Sanchez v. Dubois

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
September 2, 2008
TENTH CIRCUIT
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
JAMES SANCHEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 07-8074
v. (D. Wyoming)
PHILIP L. DUBOIS, former President of (D.C. No. 06-CV-258-ABJ)
the University of Wyoming in his
individual capacity; GARY BARTA, a
former Athletic Director for the University
of Wyoming in his individual capacity;
BARBARA BURKE, Associate Athletic
Director for the University of Wyoming in
her individual capacity; UNIVERSITY OF
WYOMING BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before MURPHY, HOLLOWAY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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.
I. Introduction
James Sanchez brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against his
former employer and several of its directors. He asserted that he was deprived of
a liberty interest without due process when he was discharged from his job as the
head cross country coach at the University of Wyoming, in violation of the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court granted the defendants’ motion
for summary judgment, ruling, inter alia, they had not violated Sanchez’s liberty
interest and were entitled to qualified immunity. Sanchez appeals the district
court’s qualified immunity ruling. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1291, this court affirms the district court because Sanchez cannot establish that
the defendants violated a constitutional right.
II. Background
In the fall of 2003, Sanchez was employed as the head cross country coach
and assistant track coach at the University of Wyoming. He had served in that
position for over twenty-two years when he was fired on November 4, 2003, by
Gary Barta, the University’s Director of Athletics. Sanchez received a letter,
informing him that he was being terminated, “pursuant to Paragraph 3(a) of the
Employment Agreement.” Paragraph 3(a) provides:
The President of the University may terminate Employee’s
appointment without notice for any of the following reasons:
[c]onduct unbecoming of a member of the University athletic staff or
which brings discredit to the University; mental or physical inability
to perform duties; act of insubordination to any superior University
-2-
officials; acts of malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance in office;
or deliberate and serious violations of any institutional regulations,
policies or procedures; and conference or NCAA legislation. An
athletic employee who is found in violation of NCAA regulations
shall also be subject to disciplinary or corrective action as set forth
in the provisions of the NCAA enforcement procedures.
Prior to Sanchez’s termination, the coach had been reprimanded on
numerous occasions for his poor performance. For example, his evaluations from
1997-2003 reflect that he was habitually late for work, was often unavailable
during the day, failed to monitor student athletes, had done a poor job recruiting
student athletes, had inadequately handled paperwork, and appeared to have lost
interest in coaching. Sanchez also mishandled an incident involving a missing
student athlete. An investigation by the school revealed that he had neglected to
investigate the missing student when she failed to show up for practice for over a
week. Although Sanchez told school authorities he had tried to track down the
student, his story contained several inconsistencies. For example, Sanchez told
his superiors that he talked to the missing student’s roommate, when in fact she
did not have a roommate. Further, during the school’s investigation of the
missing student, it became clear that Sanchez had held an unreported and
unsanctioned practice for the cross country team on Saturday, September 27,
2003. Under the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) bylaws,
strict limitations are placed on the number of hours a student athlete may practice
in any given week. There is also a concomitant reporting requirement.
-3-
University officials learned that Sanchez had been present at the Saturday practice
and it therefore should have been included in the NCAA reports. That practice,
however, had not been reported to the NCAA.
Soon thereafter, Barta called a meeting attended by Barbara Burke, the
Deputy Director of Athletics, and other members of the athletic department. The
group discussed Sanchez’s record at the school, his failure to make his superiors
aware of the missing cross country runner, their belief that Sanchez lied about his
attempts to locate her, and his failure to log the Saturday practice on the NCAA
reporting sheets, as well as other performance-related issues. The group was in
agreement that Sanchez should be terminated.
On November 4, 2003, the University released a statement to the press
explaining Sanchez had “been terminated from his position, effective
immediately, for violating terms of his contract.” The press release did not
elaborate on the reasons for termination. The following day, a campus
newspaper, the Branding Iron, published a story about Sanchez’s termination. [Id.
at 19] The article stated Sanchez was fired for violating Paragraph 3(a) and
quoted the language from the contract.
Neither the school’s press release nor the Branding Iron’s story mentioned
Sanchez’s alleged NCAA violation for failing to report a practice. Sanchez,
however, issued his own press release on November 6, 2003. In that release,
Sanchez admitted that he exercised “poor judgment” and alluded to “sloppy
-4-
adherence to NCAA rules and regulations.” He claimed, however, he was being
made a scapegoat. The Casper-Star Tribune ran an article the following day in
which Sanchez’s accusations against the University were aired. The University
confirmed that it might have cause to file a report with the NCAA for a minor
infraction, or a “secondary violation,” related to the cross country program. Both
Barta and Philip Dubois, University of Wyoming’s former President,
acknowledged, however, that the violation was not the primary reason for
Sanchez’s termination.
The University of Wyoming filed a secondary violation report two weeks
later. Filed by the Assistant Athletic Director for Compliance, Matthew J.
Whisenant, the letter informed the NCAA that Sanchez had violated NCAA
Bylaw 10, which governs unethical conduct. Specifically, the letter stated:
On October 2, 2003, the Senior Associate Athletic Director
and the Assistant Athletic Director for Compliance met with the
Head Cross Country Coach, Jim Sanchez. During that discussion,
Coach Sanchez stated he did not conduct a practice on Saturday,
September 27th. Furthermore, Coach Sanchez handed-in his
Athletically-Related Activities Weekly Time Sheet for the week of
September 21 through September 27, which also showed that he did
not conduct a practice (on the 27th). However, it came to the
attention of the Senior Associate Athletic Director and the Assistant
Athletic Director for Compliance that a practice was conducted. This
was confirmed through numerous random interviews with members
of the cross country team and our Academic Coordinator . . ., who
ran with the team that day.
. . . Thus, due to the unethical nature of this violation and
other serious issues which were unrelated to NCAA rules/regulations,
-5-
the University of Wyoming decided that the appropriate action was to
immediately terminate the coach’s contract.
The letter was copied to members of the University’s Athletic Department, legal
counsel, and the Associate Commissioner for Compliance for the Mountain West
Conference. The Casper-Star Tribune reported on January 11, 2004, that the
University of Wyoming had filed a secondary violation report with the NCAA.
Over eighteen months after his termination, Sanchez requested a name-
clearing hearing, which the University denied. Sanchez thereafter brought this
wrongful termination suit pursuant to § 1983 against Philip Dubois, Gary Barta,
and Barbara Burke in their individual capacities. 1 Sanchez alleged the University
deprived him of his liberty interest without due process of law and sought
compensatory damages. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for
summary judgment, concluding they were entitled to qualified immunity.
III. Discussion
The sole question on appeal is whether the district court properly concluded
the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. We review de novo a district
court’s summary judgment decision regarding qualified immunity. Cortez v.
McCauley, 478 F.3d 1108, 1115 (10th Cir. 2007) (en banc). The evidence is
viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. Summary
1
Sanchez also brought suit against the University of Wyoming in the
wrongful termination action. He does not, however, appeal the district court’s
conclusion that the Eleventh Amendment bars his suit against the University.
-6-
judgment is appropriate only “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure
materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(c).
The defendants, as public officials, are entitled to qualified immunity “from
individual liability in a § 1983 action unless the officials violated ‘clearly
established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have
known.’” Workman v. Jordan, 32 F.3d 475, 478-79 (10th Cir. 1994) (quoting
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). When a defendant asserts a
qualified immunity defense on summary judgment, “the burden shifts to the
plaintiff, who must first establish that the defendant violated a constitutional
right. ‘If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations
established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified
immunity.’” Cortez, 478 F.3d at 1114 (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194,
201 (2001)) (citation omitted). Only if the defendants violated a constitutional
right does this court move on to address whether the constitutional right was
clearly established. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201.
Sanchez argues he was deprived of a liberty interest without due process of
law. His liberty claim is based on damage to his reputation due to allegedly
stigmatizing statements made in the University of Wyoming’s secondary violation
report to the NCAA. See Workman, 32 F.3d at 480-81. Specifically, he argues
-7-
the letter falsely accuses him of engaging in unethical behavior, which
unconstitutionally impugned his good name and honor, and the defendants
declined to provide him with an adequate name-clearing hearing.
An employee has a “liberty interest in his good name and reputation as it
affects his protected property interest in continued employment.” Id. at 480
(citing Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 701 (1976)); see also Melton v. City of Okla.
City, 928 F.2d 920, 927 (10th Cir. 1991) (stating a public employee has a claim
for relief when he is terminated “based upon a public statement of unfounded
charges of dishonesty or immorality that might seriously damage the employee’s
standing or associations in the community and foreclose the employee’s freedom
to take advantage of future employment opportunities”). For a public official to
infringe on this liberty interest, four factors must be met:
First, to be actionable, the statements must impugn the good name,
reputation, honor, or integrity of the employee. Second, the
statements must be false. Third, the statements must occur in the
course of terminating the employee or must foreclose other
employment opportunities. And fourth, the statements must be
published. These elements are not disjunctive, all must be satisfied
to demonstrate deprivation of a liberty interest.
Workman, 32 F.3d at 481 (citations omitted). 2
2
A recent case, Darr v. Town of Tulluride, suggests the third Workman
factor should be composed in the conjunctive, rather than the disjunctive. 495
F.3d 1243, 1255 (10th Cir. 2007). Like Darr, we need not resolve this issue
because Sanchez’s claim fails on the fourth prong. Id. at 1255 n.4.
-8-
In this case, we need not consider all four Workman factors. Sanchez fails
to state a claim because he cannot demonstrate that the statements made to the
NCAA were published. 3 See Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 348 (1976) (holding
a non-public communication “cannot properly form the basis for a claim that
petitioner’s interest in his good name, reputation, honor, or integrity” has been
impaired) (quotation omitted). Although documents maintained by the University
or NCAA may be deemed published if there is a likelihood that the information
will be disclosed to prospective employers, Sanchez cannot establish that the
secondary violation report is anything but confidential. Brandt v. Bd. of Co-op
Educ. Servs., 820 F.2d 41, 44-45 (2d. Cir. 1987); see also Sims v. Fox, 505 F.2d
857, 864 (5th Cir. 1974) (en banc) (explaining the presence of derogatory
information in confidential files is not public). By way of affidavit, the NCAA’s
Director of Enforcement for Secondary Infractions testified that secondary
violations are “confidential documents.” Although a summary of the infraction is
available to the general public, the summary is scrubbed of both the coach’s and
University’s name. Sanchez, however, argues there is a likelihood that the
violation will become known to future employers, who may call the NCAA to
3
To the extent Sanchez appeals the district court’s ruling based on the other
statements made by University officials in the Branding Iron and Casper-Star
Tribune, we affirm the district court based on its finding that the statements were
true and thus cannot form the basis of a due process claim. See Workman v.
Jordan, 32 F.3d 475, 481 (10th Cir. 1994) (explaining to be actionable the
statements must be false).
-9-
check into the background of a job candidate. Although major violations are
readily available to potential employers, information on secondary violations,
such as this one, “is not available to member institutions unless the coach in
question has been placed on a special disciplinary status under a ‘show cause’
provision of the NCAA Bylaws.” Appellee’s App. at 34. The undisputed
evidence establishes that “Coach Sanchez was not under such a status, and no
information would be provided concerning any secondary violation with which he
might have been involved.” Id.Thus, even assuming the secondary violation contained false statements
impugning Sanchez’s good name and reputation, it was never published, and thus
cannot form the basis of a § 1983 claim. The failure to establish a deprivation of
a liberty interest negates any viability of Sanchez’s claim that he was entitled to a
name-clearing hearing. Workman, 32 F.3d at 482. Because the defendants
established that “no constitutional right would have been violated were the
allegations established,” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, they are entitled to qualified
immunity.
-10-
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, this court affirms the judgment of the district
court.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-11-