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)

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