Terry Draper v. City of Festus, Missouri
782 F.3d 948
8th Cir.2015Background
- Terry Draper was Festus, Missouri City Administrator under a three-year contract (Oct 2010) providing six months’ severance unless terminated for cause (misfeasance, malfeasance, or gross dereliction).
- After councilman Timothy Montgomery (a critic of Draper) was elected, Draper was suspended and then terminated; he requested a public post-termination hearing scheduled for June 27, 2011 at 1:00 p.m.
- Draper’s counsel asked twice to continue the hearing to 4:00 p.m.; the City refused. Draper and his attorney did not attend; the hearing proceeded with sworn testimony, exhibits, a record, and a written decision affirming termination.
- Hearing testimony alleged (1) manipulation of an engineer-selection evaluation to favor a particular firm, (2) unauthorized emergency heating repairs (~$50,000) and windows purchase (>$2,000) without required bidding/approval, (3) a memo prematurely ending a bonus program, and (4) an improper reimbursement request.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the City on Draper’s § 1983 procedural- and substantive-due-process claims, § 1983 conspiracy claim, breach of contract claim, and upheld the City Council’s MAPA-contested-case decision; this panel affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process: denial of continuance to reschedule post-termination hearing | Draper: denial of counsel’s continuance request deprived him of required post-termination process | City: Draper had notice, a hearing occurred with opportunity to be heard; Draper waived claim by failing to attend | Held: No deprivation — Draper had adequate post-termination review and waived claim by nonattendance |
| Substantive due process: conduct "shocks the conscience" | Draper: denial of continuance and the Council’s conduct were conscience-shocking | City: denial was not truly irrational or conscience-shocking | Held: Not conscience-shocking; no substantive-due-process violation |
| § 1983 conspiracy | Draper: council conspired to deprive rights | City: no underlying constitutional violation | Held: Dismissed — conspiracy claim fails without underlying due-process violation |
| Breach of contract (just cause termination) | Draper: termination breached his employment contract | City: evidence showed misfeasance/malfeasance supporting just cause | Held: There was at least misfeasance (unauthorized memo and purchases); termination for cause valid — no breach |
| MAPA review: contested vs. noncontested; substantial evidence/arbitrary or capricious | Draper: this was not a contested case and/or decision lacked substantial evidence and was arbitrary | City: hearing met contested-case formalities and decision was supported by evidence | Held: It was a contested case (notice, sworn testimony, record, written findings); decision supported by competent, substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious |
Key Cases Cited
- Jetton v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 121 F.3d 423 (8th Cir. 1997) (summary-judgment standard and viewing facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Young v. City of St. Charles, Mo., 244 F.3d 623 (8th Cir. 2001) (public-employee due-process requires notice, opportunity to respond pre-termination, and post-termination review)
- Krentz v. Robertson Fire Prot. Dist., 228 F.3d 897 (8th Cir. 2000) (plaintiff waives procedural due-process claim by refusing available post-termination procedures)
- Weiler v. Purkett, 137 F.3d 1047 (8th Cir. 1998) (substantive due process requires government action that is truly irrational or conscience-shocking)
- Askew v. Millerd, 191 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 1999) (§ 1983 conspiracy requires deprivation of constitutional right)
- Keveney v. Mo. Military Acad., 304 S.W.3d 98 (Mo. 2010) (elements of breach-of-contract action under Missouri law)
- City of Valley Park v. Armstrong, 273 S.W.3d 504 (Mo. 2009) (classification of contested vs. noncontested administrative cases depends on hearing requirement)
- Furlong Cos. v. City of Kan. City, 189 S.W.3d 157 (Mo. 2006) (contested cases require formal hearing, sworn testimony, cross-examination, and written findings)
- Lagud v. Kan. City Bd. of Police Comm’rs, 136 S.W.3d 786 (Mo. 2004) (competent and substantial-evidence standard; rare cases where agency decision is contrary to overwhelming weight of evidence)