Parker v. Yuba County Water District

310 F. App'x 203 (9th Cir. 2009) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · January 28, 2009

Summary

The Ninth Circuit held that the Yuba County Water District was estopped from relying on California Water Code § 30542 to disregard contractual employment terms providing that Parker could be dismissed only for valid cause. Because Parker was not given notice or an opportunity to respond before termination, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings regarding the remedy. The disposition was designated unpublished and nonprecedential under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Nelson; Reinhardt; Schroeder
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
January 28, 2009
Procedural posture
Parker appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Yuba County Water District on his procedural due process claim arising from his termination.
Standard of review
De novo review of the district court's grant of summary judgment.
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Parties
Dennis L. Parker v. Yuba County Water District
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

procedural due processemployment contractsemployment lawmunicipal lawcontracts

Practice areas

employment lawcivil rightsconstitutional lawcontractsmunicipal law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the District was estopped from relying on California Water Code § 30542 to terminate Parker without cause despite the written employment agreement and personnel policy requiring valid cause.
  2. Whether Parker was deprived of procedural due process when he was terminated without notice or an opportunity to respond.

Holdings

  1. Under the particular facts of the case, the District was collaterally estopped from denying the validity of the contractual terms requiring valid cause for Parker's termination.
  2. Parker had a legitimate claim of entitlement to his employment and therefore a protected property interest for procedural due process purposes.
  3. The District violated Parker's procedural due process rights because it terminated him without permitting him to attend the Board meeting and without giving him notice or an opportunity to respond to the statements used against him.

Key quotations

The essential requirements of due process are notice and an opportunity to respond.
Parker therefore had a “legitimate claim of entitlement” to his employment.

Factual background

Parker served as the District's General Manager under a written employment agreement signed by Parker and the then-president of the District's Board of Directors. The agreement subjected Parker to the District's personnel policies, including a provision stating that an employee could be dismissed only for valid cause. The Board terminated Parker using statements he had made to Colantuono, but Parker was not permitted to attend the Board meeting and was not given notice or an opportunity to respond to the Board's use of those statements.

Procedural history

The district court granted summary judgment to the District. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings concerning the remedy.

Remand instructions

Remanded to the district court for further proceedings concerning the appropriate remedy.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…