United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991-07-15
Case and law context
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; claim:
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991 | Personal involvement / causal connection ("subjects, or causes to be subjected") | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsCourt notes "numerous factual issues of responsibility and causation appear to remain" per defendant; left for trial. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991 | Action taken "under color of" state, territorial, or D.C. law | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991 | Damages remedy (legacy CASE id; not a prerequisite for prospective relief) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991 | Protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause (including stigma-plus under Paul v. Davis) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: triable The "plus" is the demotion / lost promotion, so this element is conditional on the property-interest holdings above. | stigma-plus/defamation-with-demotion-not-discharge | 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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [3405:3638] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [2843:3067] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.The individual must not only be stigmatized, but stigmatized in connection with the denial of a right or status “theretofore recognized under [state law].”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [17587:17742] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.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.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [18751:18895] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.Plaintiff satisfies the “stigma-plus” test established by the Supreme Court in Paul v. Davis for purposes of surviving Defendant’s summary judgment motion.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [17821:17976] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6. |
| /f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991 | Protected property interest under the Due Process Clause (Board of Regents v. Roth) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: triable; count: substantive and procedural due process claims; theory: constructive demotion; subject: count=substantive and procedural due process claims; theory=constructive demotion 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. | property-interest-public-employment/constructive-demotion-to-insubstantial-duties | Plaintiff has been given nothing but insubstantial responsibilities, largely clerical in nature.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [4117:4213] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [4214:4465] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [8418:8656] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.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.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [8165:8417] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.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.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [7009:7252] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.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 demotionSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [6800:7007] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.the other indicia of entitlement presented sufficiently establishes, for purposes of surviving summary judgment, that Kamenesh maintains the property interest he assertsSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [13021:13190] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6. |
| /f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991 | Protected property interest under the Due Process Clause (Board of Regents v. Roth) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; theory: constructive discharge; subject: theory=constructive discharge No deprivation of the job itself while the employee stays on at full pay; only the narrower no-demotion-without-cause interest survives. | property-interest-public-employment/constructive-discharge-without-resignation | Secondly, Kamenesh, who has remained with the Police Department despite his alleged diminished duties, asserts that his demotion amounts to a constructive discharge.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [10631:10796] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.Plaintiff’s argument fails to recognize a primary element of constructive discharge: that “the employee [be] forced into an involuntary resignation.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [12013:12162] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.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 himSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [11038:11235] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6. |
| /f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991 | Protected property interest under the Due Process Clause (Board of Regents v. Roth) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: triable; theory: denial of promotion; subject: theory=denial of promotion Weak survival: court doubts a property interest in a largely discretionary appointment, but the record is too unclear to dismiss; "satisfied [triable]" overstates it. | property-interest-public-employment/denial-of-discretionary-promotion | Additionally, Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that he has been shut out from even interviewing for positions of advancement.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [15124:15251] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.For example, the chief cannot appoint outside individuals to these positions, but must choose candidates from regular members of the Department.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [14731:14875] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.Plaintiff shall have the heavy burden at trial of establishing that no legitimate, rational reason prevented his obtaining an otherwise deserved promotionSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [16475:16629] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.Sufficient factual and legal questions remain to preclude summary judgment for Defendants on the point.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [16082:16185] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6. |
| /f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991 | Deprivation of First Amendment rights (free speech, retaliation, free exercise, petition) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsFirst Amendment and equal protection claims not challenged in the motion. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991 | Suable "person" (natural person in individual capacity, official in official capacity for prospective relief, or municipality; excludes States) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991 | Municipal policy or custom as moving force (Monell v. Department of Social Services) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: triable; party: City of Miami and official-capacity defendants; subject: party=City of Miami and official-capacity defendants Single personnel decisions by the chief, ratified by the city manager, suffice; final ruling reserved for trial. | final-policymaker/police-chief-decision-ratified-by-city-manager | 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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [3230:3404] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [2396:2603] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.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”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [23447:23664] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6. |
| /f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991 | Qualified immunity for government officials sued in individual capacity (Harlow v. Fitzgerald; Pearson v. Callahan) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; party: individual-capacity defendants (argued and decided jointly); subject: party=individual-capacity defendants (argued and decided jointly) 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. | clearly-established/adverse-employment-action-without-cause-contrary-to-state-statute | 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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [21608:21790] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [21416:21607] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [22755:22964] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
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.”
/f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991
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.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [7009:7252] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.Property interests are created and defined by independent sources such as state law, rules, or mutually explicit understandings that support a legitimate claim of entitlement.
interpretation
Plaintiff’s argument fails to recognize a primary element of constructive discharge: that “the employee [be] forced into an involuntary resignation.”
/f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991
Plaintiff’s argument fails to recognize a primary element of constructive discharge: that “the employee [be] forced into an involuntary resignation.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [12013:12162] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.Property interests are created and defined by independent sources such as state law, rules, or mutually explicit understandings that support a legitimate claim of entitlement.
interpretation
The individual must not only be stigmatized, but stigmatized in connection with the denial of a right or status “theretofore recognized under [state law].”
/f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991
The individual must not only be stigmatized, but stigmatized in connection with the denial of a right or status “theretofore recognized under [state law].”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [17587:17742] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.Reputational injury alone is insufficient under Paul v. Davis; requires "stigma-plus" (defamatory governmental statement coupled with extinguishment or distinct alteration of a state-recognized right or employment status).
interpretation
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.”
/f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991
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.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_772.jsonl#/f-supp/772/0583-01; Unicode character offsets [18751:18895] (end exclusive); SHA-256 61ce8424e918ef86a19d77a8269d686f5594190217c2ebcc63814df5bb34edd6.Reputational injury alone is insufficient under Paul v. Davis; requires "stigma-plus" (defamatory governmental statement coupled with extinguishment or distinct alteration of a state-recognized right or employment status).