642 F. App'x 380
5th Cir.2016Background
- Tracey L. Johnson and David James, Jr., Shelby, MS police officers, were terminated by the City of Shelby Board of Aldermen in 2009; they alleged termination was retaliation for refusing to ignore misconduct by Alderman Billings.
- City employees are governed by a 2003 Employee Information Handbook that explicitly states employment is at-will and disclaims any contract or employment security.
- The Police Department had Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs): a 2006 SOP and a 2008 SOP; the 2008 SOP included language that the chief’s recommendation was required for termination, but the Board rescinded the 2008 SOP at the same meeting it fired the officers.
- Johnson and James sued claiming deprivation of property without due process (Fourteenth Amendment) and a state-law malicious interference claim; the state-law claim is not before this appeal.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the City, holding the officers were at-will employees with no protected property interest; the Fifth Circuit affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the employee handbook was admissible/authenticated | Handbook was unauthenticated and should not be considered | Handbook is a City publication and thus self-authenticating | Admissible; district court did not abuse discretion in relying on it |
| Whether the 2006 or 2008 SOPs created a property interest | SOPs (and chief’s statements about 2008 SOP) established enforceable expectations of continued employment | SOPs are permissive, not binding, and do not override the handbook’s at-will disclaimer | Neither SOP created a property interest; language is too permissive and disclaimers control |
| Whether verbal statements by police chief created an implied contract/property interest | Chief’s statements to James created a mutually explicit, enforceable understanding | Verbal statements were not shown to create an enforceable implied contract under state law | Forfeited/enforceability not shown; statements did not create a property interest |
| Whether Mississippi law (McArn or statutory definitions) created a property interest | State law requires officers to enforce law and prevents discharge for refusing illegal acts, creating a property interest | McArn creates a tort remedy for refusal to commit illegality but does not create a contractual property right; statutory definition does not confer continued employment | McArn does not create a constitutionally protected property interest; statutory definition does not create an expectation of continued employment |
Key Cases Cited
- Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (property interest for due-process protection requires statute, contract, or mutually explicit understanding)
- Bobbitt v. Orchard, Ltd., 603 So. 2d 356 (Miss. 1992) (detailed employee manual without at-will disclaimer can create property interest)
- Hartle v. Packard Elec., 626 So. 2d 106 (Miss. 1993) (general handbook listing dischargeable offenses and at-will disclaimer does not create property interest)
- McArn v. Allied Bruce Terminix Co., 626 So. 2d 603 (Miss. 1993) (narrow tort exception to at-will doctrine for refusing to commit illegal acts)
- Johnson v. Sw. Miss. Reg'l Med. Ctr., 878 F.2d 856 (5th Cir. 1989) (mutually explicit understanding must be enforceable under state law to create property interest)