In Hanford Exec. Mgmt. Employees Ass’n v. City of Hanford the court held that an employee Association could pursue its claims that its members faced unlawful discrimination in retaliation for a Vote of No Confidence against the City Manager. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California has ruled that an Association’s retaliation claim stated a potential basis for finding several constitutional violations and rejected the City’s efforts to dismiss the lawsuit for “failure to state a claim.”
In Hanford, not long after several EMEA members signed a Vote of No Confidence against the City Manager, the City attempted to amend the Rules and Regulations (R&R) applying to employees. The proposed amendments would change employee status from permanent to at-will, revise layoff procedures, remove employee’s disciplinary appeal rights, revise salary step procedures to allow denial of previously-automatic salary increases, and decrease employer’s contribution toward retirement. The City at no time provided EMEA with justification or explanation of just cause for their actions, as required by the R&R.
The City at no time permitted EMEA to call sworn witnesses to defend against the City’s actions, also required by the R&R.
The Court rejected the City’s request for dismissing, noting:
- EMEA’s claim of retaliation for the vote of no confidence gave facial plausibility to the freedom of speech, association, and collective activity claim.
- The city’s failure to follow their R&R gave facial plausibility to EMEA’s substantive due process claim.
- Changing the employment status of some individual from “permanent” to “at will” arguably violated their property rights and gave rise to a valid procedural due process claim.
