By Kate Acheson
In Hanford Exec. Mgmt. Employees Ass’n v. City of Hanford the court held that an employee Association could pursue its claims that its members faced unlawful discrimination in retaliation for a Vote of No Confidence against the City Manager. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California has ruled that an Association’s retaliation claim stated a potential basis for finding several constitutional violations and rejected the City’s efforts to dismiss the lawsuit for “failure to state a claim.”
In Hanford, not long after several EMEA members signed a Vote of No Confidence against the City Manager, the City attempted to amend the Rules and Regulations (R&R) applying to employees. The proposed amendments would change employee status from permanent to at-will, revise layoff procedures, remove employee’s disciplinary appeal rights, revise salary step procedures to allow denial of previously-automatic salary increases, and decrease employer’s contribution toward retirement. The City at no time provided EMEA with justification or explanation of just cause for their actions, as required by the R&R.
The City at no time permitted EMEA to call sworn witnesses to defend against the City’s actions, also required by the R&R.
The Court rejected the City’s request for dismissing, noting:
- EMEA’s claim of retaliation for the vote of no confidence gave facial plausibility to the freedom of speech, association, and collective activity claim.
- The city’s failure to follow their R&R gave facial plausibility to EMEA’s substantive due process claim.
- Changing the employment status of some individual from “permanent” to “at will” arguably violated their property rights and gave rise to a valid procedural due process claim.
