Edmiston v. Idaho State Liquor Division et al

Filing 62

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 48 Motion to Reconsider. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
MARGO M. EDMISTON,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:11-CV-395-BLW

v.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

IDAHO STATE LIQUOR DIVISION, a
department of the State of Idaho, and JEFFREY
R. ANDERSON, Director of the Idaho State
Liquor Division, in his individual and official
capacity
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it a motion to reconsider filed by defendant Anderson. The
motion is fully briefed and at issue. For the reasons explained below, the Court will deny
the motion.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff Edmiston claims that she was fired from her job with the Idaho State
Liquor Division (ISLD) without due process. While her complaint contained various
causes of action, Judge Robert J. Bryan – presiding as a Visiting Judge – granted a partial
summary judgment, dismissing all claims except her claim under § 1983 against the
ISLD Director, Jeffrey Anderson, in his individual capacity for violating her due process
rights. Judge Bryan then referred the case back to this Court for all further proceedings.

Memorandum Decision & Order – page 1

Anderson asks the Court to reconsider Judge Bryan’s ruling allowing that single
claim to remain in the case. He argues that Edmiston’s position was eliminated as part of
a mandate from the State Legislature to cut the ISLD budget, and that no process is due to
an employee laid off for this reason. It is undisputed, however, that if she was targeted
for firing – that is, if she was fired for some reason connected to her performance – she
would be entitled to a hearing and other due process protections.
Anderson argues that there is no evidence that she was targeted. Judge Bryan
disagreed, and this Court also disagrees. Former ISLD Director James Nally testified
about a “personal vendetta” between Edmiston and officials at the Department of Human
Resources (DHR) and the Department of Financial Management (DFM). See Nally
Deposition at p. 20. During this “long-standing feud of 20 years,” these officials were
“watching [Edmiston] like a hawk, much more than they watched other employees, trying
to find something wrong . . . watching to try to catch a mistake, to get a reason to fire her
for cause.” Id. at pp. 20-21, 22. Nally recalled DHR officials stating that “we’re going to
need to get several people in this reduction to make it look like we’re not retaliating
against [Edmiston].” Id. at p. 29.
This evidence creates issues of fact over Anderson’s claim that Edmiston was not
fired for any reason personal to her but was laid off when her position was eliminated as
part of a legislative mandate to cut the ISLD budget. If she was fired for reasons
connected to her performance rather than as part of a system-wide reduction-in-force,
there is no dispute that she was entitled to certain due process rights that she did not

Memorandum Decision & Order – page 2

receive. Moreover, her right to that due process would have been so clear that Anderson
would not be entitled to qualified immunity for denying her that due process.
For these reasons, Judge Bryan denied summary judgment on this claim. For the
same reasons, the Court will deny the motion to reconsider.
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to reconsider
(docket no. 48) is DENIED.

DATED: May 7, 2014

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Memorandum Decision & Order – page 3