Source: cases/42usc1983/f-supp-772-583-kamenesh-v-city-of-miami.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f-supp/volume_772/0583_01/index.html
A public employee can have a property interest in hot being demoted without cause — as opposed to not being' transferred without cause — where shch an interest arises from established “rules” or the parties’ “mutually explicit understandings.”
whether Kamenesh’s new assignments were only lateral transfers or whether they were so incomparable to his past duties and the duties befitting a Miami Police captain as to constitute a constructive demotion
the other indicia of entitlement presented sufficiently establishes, for purposes of surviving summary judgment, that Kamenesh maintains the property interest he asserts
Plaintiff’s argument fails to recognize a primary element of constructive discharge: that “the employee [be] forced into an involuntary resignation.”
the court cannot sanction Plaintiff’s theory of “constructive” constructive discharge for the simple reason that Plaintiff remains in his job, drawing the same salary and benefits otherwise due him
Plaintiff shall have the heavy burden at trial of establishing that no legitimate, rational reason prevented his obtaining an otherwise deserved promotion
Sufficient factual and legal questions remain to preclude summary judgment for Defendants on the point.
The individual must not only be stigmatized, but stigmatized in connection with the denial of a right or status “theretofore recognized under [state law].”
It is not necessary, then, that the right be completely extinguished, as in the case of a discharge, but merely that it be “distinctly altered.”
Plaintiff satisfies the “stigma-plus” test established by the Supreme Court in Paul v. Davis for purposes of surviving Defendant’s summary judgment motion.
the decisions of the two police chiefs involved and the direct and indirect ratification of those decisions by two different city managers concerning the incidents complained of constitute acts by “final policymakers”
A reasonable police officer would know, at a minimum, that such conduct violated clearly established statutory rights prohibiting adverse treatment of public employees without cause.
If Plaintiff proves his allegations that he was defamed and demoted and kept from promotion, all without cause, it is likely that no qualified immunity will attach to the Defendants’ conduct.
Upon resolving the factual disputes underlying the legal conclusion of qualified immunity at trial, the court may well yet find that some or all Defendants possess such immunity in their individual capacities.
casedsl 1
case /f-supp/772/0583-01
name Kamenesh v. City of Miami
cite 772 F. Supp. 583 (1991)
court United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
date 1991-07-15
url catalog/cases/f-supp/volume_772/0583_01/index.html
source ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl sha1=79900a052515789d3687a052a7b48f999e05e2f0 chars=49327
law 42usc1983
role applied
posture civil; police captain sues city and five superior officers (official and individual capacities) for due-process deprivations of property and liberty; defendants' motion for summary judgment
result claimant-won
element deprivation.due-process-property : satisfied [triable]
variant property-interest-public-employment/constructive-demotion-to-insubstantial-duties
count substantive and procedural due process claims
theory constructive demotion
fact @4117..4213 [supports] | Plaintiff has been given nothing but insubstantial responsibilities, largely clerical in nature.
fact @4214..4465 [supports] | Rather than commanding an organic unit as befitting the rank of captain, Kamenesh’s assignments require him to work alone on lightly regarded tasks, with no secretary or subordinate to assist him, and with no bona fide operational function to oversee.
fact @8418..8656 [supports] | Similarly, the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City of Miami and the police union allows the Department “to suspend, demote, discharge, or take other disciplinary action against employees” only where “proper cause” is present.
fact @8165..8417 [supports] | Section 447.209 of Florida Statutes, on which Defendants rely as the source of their unfettered authority, limits a public employer’s disciplinary and disadvantageous actions against employees to those taken “for proper cause” and “legitimate reasons.”
rule @7009..7252 | A public employee can have a property interest in hot being demoted without cause — as opposed to not being' transferred without cause — where shch an interest arises from established “rules” or the parties’ “mutually explicit understandings.”
rule @6800..7007 | whether Kamenesh’s new assignments were only lateral transfers or whether they were so incomparable to his past duties and the duties befitting a Miami Police captain as to constitute a constructive demotion
held @13021..13190 | the other indicia of entitlement presented sufficiently establishes, for purposes of surviving summary judgment, that Kamenesh maintains the property interest he asserts
gloss Same rank and pay, but stripped of command; for-cause limits in state statute + CBA + Police Officer's Bill of Rights supply the entitlement. Performance-evaluation manual rejected as a source. Transfer-vs-demotion is the fact question for trial.
element deprivation.due-process-property : not-satisfied [law]
variant property-interest-public-employment/constructive-discharge-without-resignation
theory constructive discharge
fact @10631..10796 [cuts-against] | Secondly, Kamenesh, who has remained with the Police Department despite his alleged diminished duties, asserts that his demotion amounts to a constructive discharge.
rule @12013..12162 | Plaintiff’s argument fails to recognize a primary element of constructive discharge: that “the employee [be] forced into an involuntary resignation.”
held @11038..11235 | the court cannot sanction Plaintiff’s theory of “constructive” constructive discharge for the simple reason that Plaintiff remains in his job, drawing the same salary and benefits otherwise due him
gloss No deprivation of the job itself while the employee stays on at full pay; only the narrower no-demotion-without-cause interest survives.
element deprivation.due-process-property : satisfied [triable]
variant property-interest-public-employment/denial-of-discretionary-promotion
theory denial of promotion
fact @15124..15251 [supports] | Additionally, Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that he has been shut out from even interviewing for positions of advancement.
fact @14731..14875 [supports] | For example, the chief cannot appoint outside individuals to these positions, but must choose candidates from regular members of the Department.
rule @16475..16629 | Plaintiff shall have the heavy burden at trial of establishing that no legitimate, rational reason prevented his obtaining an otherwise deserved promotion
held @16082..16185 | Sufficient factual and legal questions remain to preclude summary judgment for Defendants on the point.
gloss Weak survival: court doubts a property interest in a largely discretionary appointment, but the record is too unclear to dismiss; "satisfied [triable]" overstates it.
element deprivation.due-process-liberty : satisfied [triable]
variant stigma-plus/defamation-with-demotion-not-discharge
fact @3405..3638 [supports] | During this period Kamenesh received several adverse performance evaluations from Defendants Oboz and Putnam. In addition, news of the charges against Kamenesh was improperly leaked to the press before the investigation was complete.
fact @2843..3067 [supports] | The Internal Security investigation conducted over the next several weeks cleared Kamenesh of the charges of associating with a convicted felon but found him untruthful and insubordinate to Oboz and neglectful of his duties.
rule @17587..17742 | The individual must not only be stigmatized, but stigmatized in connection with the denial of a right or status “theretofore recognized under [state law].”
rule @18751..18895 | It is not necessary, then, that the right be completely extinguished, as in the case of a discharge, but merely that it be “distinctly altered.”
held @17821..17976 | Plaintiff satisfies the “stigma-plus” test established by the Supreme Court in Paul v. Davis for purposes of surviving Defendant’s summary judgment motion.
gloss The "plus" is the demotion / lost promotion, so this element is conditional on the property-interest holdings above.
element deprivation.first-amendment : not-reached
gloss First Amendment and equal protection claims not challenged in the motion.
element policy : satisfied [triable]
variant final-policymaker/police-chief-decision-ratified-by-city-manager
party City of Miami and official-capacity defendants
fact @3230..3404 [supports] | Police Chief Dickson elected instead to impose a six month extension of Kamenesh’s probationary period as captain and to eliminate forty hours of Plaintiff’s earned overtime.
fact @2396..2603 [supports] | Dickson accepted Oboz’s recommendations to transfer Kamenesh out of SIS and to instigate an Internal Security investigation into Kamenesh’s associations with Anatasia and his alleged insubordination to Oboz.
held @23447..23664 | the decisions of the two police chiefs involved and the direct and indirect ratification of those decisions by two different city managers concerning the incidents complained of constitute acts by “final policymakers”
gloss Single personnel decisions by the chief, ratified by the city manager, suffice; final ruling reserved for trial.
defense qualified-immunity : not-satisfied [no-evidence]
variant clearly-established/adverse-employment-action-without-cause-contrary-to-state-statute
party individual-capacity defendants (argued and decided jointly)
rule @21608..21790 | A reasonable police officer would know, at a minimum, that such conduct violated clearly established statutory rights prohibiting adverse treatment of public employees without cause.
held @21416..21607 | If Plaintiff proves his allegations that he was defamed and demoted and kept from promotion, all without cause, it is likely that no qualified immunity will attach to the Defendants’ conduct.
held @22755..22964 | Upon resolving the factual disputes underlying the legal conclusion of qualified immunity at trial, the court may well yet find that some or all Defendants possess such immunity in their individual capacities.
gloss Provisional denial of defendants' summary-judgment motion: plaintiff's evidence suffices with all inferences in his favour; the court may yet find immunity after trial. "Clearly established" is anchored in state statutes and the CBA rather than federal constitutional precedent.
element causation : not-reached
gloss Court notes "numerous factual issues of responsibility and causation appear to remain" per defendant; left for trial.
element color-of-law : not-reached
element person : not-reached
element damages : not-reached
misfit Every holding is expressly provisional ("not making a final ruling as a matter of law"); [triable] fits, but the promotion claim survives only because the record is "too unclear" -- there is no holding value for "not dismissed, doubtful".
misfit The deprivation element here has internal structure the notation flattens: (1) existence of a protected property/liberty interest, (2) deprivation of it, (3) without due process (procedural) or arbitrarily (substantive). The court decides only (1) and partly (2).
misfit Liberty (stigma-plus) holding is conditional on the property holdings ("assuming Kamenesh can establish a property interest") -- an inter-element dependency with no construct.
misfit About half the opinion is Florida state-law counts (Police Officer's Bill of Rights, fraud, defamation, IIED, negligent supervision) outside this statute; the negligence discussion says constitutional harms are not common-law torts, a boundary statement with no home.
misfit Qualified immunity argued collectively for five defendants; court declines per-defendant analysis, so `party` can only name the group. Basis: the table has no value for a DEFENSE that fails at summary judgment because the claimant's version, if proved, defeats it (the mirror of [triable]); [no-evidence] is kept as the nearest value but its definition (summary judgment against the claimant) does not literally fit.