Johnson v. City of Casper , 293 F. App'x 623 ( 2008 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
September 18, 2008
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
DONALD D. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 08-8006
v. (D.C. No. 1:07-CV-00039-CAB)
(D. Wyo.)
CITY OF CASPER,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
Donald D. Johnson appeals from the district court’s order granting
summary judgment in favor of the City of Casper on his federal claim under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and his state-law claims for breach of contract and declaratory
judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Background
Mr. Johnson was hired by the City of Casper as an equipment mechanic on
July 1, 1981. Over the course of Mr. Johnson’s employment, the City
periodically updated its policies and issued new employment manuals. In 1999,
the City again proposed a new employment manual. In response to the Wyoming
Supreme Court’s decision in Brodie v. General Chemical Corporation, 934 P.2d
1263 (Wyo. 1997), the City offered its employees consideration in exchange for
agreeing to be bound by the terms of the new employment manual. The City
informed its employees that those who chose not to sign the acknowledgment
form would not receive a salary increase or one-time payment of $300 and would
remain subject to the current personnel manual dated February 1996. Mr.
Johnson chose not to sign the acknowledgment form.
In the summer of 2000, the City authorized a one-percent cost of living
adjustment (COLA). Mr. Johnson did not receive this COLA and contacted
human resources to find out why. In a letter dated August 3, 2000, the City
explained that the new employment manual allowed the City to change the terms
and conditions of employment, including the salary and benefits. Because
Mr. Johnson had elected to remain subject to the old manual, his benefits, salary,
and other terms of employment would be frozen under the terms of the older
manual. Since that time, Mr. Johnson received yearly letters explaining that he
-2-
would not be receiving COLAs, bonuses, or other benefit changes until he agreed
to be bound by the new set of policies.
Although Mr. Johnson acknowledged in his deposition testimony that he
believed his rights were being violated as early as August 2000, he did not file the
underlying complaint until February 2007. Mr. Johnson’s complaint alleged the
City’s actions violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by depriving him of a protected property
interest without proper due process. Mr. Johnson alleged also that the City
breached its employment contract when he did not receive employment benefits,
in the form of COLAs and bonuses. Lastly, Mr. Johnson sought a declaration of
the rights of the parties, in his favor, as to his “claim for future COLA[s], wage
increases, vacation pay issues, contributions to retirement and interest thereon,
attorney’s fees and any other items appropriate for resolution by Declaratory
Judgment.” Aplt. App., Vol. 1 at 13.
Mr. Johnson and the City both moved for summary judgment. The district
court granted the City’s motion and denied Mr. Johnson’s motion. On the § 1983
claim, the district court concluded that Mr. Johnson’s action was barred by the
applicable statute of limitations because he knew that his rights had been violated
as of August 3, 2000, but he failed to file his complaint on or before August 3,
2004. On the breach of contract claim, the district court concluded: (1) the oral
statement by the hiring supervisor that Mr. Johnson “‘would get COLAs’ [was] a
mere vague promise, and [was] too indefinite to rise to the level of an enforceable
-3-
contract;” and (2) the statement in the employment manual that “‘City Council
may periodically authorize across-the-board salary adjustments in response to
inflation’” did not give rise to a contractual right to COLAs “because the
statement . . . was discretionary and couched in permissive, non-mandatory
terms.” Aplt. App., Vol. 3 at 485-86. On the declaratory judgment claim, the
district court reiterated that “[Mr. Johnson] has no claim to benefits pursuant to
oral statements made to him at the time of his hiring, or pursuant to any language
in the employee handbooks.” Id. at 487. The court did note, however, that
Mr. Johnson could “bring his salary, retirement, and other benefits to the level of
other City employees by signing the acknowledgment form provided by the City.”
Id. at 487.
Discussion
We review de novo the district court’s summary-judgment ruling. Simms v.
Okla. ex rel. Dep’t of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs., 165 F.3d 1321,
1326 (10th Cir. 1999). Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue
of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Id.
Mr. Johnson argues (1) his § 1983 claim is not barred by the statute of
limitations because each time the City withheld a benefit it constituted a discrete
act of discrimination; (2) the City breached his employment contract because each
time the City adopted a salary adjustment, it had a duty to distribute that benefit
-4-
across-the-board to all qualified City employees, and it failed to give him those
benefits; and (3) because he had an enforceable contract, he was entitled to a
declaration of rights in his favor.
Based on our review of the briefs, the record, and the applicable legal
authority, we conclude that the district court correctly decided this case.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision for substantially the same
reasons stated in its thorough and well-reasoned order dated December 18, 2007.
Judge Hartz concurs in the result.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
-5-