Thoma v. City of Spokane Ex Rel. Washington
696 F. App'x 197
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Bradley Thoma, a former Spokane Police Department officer, was terminated by SPD; he sued the City of Spokane and former Chief Anne Kirkpatrick asserting contract, promissory estoppel, ADA, WLAD, retaliation, due process, wage-withholding, and vicarious liability claims.
- Thoma relied on a purported settlement agreement that expressly conditioned effectiveness on Spokane City Council approval and approval by the Washington State Human Rights Commission; neither approval occurred.
- Thoma asserted that his termination resulted from conditions of a deferred prosecution that interfered with his job performance and that the City discriminated/retaliated based on disability and opposition to unlawful practices.
- He also challenged the impartiality of the pretermination decisionmaker and sought discovery including a second deposition of Kirkpatrick; the district court limited discovery and entered a protective order.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims and denied a second deposition; Thoma appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of settlement agreement / breach of contract | Thoma: the parties formed an agreement that the City must honor | City: agreement was explicitly contingent on City Council and HRC approvals, which never occurred | Affirmed: agreement unenforceable because condition precedent unmet; no breach |
| Promissory estoppel based on settlement promise | Thoma: he reasonably relied on the promise to his detriment | City: promise was conditional; reliance was unreasonable where approval was required | Affirmed: promissory estoppel fails because promise was conditional and approval not granted |
| ADA / WLAD discrimination and retaliation | Thoma: termination was because of disability and/or protected opposition | City: termination resulted from deferred-prosecution condition that impeded job duties, not disability or protected activity | Affirmed: no genuine dispute that termination was due to condition, not disability or opposition |
| Procedural due process impartiality | Thoma: pretermination decisionmaker (Kirkpatrick) was biased, violating Loudermill | City: Thoma had required pretermination notice and opportunity; post-termination hearing available to cure any pretermination bias | Affirmed: procedural due process satisfied; alleged pretermination bias alone insufficient without challenge to post-termination proceeding |
| Wage-withholding for back wages (RCW 49.52.070) | Thoma: entitled to wage withholding based on alleged back wages from discrimination/due process damages | City: back wages awarded in retrospective discrimination relief are not "wages the employer was obligated to pay" under the statute; also underlying claims failed | Affirmed: statutory wage-withholding claim fails |
| Discovery — second deposition of Kirkpatrick | Thoma: newly produced documents justified a second deposition shortly after initial discovery responses | City: second deposition unnecessary and cumulative; court has discretion to deny leave | Affirmed: protective order proper; denial not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (pretermination notice and opportunity to be heard required by due process)
- Walker v. City of Berkeley, 951 F.2d 182 (9th Cir. 1991) (pretermination bias alone not dispositive if post-termination proceeding is impartial)
- Hemmings v. Tidyman’s Inc., 285 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2002) (retrospective discrimination back pay is not "wages the employer was obligated to pay" for wage-withholding statutes)
- Clipse v. Commercial Driver Servs., Inc., 358 P.3d 464 (Wash. Ct. App.) (wage-withholding interpretation regarding back wages)
- Lectus, Inc. v. Rainier Nat’l Bank, 647 P.2d 1001 (Wash. 1982) (reliance on a future conditional promise is unreasonable for promissory estoppel)
- Collings v. Longview Fibre Co., 63 F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 1995) (causation standard for ADA discrimination: "because of" requirement)
- Home Sav. Bank, F.S.B. v. Gillam, 952 F.2d 1152 (9th Cir. 1991) (standard of review for discovery rulings)