Onley v. Jordan et al

Filing 67

ORDER denying ECF No. 48 Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. (TR, Case Administrator)

Download PDF
1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Oct 05, 2017 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 4 JOSEPH B. ONLEY, a married man, No. 2:16-CV-00203-SMJ 5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 6 v. 7 8 PEND OREILLE COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT, a municipal corporation, 9 Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiff Joseph Onley was demoted from his position as a manager with the 12 Pend Oreille County Public Utility District (the PUD) in June 2013 and later 13 terminated in June 2016. Onley alleged breach of contract and due process claims 14 relating to his demotion, and breach of contract, due process, and state-law 15 age-discrimination claims relating to his termination. ECF No. 15. The Court 16 granted summary judgment in the PUD’s favor on Onley’s claims relating to his 17 demotion and on Onley’s age-discrimination claim, but the Court denied the 18 PUD’s motion for summary judgment on Onley’s due process and breach of 19 contract claims relating to his termination. ECF Nos 35 & 43. The Court 20 subsequently denied the PUD’s motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 47. ORDER - 1 The PUD now moves for summary judgment on Onley’s claims for back 1 2 pay and emotional distress damages. ECF No. 48. The PUD argues that Onley 3 received all the constitutional process he was due, and that even if there was a 4 violation of process, he suffered no more than nominal damages because his 5 position was eliminated. ECF No. 48 at 4–9. This appears to be little more than a 6 second motion for reconsideration. The Court has already determined that 7 disputed issues of fact preclude summary judgment on Onley’s due process claim, 8 including whether Onley was terminated for disciplinary as opposed to budgetary 9 reasons. ECF No. 43 at 8. In other words, the Court has already concluded that it 10 is not clear from the record that absent a disciplinary motivation the PUD would 11 have eliminated Onley’s position on the day it terminated his employment. 12 Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Damages), 13 ECF No. 48, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and 14 15 provide copies to all counsel. DATED this 5th day of October 2017. 16 __________________________ SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR. United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 Q ORDER - 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?