SUSAN J. DLOTT, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Amended Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services ("HCJFS"), Moira Weir, Cheryl Keller, Christopher Biersack, Dennis Deters, Chris Monzel, Todd Portune, and Denise Driehaus.
This case arises from Plaintiff's discipline and eventual termination from employment after she testified in a hearing regarding custody of her granddaughter, N.
Plaintiff's adult son, C., became the father of a baby girl named N. in 2015. After her birth, N.'s mother, S., and N. moved in with Plaintiff; C. lives just a few doors down from Plaintiff. C. suffers from schizoaffective disorder, paranoia, mania and depression, and Plaintiff was his sole provider to assist him with day-to-day activities. He receives mental health treatment from Greater Cincinnati Behavioral Health Center ("GCBHC") and has been hospitalized multiple times for acute mental health issues in the past. (Doc. 51-3 at PageID 1704.)
C. has a juvenile criminal history, including 2010 and 2013 domestic violence incidents against Plaintiff, resulting in her calling the police because she was unable to control his violent outbursts. In addition, other incidents have been documented, although not prosecuted, which involve violence towards S., N.'s mother, since C. has become an adult.
In early December 2015, Neal Connor of GCBH called in a referral to HCJFS due to his concerns with C. possibly having unsupervised contact with N. (Doc. 51-4, Ex. 3 at PageID 1707, 1751; Doc. 51-6, Ex. 7 at PageID 1819-20.) On December 11, 2015, Plaintiff and S. filed an Affidavit of Mental Illness with the Hamilton County Probate Court to have C. hospitalized. In this Affidavit, Plaintiff and S. asserted that C. represented a substantial risk of harm to himself and others. On December 15, 2015, the Probate Court found that C. suffered from mental illness and ordered him probated to Summit Behavior Health Center for inpatient treatment, where he remained until January 11, 2016.
On March 1, 2016, a neighbor called Plaintiff about her son. (Doc. 51-6 at PageID 1912.) When Plaintiff called C. to check on him, C. was crying on the phone. (Baird Dep., Doc. 24 at PageID 286.) She then called Mobile Crisis, a psychiatric mobile response team that provides on-site assistance during mental health crises, and went to C.'s home. (Doc. 51-6 at PageID 1799-1800.)
Plaintiff arrived at C.'s apartment before Mobile Crisis and received a call as they were pulling up. (Id. at 1915.) She stated that C. was calm, but he could use someone to talk to for a little bit. (Doc. 51-6 at PageID 1915.) C. begged her to stay, but Plaintiff told him that she needed to leave with N. (Id. at 1800-01.)
Neil Witsken from Mobile Crisis arrived on the scene and observed Plaintiff at C.'s apartment holding N. He observed C. making suicidal statements. He says it was clear that C. destroyed property, as there were broken wooden pieces strewn all over the apartment/living room. The cable box was on the ground, and the phone had been pulled from the wall and was inoperable. C. was crying and upset. C.'s hand was bleeding, and there were drips of blood on the floor and in the hallway of the building. C. made statements that no one cared for him, and that he would be better off dead. C. had been watching N. during this incident. (Intake Narrative, Doc. 51-3 at PageID 1704.
Witsken called the police to transport C. to the mental hospital. C. refused to be transported or handcuffed, causing police to tase him. Witsken reported the incident to the HCJFS hotline (241-KIDS) due to his concerns for N.'s safety. Mobile Crisis placed C. on an involuntary hold at Deaconess Hospital. A case worker from HCJFS visited Plaintiff, S., and N. that same evening and instituted a Safety Plan requiring supervision of C. when he was with N. (Doc. 51-4 at PageID 1726-27.) N. was examined the day of the incident and determined to be unharmed. (Doc. 51-3 at PageID 1706.)
In order to avoid a conflict of interest, HCJFS referred the investigation to Montgomery County Jobs and Family Services. On March 4, 2016, Jennie Cole, an intake supervisor at Care House, was assigned to investigate the allegations against C. and to ensure N.'s safety.
Caseworkers entered their notes about the case into a log in the State Automated Child Welfare Information System ("SACWIS"). Cole recorded notes in this system.
Cole conducted an in-home visit with S., N., and Plaintiff on March 11, 2016. Prior to her visit, Cole reviewed the intake information before visiting Baird's home, which included a description of C.'s criminal history. (Doc. 27 at PageID 498.) However, she may have missed some of the lines of the description, because she did not realize the extent and severity of the violence until after leaving the meeting. (Id. at 499.)
According to Cole's notes, Cole met Plaintiff at her home and observed Plaintiff taking care of N. Plaintiff explained that S. and N. live with her and that the March 1 incident was the second time C. had been left alone with N. for two to three hours. Plaintiff stated that she was not concerned with N. being left unsupervised with C. (Doc. 51-4 at PageID 1734.)
Plaintiff and Cole then visited C. at his apartment. When they arrived, the apartment was completely dark and C. was not wearing a shirt. (Id. at 1735.) Cole observed the top drawer of C.'s dresser was missing and it looked like it had been pulled or broken off. (Id.) Cole also observed that C. had a cut on his arm. Cole asked C. about the March 1 incident, and he stated that he got depressed and then mad. Plaintiff "jumped" into the conversation and stated, "you got depressed and then frustrated." (Id. at 1736.) Cole stated that she talked to Baird about C.'s history of mental illness. She claims she asked C. and Plaintiff about any history of domestic violence or substance abuse, and C. and Plaintiff denied it. (Id.; Cole Dep., Doc. 27 at PageID 495-97, 499, 507.)
After meeting with Plaintiff, Cole contacted an Assistant Prosecuting Attorney ("APA") in the Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office and told the APA that she had some concerns. (Cole Dep., Doc. 27 at PageID 499.) The APA informed Cole of C.'s history of domestic violence with S. and Plaintiff. (Id. at 500.) Cole claims she did not know about the "severity of the violence" until after the visit and that Baird and C. "adamantly denied any history of domestic violence." (Id. at 499.)
That afternoon, Cole called Magistrate Judge Coleman with the Hamilton County Juvenile Court and requested and obtained an ex parte order for the emergency removal of N. from the custody of S. at Baird's home. (Id. at 501-03, 517-18; Doc. 51-12 at PageID 2070.) N. was removed from the family's care that evening. (Doc. 27 at PageID 524.) The Court scheduled a hearing for Monday, March 14. (Doc. 51-12 at PageID 2070.) Baird then filed a Motion for Emergency Hearing with the juvenile court and petitioned for custody of N. (Doc. 51-11 at PageID 2056-59.)
On March 14, 2016, Chief Magistrate Judge Carla Guenther conducted a hearing on Plaintiff's petition for custody, referred to as a "Day One Hearing." (Doc. 51-6.) Plaintiff testified that Cole never asked her about prior domestic violence incidents during the investigation. (Doc. 51-6 at PageID 1907.) Plaintiff was asked:
(Doc. 51-6 at PageID 51-6 at PageID 1907.) Plaintiff also testified that she had no concerns about the condition of C.'s home on March 1, 2016. (Id. at PageID 1914.) She described C. as being "calm" by the time she arrived and that "he just said he wanted someone to talk to." (Id.)
When asked whether she had concerns regarding C.'s contact with N., Baird stated: "I believe — I mean, I've been dealing with my son's mental health for a long time now. I think I can gauge him pretty well. I see my son every day. I think-I take all the precautions to make sure that [N.] is safe at all times." (Id. at 1922.) She also stated that "I wouldn't leave him alone with her, and I am willing to ensure that won't happen again until-" (Id. at 1923.) When asked, "why were you comfortable with him being-the child being left alone on the 1st, but you're now uncomfortable with him?," Baird answered: "Well, at the-I can't say I was comfortable with it on the 1st. They are the parents and they can make their decision. . . . Sometimes it's hard for me to gauge working my different jobs and also remembering that's my son and trying to make all the best decisions I can." (Id. at 1923-24.)
Following the Day One Hearing, Magistrate Judge Guenthner issued an Order stating:
(Doc. 51-11 at PageID 2052.)
Cole, the APA, and Donna Lang, a HCJFS supervisor, all raised concerns about Baird's testimony at the Day One Hearing to Mary Eck, Assistant Clinical Director at HCJFS. (Eck Dep., Doc. 26 at PageID 377, 394.) As a result, Eck and Chris Biersack, Labor Relations Manager for Human Resources at HCJFS, held a meeting with Plaintiff to discuss her judgment. (Biersack Dep., Doc. 20 at PageID 127.) Plaintiff recorded this meeting without the knowledge of either Eck or Biersack. (Id. at 126.) At that meeting, Plaintiff was offered a demotion, which she refused. (Id. at 129-30.)
After the meeting, Eck requested a Pre-Disciplinary Conference for Plaintiff "because she was dishonest while under oath in juvenile court proceedings and failed to recognize the threats that he[r] own grandchild was exposed to when she allowed her son to care for the infant." (Doc. 20 at PageID 131; Doc. 52-4 at PageID 2166.)
On April 24, 2016, Plaintiff received a Notice of Pre-Disciplinary Conference. (Doc. 52-5.) A Pre-Disciplinary Hearing was held on May 10, 2016. Biersack and Eck attended, and Plaintiff appeared with counsel. Plaintiff was asked, "Did you in fact discuss [C.]'s specific incidents of violence with Ms. Cole?" and responded, "Yes" and "we discussed the incident in 2010 when he had his first, um, I would say, psychotic episode..." (Pre-Disciplinary Hearing Recording, Doc. 41, Track 3 at approximately 52:00-52:25.
At her deposition, Plaintiff testified that Cole failed to ask her about domestic violence:
(Baird Dep., Doc. 24 at 299-300.) She further testified that violence may have come up in the conversation about C.'s mental health history, but Cole did not specifically ask her about domestic violence. (Id. at 303-04.)
During discovery, Plaintiff disclosed that she secretly recorded the meeting in April 2016 between Biersack, Eck, and herself. On December 6, 2017, a Pre-Disciplinary Conference was held to give Plaintiff the opportunity to respond to the allegation that she violated Section 6.6(B)(15) of the Hamilton County Personnel Policy Manual prohibiting recording devices in the workplace without permission of all present. Plaintiff admitted she did not seek permission from Eck or Biersack prior to recording the meeting. HCJFS terminated Plaintiff's employment on December 19, 2017 for violating Section 6.6(B)(15) of the Hamilton County Personnel Policy Manual.
Plaintiff filed this action on July 18, 2016. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff asserts claims for retaliation and procedural due process violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 13.) On February 28, 2019, Defendants filed their Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, to which Plaintiff has responded in opposition and Defendants have replied. (Docs. 53-55.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 governs motions for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact" and "the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The movant has the burden of showing that no genuine issues of material fact are in dispute. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585-87 (1986); Provenzano v. LCI Holdings, Inc., 663 F.3d 806, 811 (6th Cir. 2011). The evidence, together with all inferences that can permissibly be drawn therefrom, must be read in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., 475 U.S. at 585-87; Provenzano, 663 F.3d at 811.
The movant may support a motion for summary judgment with affidavits or other proof or by exposing the lack of evidence on an issue for which the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-24 (1986). In responding to a summary judgment motion, the nonmoving party may not rest upon the pleadings but must go beyond the pleadings and "present affirmative evidence in order to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257 (1986). The Court's task is not "to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. at 249. A genuine issue for trial exists when there is sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff." Id. at 252. "The court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3).
Defendants contend they are entitled to summary judgment on all four of Plaintiff's retaliation claims asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges:
(Doc. 13.) To establish a retaliation claim under the First (and Fourteenth) Amendment, Plaintiff must prove: (1) she engaged in a constitutionally protected activity; (2) she suffered an adverse action that would likely chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that activity; and (3) the adverse action was motivated at least in part as a response to the exercise of her constitutional rights. Nair v. Oakland Cty. Comm. Mental Health Auth., 443 F.3d 469, 478 (6th Cir. 2006). For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to meet the first prong of this test-that she engaged in a constitutionally protected activity.
"A public employee alleging First Amendment retaliation must satisfy three requirements." Mayhew v. Town of Smyrna, Tenn., 856 F.3d 456 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting Evans-Marshall v. Bd. of Educ., 624 F.3d 332, 337-38 (6th Cir. 2010)). First, "the employee must speak on `matters of public concern.'" Id. (citing Evans-Marshall, 624 F.3d at 337). Second, "[t]he employee must speak as a private citizen and not as an employee pursuant to his official duties." Id. (citing Evans-Marshall, 624 F.3d at 338.). Third, "the employee must show that his speech interest outweighs `the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.'" Id. (citing Evans-Marshall, 624 F.3d at 338). Whether Plaintiff engaged in protected speech is a question of law. Nair, 443 F.3d at 478. Courts generally apply the same analysis to cases arising under the Petition Clause as to those arising under the Speech Clause. Borough of Duryea, Pa. v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379, 398-99 (2011).
"Speech deals with matters of public concern when it can `be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community,'" Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 453 (2011), citing Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 146 (1983), "or when it `is a subject of legitimate news interest; that is, a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public.'" Id. (citing San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S. 77, 83-84 (2004)). Whether speech is a matter of public concern is determined by the "content, form, and context" of the speech "as revealed by the whole record." Id. (citing Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 761 (1985)). In so considering, "no factor is dispositive, and it is necessary to evaluate all the circumstances of the speech, including what was said, where it was said, and how it was said." Id.
The parties dispute whether Plaintiff's petitioning for the custody of her granddaughter and testimony at the Day One Hearing are matters of public concern. Defendants take the position that both were matters of personal concern with no value to the public. The form of the petition for custody was that of a personal lawsuit, and the redress sought was custody of Plaintiff's granddaughter. The testimony at the proceeding was made for the benefit of the Magistrate Judge to make a decision regarding custody, not for purposes of debating by the public. The petition was filed in the context of a personal custody dispute, of which the public has no interest. Plaintiff contends that her petitioning for custody and testifying at the Day One Hearing addressed matters of public concern for two primary reasons: her speech was truthful testimony under oath at a judicial proceeding, and because her speech was critical of government action.
As an initial matter, the fact that Plaintiff testified under oath at a judicial proceeding does not alone render Plaintiff's speech a matter of public concern, as she argues. Although Plaintiff relies upon Lane v. Franks for the proposition that truthful testimony under oath in a judicial proceeding by a public employee outside of her ordinary job duties is speech by a citizen on a matter of public concern, the Court certainly still considered the content of the speech. 573 U.S. 228 (2014). In Lane, a public employee testified compelled by subpoena regarding the events that led to his decision to terminate a former employee. Id. at 233. His employment was subsequently terminated, prompting him to file suit for retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights. Id. at 234. The Supreme Court concluded that the content of his testimony, corruption and misuse of state funds, "obviously involves a matter of significant public concern," and "the form and context of the speech-sworn testimony in a judicial proceeding-fortify that conclusion." Id. at 241. Here, the content of Plaintiff's speech, custody of her granddaughter, does not similarly implicate an "obvious" public matter.
While comments criticizing misuse of public funds in the context of a state investigation are generally matters of public concern, Marohnic v. Walker, 800 F.2d 613, 616 (6th Cir. 1986), internal personnel disputes, even by a public employer, generally are not. Bagi v. City of Parma, Ohio, 714 F. App'x 480, 486 (6th Cir. 2017). A public employee's speech does not have to pertain exclusively to matters of public concern, so long as a largely private matter also touches on that of public concern. In Connick v. Myers, the Court found that an employee displeased with a transfer decision who circulated a questionnaire to her colleagues engaged in speech touching on matters of public concern, even though only in a limited sense. 461 U.S. 138, 154 (1983). Only one survey question touched on a matter of public concern when it inquired as to whether employees ever felt pressured to work on a public campaign. Id. at 149. Because that question touched upon a matter of public concern and contributed to the employee's discharge, the Court had to proceed with its analysis to determine whether the employee's discharge was justified. Id.
Plaintiff identifies three sources of government "criticism" in her testimony. As she explains: first, she accused HCJFS of obtaining custody in violation of Ohio law; second, she appeared at the Day One Hearing as a witness for S. and raised several "significant concerns" with HCJFS's actions with respect to N.'s case and the veracity of testimony of HCJFS's witnesses; and third, Plaintiff accused Cole of providing false testimony. However, the substance of Plaintiff's testimony does not bear out as she describes.
The Court has examined the entire record of this case, and concludes that Plaintiff's testimony at the Day One Hearing concerned personal, not public, matters. As Defendants highlight, the overwhelming majority of Plaintiff's testimony is about personal family affairs, including C.'s mental health and how she provided support as a parent in navigating years of his mental health challenges. She also testified about the events leading to N.'s removal from her mother's custody. Overall, the substance of the testimony reads as a very uniquely personal family narrative.
Although Plaintiff argues that her speech is critical of the government, the Court finds that overall any criticism is muted and sparse, and it is not enough to color the content of the speech as being a matter of public concern. While some testimony conveys frustration with the handling of N.'s case, this testimony is limited and specific to her unique circumstances: "I mean, I don't know what happened from the 1st to the 11th that they would knock on my door at 7:00 at night, not giving us any reason why they're taking the baby out of my home." (Doc. 51-6 at PageID 1927.) She also testified that:
(Id. at PageID 1933-34.) This is not a call to action about how HCJFS handles custody cases, but a complaint or disagreement about how custody was handled in her granddaughter's particular circumstance. In addition, as Defendants have pointed out (and contrary to how Plaintiff represents the law), under Ohio law, an emergency custody order may be granted without notifying the parents, guardian, or custodian of the child if notification would jeopardize the physical or emotional safety of the child at issue. Ohio Rev. Code 2151.31(D).
The Court has reviewed the broad sixty pages Plaintiff cited in support of her second argument, that she raised "significant concerns" with HCJFS's actions and the veracity of testimony, but it is unclear to what testimony she was referring. Thus, this certainly does not tip the scale in favor of finding that her testimony involves matters of public concern. Lastly, Plaintiff's cross-examination of Cole and "accusing her of providing false testimony" similarly is muted and not a significant portion of the record. Baird cross-examined Cole about prior testimony from Cole in which she stated that N. was not seen by a doctor until March 25, although she had asked S. to take the baby to the doctor earlier. That cross-examination is a very minor portion of the record.
According to Cole, she received a call from Plaintiff who was "upset" about a request that N. be seen by a doctor after the incident with her son and stated they already had an appointment scheduled for March 25. (Doc. 51-6 at PageID 1856.) On cross-examination, Plaintiff asked Cole:
(Doc. 51-6 at PageID 1861-62.) At this point, the Magistrate Judge sustained an objecting and stated that Cole answered the question to the best of her ability. Plaintiff responded: "Well, I'm just-that was not what was said so I was just trying to-because we have not refused it." (Id. at 1862.) Although the Court understands that Plaintiff disagreed with Cole's summary of the situation, the testimony concerns a tangential dispute which concerned N. more than Plaintiff, the facts of which are still somewhat unclear. The testimony does not color the testimony overall or change the Court's conclusion that the testimony concerns a private, not public, matter. Plaintiff also contends that because Plaintiff's testimony touches on the subject of child welfare and custody that it implicates a matter of public concern. Plaintiff's testimony touches on the welfare of her grandchild, but not children overall. In addition, the Court is concerned that extending protection to Plaintiff's speech would convert any custody dispute into a matter of public concern, and impact any employee embroiled in such a custody dispute. In this case, Plaintiff's testimony concerns a personal family matter, not a broader public issue.
Ultimately, the Court must consider "whether the speech was calculated to redress personal grievances or whether it had a broader public purpose." Singer v. Ferro, 711 F.3d 334, 339 (2nd Cir. 2013) (citing Lewis v. Cowen, 165 F.3d 154, 163-64 (2nd. Cir), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 823 (1999)). The record as a whole compels the conclusion that Plaintiff's speech was calculated to obtain custody, not to debate how HCJFS handles custody cases. Thus, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's speech involves a matter of personal concern.
Plaintiff argues that her petition for custody touches on a matter of public concern. In her petition, she stated twice that "HCJFS filed for Emergency Custody but have not Provided reason." (Doc. 51-10 at PageID 2007.) She reiterates: "HCJFS filed for emergency prior to seeking family. It is in the best interest of [N.] (the child) to be in the care of family particularly who she knows." (Id.) The content of the speech, much like Plaintiff's testimony, concerns a personal custody matter. The Court does not find this language to be meaningfully different than the other speech Plaintiff argues was "critical" of the government. Although the form of the speech is in petitioning the government, the context concerns a private family matter. In considering the speech as a whole, the Court finds that the speech was intended to address a personal grievance, and not a broader issue. Thus, this speech, too, falls in the personal, not public, realm.
Finally, Plaintiff argues that she was retaliated against for filing this lawsuit. Defendants argue that Plaintiff's including a First Amendment claim in her suit does not transform it into a matter of public concern. Rather, Plaintiff filed a private suit to redress personal grievances against her employer. As to context, the speech is not a matter of public concern if it is made solely in furtherance of a personal employer-employee dispute. Plaintiff did not respond to this substantive argument.
For the reasons asserted above, the substantive allegations do not involve matters of public concern. Including a First Amendment claim in a lawsuit does not transform it into a matter of public concern. Singer v. Ferro, 711 F.3d 334, 336 (2nd Cir. 2013). Generally, internal personal disputes and management decisions are matters of private concern, and an employment dispute brought against a public employer is not inherently protected speech. Gibson v. Kilpatrick, 838 F.3d 476, 484 (5th Cir. 2016). Here, Plaintiff's speech was in the form of her lawsuit, and the redress sought is to remedy a personal employment dispute with her employer. Consistent with the law cited herein, the Court finds that Plaintiff's lawsuit in this instance is a matter of private, not personal, concern.
Because the Court finds no Constitutional violation, it need not proceed further in the analysis or assess the matter of qualified immunity.
Plaintiff alleges that her procedural due process rights were violated by the Notice of Pre-Disciplinary Conference. "[I]n a § 1983 due process claim for deprivation of a property interest, a plaintiff must first show a protected property interest. Only after meeting this requirement can the plaintiff prevail by showing `that such interest was abridged without appropriate process.'" McDaniel v. Princeton City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 45 F. App'x 354, 357 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferencz v. Hairston, 119 F.3d 1244, 1247 (6th Cir. 1997)). "Thus, Plaintiff's due process claim depends on her having had a property right in continued employment." Id. (citing Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 538 (1985)). "Loudermill established the minimal protections afforded to a public employee in a pretermination proceeding." Id. at 358 (citing Buckner v. City of Highland Park, 901 F.2d 491, 494 (6th Cir.1990)). "The due process clause requires that, prior to termination, a public employee, with a property interest in his or her public employment, be given oral or written notice of the charges against him or her, an explanation of the employer's evidence, and an opportunity to present his or her side of the story to the employer." Id. (citing Buckner). There is no dispute that Plaintiff had a property interest in her continued employment. Rather, Defendants argue that Plaintiff was provided adequate written notice of the charges against her and thus no due process violation occurred.
In McDaniel, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court and found that the plaintiff teacher was not given sufficient written notice of the charges against her to allow her to respond to those charges prior to her termination from employment. Id. Specifically, a notice was sent to Plaintiff mentioning a general charge of "neglect of duty," listing specific charges of "attendance pattern," "failure to remain in classroom," and "excessive personal calls on work time." Id. At her pre-disciplinary hearing, Plaintiff responded to those charges. Id. However, she was discharged for a "pattern of neglect of duty" that included specific charges that she lacked lesson plans, lacked student behavior plans, and inappropriately disciplined students, none of which were mentioned in the notice sent to her. Id. The Court emphasized that the "chance to be heard, to present one's side of the story, is a fundamental requirement of any fair procedural system" and "the opportunity to respond must be a meaningful opportunity to prevent the deprivation from occurring." Id. (citing Buckner, 901 F.2d at 495). The Court found that the notice sent to plaintiff deprived her of the opportunity to respond to the charges upon which her termination was based. Id. at 358-59.
Plaintiff claims that her Pre-Disciplinary Conference Notice stated she may be disciplined for her testimony at juvenile court, but did not include that she may be disciplined for providing false information to an investigator or because of her statements at the Pre-Disciplinary Conference. The Notice of Pre-Disciplinary Conference references the investigation as follows: "HCJFS requested that Montgomery Co. Children's Services complete a full assessment and investigation" and that through the course of that investigation "assessed that there were concerns with your capacity to protect your infant grandchild." (Doc. 52-5.at PageID 2167.) The Notice further states:
(Id.) In summarizing, the Notice provides: "Your actions with regard to this matter violate Children's Services Policy and constitutes Dishonesty, Neglect of Duty, Inefficiency and Failure of Good Behavior, per section 7.1 of the Hamilton County Personnel Policy Manual." (Id.)
The Court finds that the Notice of Pre-Disciplinary Conference provides adequate notice to Plaintiff sufficient for her to be informed of and respond to the charges against her. Although the Notice does not explicitly state that her employer may consider adverse action based upon her conversation with Cole, the crux of the concerns about her testimony in court were as they were juxtaposed to the statements she gave to Cole during the investigation. How Plaintiff resolved those discrepancies at her Pre-Disciplinary Conference would naturally factor into her employer's decision. In addition, prior to the Pre-Disciplinary Conference, Plaintiff's attorney was provided with all evidence Defendants intended to introduce, including the SACWIS notes from Cole's investigation. (Biersack Dep., Doc. 20 at PageID 156-57; Doc. 51-10 at PageID 1973.) Defendants assert that Cole testified at the Pre-Disciplinary Conference regarding her concerns about Plaintiff during the investigation, and Plaintiff's counsel did not raise an objection that he was unprepared to address those concerns, but instead was able to crossexamine Cole. At the Pre-Disciplinary Conference, Plaintiff made contradictory statements to Cole regarding C.'s history of domestic violence.
The Court is satisfied that the Notice of Pre-Disciplinary Conference adequately informed Plaintiff of the behavior with which her employer was concerned and could base discipline upon and provided her with a meaningful opportunity to prevent the deprivation from happening. The exhibits provided in advance of the Pre-Disciplinary Conference, ability to cross-examine witnesses, and ability to object to any subject being raised, cement the conclusion that Plaintiff was adequately informed and prepared, and thus not deprived of procedural due process. As such, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this claim.
For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2151.31(D) (emphasis added).
