Metcalf Wins Major Lawsuit Issues

U.S. District Judge Terence Kern for the Northern District of Oklahoma issued a ruling this week in the long awaited lawsuit of Gary Metcalf vs the City of Grove, Bill Galletly, Debbie Mavity, Randy Jobe, David Adzigian, David Helms and Carolyn Nuckolls.

The defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in part, and denied in part, in the stunning 37 page ruling issued Tuesday.

Denied in Docket 29 were the defendants' motion for Summary Judgment with respect to Metcalf's constitutional claim (violation of the 14th Amendment); denied with respect to the qualified immunity of Galletly; denied with respect to the qualified immunity of the City Council defendants, denied with respect to Metcalf's claim for slander, and granted with respect to the qualified immunity of Mavity, and granted with respect to Metcalf's claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and tortuous interference with business relations (TIBR).

The Judge also denied the plaintiff's motion for a partial summary judgment in docket 31.
He also ordered Metcalf to file an amended complaint by Thursday, March 9 asserting only the three state law claims described in his original complaint. Both parties were ordered to submit additional arguments and authority in their jury instructions or trial briefs, on the issues of the third element of the constitutional claim (foreclosure of future employment opportunities) and the common-law slander claim (publicity).

Basically, the city and council members lost because they failed to grant a name clearing hearing for Metcalf after his firing. Only Mavity came out unscathed.
"The Court has found that Metcalf has created a question of fact as to whether the conduct of Galletly and the City violated Metcalf's constitutional rights. Metcalf has therefore sufficiently asserted violation of a constitutional right," according to the ruling.
"The general right to a name clearing hearing where a public employee's reputation or good name is at stake has been entrenched in US Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit case law for over 20 years and is therefore clearly established," said the Judge in his ruling.

Metcalf was the city's Director of Emergency Management and was fired by Galletly on June 18, 2004. Later that day Metcalf requested a "Board of Inquiry" hearing in response to his termination, according to court documents. The city did not respond to this letter and did not provide Metcalf with a name-clearing hearing; nor did the city council defendants, according to the court documents.

On March 2, 2005 Metcalf filed a lawsuit against the defendants for depriving him of his "right to Liberty without Due Process of law by terminating him based upon public statements of unfounded charges of dishonesty and immorality that have seriously damaged his standing and associations in the community and foreclosed his freedom to take advantage of future employment opportunities."

Metcalf requested "actual and punitive damages and any other legal or equitable relief deemed appropriate by the Court, including reinstatement to his former employment and a Court-ordered notice from the defendants advising the public that the charges made against him were false."
He now works as the Delaware County Director of Emergency Management.

In the court document, "Metcalf does not deny that pornography was found on his computer but denies only that he intentionally viewed or accessed the pornography on his computer…Defendants argument ignores the principle that the Court must be concerned with whether a 'defamatory impression' was created," said the Court.

Metcalf claimed in his deposition that another employee in the past had access to his computer and that if he did view any improper sites it was unintentional and as a result of unwanted "pop-ups."
The Court made a distinction in the newspaper articles in the use of the words "found on his computer" rather than the words "accessed by Metcalf" or "viewed by Metcalf."
The Court rejected Metcalf's argument that he is entitled to summary judgment on the element of "falsity" merely by raising a challenge to the truthfulness.

"A substantial question of fact exists as to whether Defendants created and disseminated the defamatory impression," said the Court. However, the Court concluded that Metcalf's evidence is "sufficient to reach a jury on the issue of whether Defendants in effect 'created and disseminated' the defamatory impression at issue."

With respect to the City Council at that time, it was argued that the Plaintiff "has not shown that they had authority to provide the name-clearing hearing that would have rectified the alleged violation."

Oklahoma Law, the Court said, expressly prohibits a city council from participating in any manner in the appointment or removal of officers and employees of the city, except as provided by law, or appointing or removing city employees except through the city manager.
However, Metcalf asked each council member for a name-clearing hearing, by letters sent to council members' homes, according to the Court. The Court ruled that the "City Council Defendants had fair notice that their conduct in failing to provide the requested hearing was in violation of the law." It ruled that their failure was "administrative rather than legislative in nature."

With respect to Mavity, the Court said "there is no evidence in the record that she, as the Assistant City Manager, had any authority whatsoever to cure the alleged constitutional violation by providing a hearing." The only evidence is "that she was present in the room when the termination decision was made."

The case will obviously continue with further judicial rulings or even jury trials of the defendants. Calls to Gary Metcalf and Galletly were not returned by press time Thursday.

It sends a clear message to city officials--always have legal counsel present; always consider the constitutional rights of individuals; and afford people the right to a fair hearing.