEA in district court; the City sought dismissal on res judicata/issue preclusion grounds and for statutory exemption defenses.
- The district court denied the WDEA claim’s dismissal; after trial, it found Rooney’s discharge not wrongful under the WDEA. The City cross-appealed on preclusion grounds, which the Montana Supreme Court addressed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the WDEA claim is barred by issue preclusion | Rooney argues no preclusion because the WDEA claim was distinct from the Police Commission appeal. | City contends the Police Commission decision and judicial affirmation preclude Rooney’s WDEA claim. | Issue preclusion applied; WDEA claim dismissed. |
| Whether the WDEA claim is exempt from coverage because of an alternate statutory remedy | Rooney contends WDEA relief is not exclusive to police commission remedies. | City asserts § 39-2-912 provides a statutory remedy that exempts the WDEA claim. | Exemption not controlling; preclusion applies. |
| Whether the Police Commission proceedings foreclose relitigation of Rooney's termination issue | Rooney claims the Commission did not resolve WDEA issues independently. | City relies on Commission ruling as the final word on just cause and substantial evidence. | Yes; Commission decision precludes subsequent WDEA litigation on the same issue. |
| Whether Rooney was afforded full and fair adjudication in the Police Commission proceeding | Rooney contends he should have been allowed additional theories and evidence not presented before the Commission. | City argues Rooney had full rights to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. | Rooney was afforded full and fair adjudication; preclusion applies. |
| Whether the Court may affirm on any proper basis | Rooney requests reversal based on WDEA analysis. | City argues the preclusion basis supports dismissal irrespective of WDEA merits. | District court’s judgment affirmed on preclusion grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ritchie v. Town of Ennis, 320 Mont. 94, 86 P.3d 11 (2004 MT 43) (police officers gain WDEA protections after probation)
- Hobbs v. City of Thompson Falls, 303 Mont. 140, 15 P.3d 418 (2000 MT 336) (good cause and WDEA applicability to officer terminations)
- Parini v. Missoula County High Sch. Dist., 284 Mont. 14, 944 P.2d 199 (1997) (preclusion applies when administrative decision affirmed)
- Rafanelli v. Dale, 292 Mont. 277, 971 P.2d 371 (1998 MT 331) (preclusion extends to essential issues decided earlier)
- McDaniel v. State, 350 Mont. 422, 208 P.3d 817 (2009 MT 159) (four-element test for issue/preclusion)
- Wolny v. City of Bozeman, 306 Mont. 137, 30 P.3d 1085 (2001 MT 166) (standard of review for judicial review of police decisions)