Walter v. Wentzville, City of et al

Filing 41

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 33 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Case or in the Alternative, Motion for More Definite Statement filed by Defendant City of St. Peters, Missouri, Defendant Jeff Finkelstein, Defendant Jeff Hutsler motion is DENIED.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 12/23/14. (LGK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

ROBERT H. WALTER, JR.,

)
)

Plaintiff,

)
)

vs.

)

Case No. 4:14-CV-00057-JAR

)

THE CITY OF ST. PETERS, MISSOURI,
JEFF FINKELSTEIN, and
JEFF HUTSLER,

)
)
)
)

Defendants.

)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants City of St. Peters, Missouri ("St. Peters"),
Jeff Finkelstein ("Finkelstein"), and Jeff Hutsler's ("Hutsler") (collectively "Defendants") Joint
Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for More Definite Statement (ECF No. 33).
The motion is fully briefed and ready for disposition. For the following reasons, Defendants'
Motion will be DENIED.
I.

Standard of Review

In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court must view the allegations in the Complaint
liberally in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Eckert v. Titan Tire Corp., 514 F.3d 801,
806 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Luney v. SGS Auto Servs., 432 F.3d 866, 867 (8th Cir. 2005)).
Additionally, the Court "must accept the allegations contained in the complaint as true and draw
all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party." Coons v. Mineta, 410 F.3d 1036,
1039 (8th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must
contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell At!. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
1

dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiffs obligation to provide the grounds
of his entitlement to relief "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation
of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
II.

Background

Plaintiff Robert H. Walter, Jr. alleges the following facts in his Fourth Amended Petition
for Damages ("Fourth Amended Petition"), which the Court construes in the light most favorable
to him. (ECF No. 22). Defendant Finkelstein was employed by St. Peters as a Major of its
Police Department. (Fourth Amended Petition, ~12). Defendant Hutsler was employed by St.
Peters as Manager of the St. Peters Parks and Recreation Department.

(Fourth Amended

P,etition, ~13). Finkelstein and Hutsler are both sued in their individual and official capacities.
(Fourth Amended Petition,

~~12-13).

Plaintiff was employed by City of Wentzville as a patrolman with its police department
from July 2000 through November 2012.

(Fourth Amended Petition,

~14).

Plaintiff was

involved in the police union, including the position of shop steward. (Fourth Amended Petition,
~14).

In October 2012, Plaintiff sought employment as a Park Ranger with St. Peters. (Fourth

Amended Petition,

~15).

Lee Smith, a Lieutenant for St. Peters' Ranger Enforcement Division,

was responsible for hiring for the Park Ranger position. (Fourth Amended Petition,

~~16-17).

On December 10, 2012, Plaintiff passed the written examination and the physical
examination for the St. Peters Park Ranger position. (Fourth Amended Petition,

~~19-20).

On

December 13, 2012, Plaintiff completed his oral interview for the St. Peters Park Ranger
position.

(Fourth Amended Petition,

~22).

On December 17, 2012, Plaintiff completed his

integrity interview. (Fourth Amended Petition,

~24).

On December 21, 2013, Mr. Smith called

Plaintiff and scheduled his polygraph for January 3, 2013. (Fourth Amended Petition,

2

~~25-26).

The polygraph would have been the final step of the hiring process for the St. Peters Park Ranger
position. (Fourth Amended Petition,

~25).

As of December 21, 2013, Plaintiff understood that

he was the only applicant under consideration for the St. Peters Park Ranger position and that he
would be hired upon completion of the polygraph test and the drug screening test. (Fourth
Amended Petition,

~27).

Plaintiff alleges that sometime between December 21, 2012 and December 26, 2012,
Finkelstein and Hutsler, pursuant to a St. Peters' policy, decided to undermine Plaintiffs
application for the St. Peters Park Ranger position.

(Fourth Amended Petition,

~~30,

38).

Finkelstein, without being asked by anyone in the St. Peters Park Department, contacted and told
Hutsler not to hire Plaintiff because of his union activities while working for Wentzville. (Fourth
Amended Petition,

~31 ).

Hutsler then ordered Rick Oloteo ("Oloteo"), Chief of the Ranger

Department, to stop the hiring process and allegedly told Smith, "he did not want an employee
like him (Plaintiff) due to his union association."

(Fourth Amended Petition,

~33).

On

December 26, 2013, Oloteo told Jeremy Gill, an officer with the St. Peters Park Rangers who had
received a Plaintiffs background check packet, to return the packet and not to do a background
check. (Fourth Amended Petition, ~~28-29).
On January 2, 2013, the St. Peters Human Resources Department called Plaintiff and told
him that his polygraph test was cancelled and he was no longer in contention for the St. Peters
Park Ranger position. (Fourth Amended Petition,

~35).

In his Fourth Amended Petition, Plaintiff brings two causes of action: a claim pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliation for the exercise of his First Amendment rights against St. Peters,
Finkelstein, and Hutsler (Count I) and a state law claim for tortious interference with a business
expectancy against Finkelstein (Count II).

3

On August 25, 2014, Defendants filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss addressing only Count I.
Specifically, Defendants assert that Plaintiff fails to state a claim pursuant to section 1983
against St. Peters for retaliation because the Petition does not identify any custom or policy that
caused Plaintiffs alleged injury. Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs retaliation claims against
Finkelstein, and Hutsler should be dismissed because Plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege the
causal connection between the alleged protected activity and the alleged adverse employment
action.
Plaintiff responded asserting that he has sufficiently alleged a policy by St. Peters that
violated his constitutional and/or statutory rights. Plaintiff argues that the Defendants retaliated
against him for his union activities and the retaliation was pursuant to a union retaliation policy
of St. Peters. Plaintiff asserts that while there was no written policy in place, "none the less, St.
Peters has such a policy." (ECF No. 37 at 3). In support of his assertion, Plaintiff directs the
Court to Finkelstein's and Hutsler's Statements. (Fourth Amended Petition,

~~31,

33). Plaintiff

also argues that he sufficiently alleged that Hutsler or Finkelstein had, final decisionmaking
authority because a reasonable inference is that either Hutsler or Finkelstein had final
decisionmaking authority for Hutsler to have been able to terminate the hiring process.
In their reply, Defendants assert that the petition fails to allege Finkelstein or Hutsler had
any policy-making authority and therefore the claim against St. Peters should be dismissed.
Defendants further argue that the claims against Finkelstein and Hutsler should also be dismissed
because Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege that they were the final decisionmakers
regarding the hiring process.

4

III.

Analysis

In Count I, Plaintiff purports to state a First Amendment adverse employment claim
under §1983 against St. Peters, Finkelstein, and Hutsler. "To establish a prima facie case of
retaliation, a plaintiff must allege and prove that: (1) she engaged in activity protected by the
First Amendment; (2) the defendant took an adverse employment action against her; and (3) the
protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the defendant's decision to take the
adverse employment action." Davison v. City of Minneapolis, Minn, 490 F.3d 648, 654-55 (8th
Cir. 2007)(citing Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287 (1977)).

"If the

plaintiff meets this burden, the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the same
employment action would have been taken in the absence of the protected activity." Davison,
490 F.3d at 655 (citing Mt. Healthy, 429 U.S. at 287).
A.

City of St. Peters

Defendant St. Peters asserts that Plaintiff fails to state a claim pursuant to section 1983
against it for retaliation because the Petition does not identify any custom or policy that caused
Plaintiffs alleged injury.
In general, "a local government may not be sued under § 1983 for an injury inflicted
solely by its employees or agents" on a respondeat superior theory of liability. Monnell v. New
York Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). A plaintiff seeking to impose liability on a

government entity under § 1983 must identify a "policy" or "custom" of the entity that caused
the violation of the plaintiffs constitutional rights. Bd. of Cnty. Comm 'rs of Bryan Cnty., Ok!. v.
Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997).

"The plaintiff must also demonstrate that, through its

deliberate conduct, the municipality was the 'moving force' behind the injury alleged. That is, a

plaintiff must show that the municipal action was taken with the requisite degree of culpability

5

and must demonstrate a direct causal link between the municipal action and the deprivation of
federal rights." Id. at 404.
Reading the Fourth Amended Petition as a whole and making reasonable inferences from
the facts alleged, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a St. Peters' policy caused
the violation of his First Amendment Rights. Plaintiff alleges in his Fourth Amended Petition
that Finkelstein and Hutsler retaliated against Plaintiff for his exercise of his free speech and the
right to peacefully assemble pursuant to a policy of St. Peters. (Fourth Amended Petition, i!38).
A reasonable inference, in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, is that Finkelstein and Hutsler
made their statements regarding the undesirable nature of Plaintiffs union activity as a result of
an unwritten retaliatory, anti-union St. Peters' policy. Plaintiff further asserts that as a result of
these statements, made pursuant to a St. Peters' policy, he was not hired for a job with St. Peters.

B.

Finkelstein and Hutsler

Defendants next argue that Plaintiffs retaliation claims against Finkelstein and Hutsler
should be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege the causal connection between
the alleged protected activity and the alleged adverse employment action. Defendants also assert
that the claims against Finkelstein and Hutsler should be dismissed because Plaintiff has failed to
sufficiently allege that they were the final decisionmakers regarding the hiring process.
First, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a causal connection between
the alleged protected activity and the alleged adverse employment action. Plaintiff alleges that
he was not hired as a St. Peters Park Ranger as a result of Finkelstein's and Hutsler's statements
regarding his union involvement, a protected activity, during the employment process.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that "Finkelstein ... told Hutsler not to hire Plaintiff because of
Plaintiffs union activities while at the City of Wentzville" and that "Hutsler also told Smith 'he

6

did not want an employee like him (Plaintiff) due to his union association.' " (Fourth Amended
Petition, ~~31, 33). Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that Hutsler ordered Oloteo to stop the hiring
process and Oloteo told Gill to return Plaintiffs background check packet. (Fourth Amended
Petition,

~29,

33). Finally, Plaintiff alleges that this string of events occurred sometime between

December 21st and December 26th. (Fourth Amended Petition,

~30).

A reasonable inference

therefore is that the statements regarding Plaintiffs union activities caused the adverse
employment action, specifically that Plaintiff was not hired for the Ranger position.
Next, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Finkelstein and Hutsler
were final decisionmakers regarding the hiring process.

Plaintiff alleges that Finkelstein, a

Major in the St. Peters' Police Department, told Hutsler, the Manager of the St. Peters Parks and
Recreation Department, not to hire Plaintiff because of his union activities. (Fourth Amended
Petition,

~31 ).

Plaintiff further alleges that Hutsler then told Oloteo, Chief of the Ranger

Department, to stop the hiring process, and Smith, the individual responsible for conducting the
hiring process that "he did not want an employee like him (Plaintiff) due to his union
association." (Fourth Amended Petition,

~33).

Plaintiff also alleges that the hiring process was

discontinued and he was later informed that he was no longer being considered for the position.
(Fourth Amended Petition, ~~29, 35). A reasonable inference based on these alleged facts is that
either of both Finkelstein and Hutsler had decisionmaking authority to terminate the hiring
process.

7

IV.

Conclusion

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants City of St. Peters, Missouri, Jeff

Finkelstein, and Jeff Hutsler's Joint Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for More
D~finite

Statement (ECF No. 33) is DENIED.

Dated this 23rd day of December, 2014.

A. ROSS
TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8