No. 81-65
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1982
HELEN L. LOVELL,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
VS.
JOSEPH G. WOLF, City-County
Manager for Anaconda-Deer Lodge County;
and ANACONDA DEER LODGE COUNTY, a
political subdivision,
Defendants and Respondents.
leal from: District Court of the Third Judicial District,
In and for the County of Deer Lodge, Montana
Honorable Robert Boyd, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Michael J. McKeon argued, Anaconda, Montana
For Respondents:
John Radonich, County Attorney, argued, Anaconda,
Montana
Submitted: February 24, 1982
Decided :
rp- '\
# & i$@
%
Filed: APR 1
Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n delivered the Opinion of
the Court.
This i s an appeal fro~rl a judgment of the District
Court; of the Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , i n and f o r t h e C o u n t y
o f Deer Lodge, d e n y i n g H e l e n L o v e l l r e i n s t a t e m e n t and back-
pay r e s u l t i n g from h e r d i s c h a r g e from c o u n t y employment.
The a p p e l l a n t , Helen L o v e l l , i s a s i x t y - f i v e - y e a r - o l d
woman, who was elected to three, four-year terms as the
c l e r k and r e c o r d e r o f Deer Lodge C o u n t y , Montana, Her f i r s t
e l e c t e d t e r m began on J a n u a r y 3 , 1967. She t h e n was e l e c t e d
f o r a term begining i n J a n u a r y 1 9 7 1 , and a n o t h e r b e g i n n i n g
in January 1975, The l a s t t e r m was t o run until January
1979, but on May 2, 1977, a county form of government,
c o n s o l i d a t i n g t h e c i t y and c o u n t y g o v e r n m e n t s , was p u t i n t o
effect, That charter had certain provisions which are
important to the decision in this case. The charter
provides:
" A r t i c l e IV, Section 3, Duties.
"1. The Anaconda-Deer Lodge County Manager
s h a l l be t h e c h i e f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e r o f
t h e l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t and s h a l l b e r e s p o n s i b l e
f o r a l l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s o f Anaconda-
Deer Lodge C o u n t y , u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d
by t h i s C h a r t e r .
"2. The M a n a g e r ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s s h a l l be
to: ... c. a p p o i n t and remove d e p a r t m e n t
h e a d s w i t h t h e a p p r o v a l o f t h e Commission.
" A r t i c l e V , S e c t i o n 2. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Code.
"1. The A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Code s h a l l p r o v i d e
t h e c o m p l e t e p l a n o f o r g a n i z a t i o n and s t r u c -
t u r e of Anaconda-Deer Lodge County.
"2. The A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Code s h a l l i n c l u d e :
"a. t h e d e p a r t m e n t a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e
g o v e r n m e n t , t h e n a t u r e and s c o p e o f e a c h
d e p a r t m e n t and r u l e s and p r o c e d u r e s f o r
department o p e r a t i o n ...
"Article V, Section 3 . P e r s o n n e l System.
"1. The Anaconda-Deer Lodge County P e r s o n -
n e l System s h a l l p r o v i d e f o r h i r i n g on t h e
b a s i s o f m e r i t and s h a l l i n c l u d e a s a l a r y
schedule, provisions for vacations, sick
l e a v e s , i n s u r a n c e and o t h e r b e n e f i t s f o r a l l
employees i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h p r o v i s i o n s of
t h i s C h a r t e r ; p r o c e d u r e s f o r employees t o
h a v e an o p p o r t u n i t y t o b e h e a r d upon t h e i r
r e q u e s t pending d i s c h a r g e , suspension o r any
d e s i g n a t e d d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n and s h a l l
provide f o r such o t h e r procedures a s neces-
s a r y f o r an e q u i t a b l e P e r s o n n e l System
including honoring of all collective
bargaining agreements.
" A r t i c l e X , Section 2. Continuity.
"5. A l l Anaconda and Deer Lodge County o f f i -
c i a l s o r e m p l o y e e s , e x c e p t t h e Mayor, C i t y
C o u n c i l members, and County C o m m i s s i o n e r s ,
may c o n t i n u e i n t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e i r
d u t i e s according t o existing personnel
procedures or u n t i l t h e i r positions a r e
t e r m i n a t e d by t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o d e .
Employees whose p o s i t i o n s a r e t e r m i n a t e d by
p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Code s h a l l
be g i v e n f i r s t c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r o t h e r
Anaconda-Deer Lodge County employment.
" A r t i c l e X , S e c t i o n 4. Manager, A d m i n i s t r a -
t i v e Code, and P e r s o n n e l S y s t e m .
"1. The Commission s h a l l a p p o i n t t h e Manager
on o r b e f o r e A u g u s t 1, 1 9 7 7 .
"2. W i t h i n n i n e ( 9 ) months o f t h e a p p o i n t -
ment o f t h e Manager, t h e Manager s h a l l
p r e p a r e and s u b m i t an A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Code and
P e r s o n n e l System t o t h e Commission f o r
r e v i e w , amendment, and a d o p t i o n by o r d i n a n c e .
The Code and P e r s o n n e l System s h a l l n o t be i n
v i o l a t i o n of any union c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g
c o n t r a c t i n f o r c e a t t h e t i m e of a d o p t i o n o f
s a i d Code and S y s t e m .
"3. The Commission s h a l l a d o p t t h e Adminis-
t r a t i v e Code and P e r s o n n e l S y s t e m by o r d i -
n a n c e a s s u b m i t t e d o r amended w i t h i n t h r e e
( 3 ) months o f t h e d a t e o f s u b m i s s i o n by t h e
Manager .
"4. The method a11d s c h e d u l e f o r implementa-
t i o n of t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Code and P e r s o n n e l
System s h a l l be p r o v i d e d i n t h e o r d i n a n c e s
a d o p t i n g them . . ."
At t h e time of the institution of t h e new form o f
government, May 2 , 1 9 7 7 , t h e Board o f County C o m m i s s i o n e r s
o f Anaconda-Deer Lodge County p a s s e d a r e s o l u t i o n p r o v i d i n g
for a personnel system pursuant t o A r t i c l e V, Section 3 ,
which i n e f f e c t a p p o i n t e d Helen L. Love11 s u p e r v i s o r , c l e r k
and r e c o r d e r ' s o f f i c e , and p r o v i d e d a s f o l l o w s :
". . . be i t f u r t h e r r e s o l v e d t h a t t h e a b o v e
named i n d i v i d u a l s s e r v e i n t h e a b o v e e n t i t l e d
c a p a c i t i e s u n t i l such time a s t h e c h a r t e r of
t h e Anaconda-Deer Lodge County i s implemented
and t h e v a r i o u s o f f i c e s and d e p a r t m e n t s a r e
merged and c o n s o l i d a t e d and u n t i l f u r t h e r
r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e Anaconda-Deer Lodge County
Commission."
The e f f e c t o f t h e r e s o l u t i o n a s t o H e l e n Love11 was t o make
her p o s i t i o n one o f a p p o i n t m e n t r a t h e r t h a n e l e c t i o n .
In July 1977, the defendant-respondent, Joseph G,
Wolf, was appointed manager of the Anaconda-Deer Lodge
County. I n F e b r u a r y 1 9 7 8 , a f t e r s i x months i n o f f i c e , Wolf
informed the appellant that she was to record and help
R e g i n a C o n n o r , who had been moved a t t h e t i m e of t h e con-
s o l i d a t i o n from t h e c i t y c l e r k ' s j o b t o t h e o f f i c e o f c l e r k
and r e c o r d e r . Wolf testified that sometime a t t h e end o f
1977 he c a l l e d t h e c i t y and c o u n t y e m p l o y e e s t o a m e e t i n g i n
t h e courtroom of the county courthouse to discuss the job
s i t u a t i o n and t h e c o m b i n i n g of t h e c i t y and c o u n t y o f f i c e s ,
He also testified that at this time he informed county
e m p l o y e e s t h a t Connor was t o be t h e c l e r k and r e c o r d e r a f t e r
t h e f i r s t of t h e year.
The a p p e l l a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e was n o t t o l d s h e was
no longer clerk and recorder but simply was assigned to
o t h e r j o b s i n t h e o f f i c e and t o l d t o a s s i s t Connor and show
h e r around t h e o f f i c e . A t no t i m e was t h e r e any r e s o l u t i o n
by t h e board of commissioners t e r m i n a t i n g a p p e l l a n t ' s job o r
t r a n s f e r r i n g her t o a l e s s e r job in the city-county setup.
The appellant testified that sometime i n mid-February she
was c a l l e d t o W o l f ' s o f f i c e where h e i n f o r m e d h e r h e was n o t
s a t i s f i e d w i t h h e r work. At t h a t t i m e he asked h e r if she
had c o n s i d e r e d r e t i r i n g , and s h e i n f o r m e d him s h e was u n a b l e
financially to retire. On March 15, 1978, Wolf again
suggested t h a t appellant r e t i r e . He t o l d h e r t h a t h e r work
was unsatisfactory and that he had had complaints from
abstractors. He then informed her s h e would b e t e r m i n a t e d
a s o f March 1 7 .
Wolf testified that a t the t i m e h e went t o work in
August 1977 he was familiar with the Resolution No. 1,
p a s s e d by t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r s making a p p e l l a n t t h e s u p e r v i s o r
of the clerk and recorder's office. He a l s o t e s t i f i e d he
was f a m i l i a r w i t h the charter which created t h e Anaconda-
Deer Lodge County g o v e r n m e n t and t h a t h e was a w a r e o f the
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o d e t o be p r o v i d e d by t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r s .
I n a d d i t i o n , Wolf was a w a r e t h a t t h e c h a r t e r d i r e c t e d
t h e Anaconda-Deer Lodye c o u n t y c o m m i s s i o n t o a d o p t a p e r s o n -
n e l s y s t e m w i t h i n n i n e t o t w e l v e months. During t h a t p e r i o d
no personnel or administrative code was adopted by the
commission n o r was a n y p e r s o n n e l s y s t e m a d o p t e d o r i n e f f e c t
when Wolf demanded the a p p e l l a n t 1s resignation. He
testified that while no c h a n g e s had b e e n made o f f i c i a l l y ,
" i n h i s mind" Connor became t h e c l e r k and r e c o r d e r a s o f t h e
f i r s t o f t h e y e a r , 1978. However, i t was n o t u n t i l March 9 ,
1978, s e v e r a l months later, that Connor was a p p o i n t e d the
s u p e r v i s o r o f t h e c l e r k and r e c o r d e r ' s o f f i c e . During this
period, from J a n u a r y 1 t o March 1 7 , i n s p i t e of a c h a n g e o f
duties, t h e a p p e l l a n t was p a i d t h e same s a l a r y s h e was p a i d
as clerk and recorder. Wolf's recommendation and the
commissioners' act on March 9, 1978, were several weeks
a f t e r Wolf had h i s f i r s t c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h t h e a p p e l l a n t and
j u s t a c o u p l e of d a y s b e f o r e t h e t e r m i n a t i o n of h e r job in
t h e c l e r k and r e c o r d e r ' s o f f i c e .
Wolf testified t h a t f o l l o w i n g t h e R e s o l u t i o n No. 1,
dated May 2, 1977, there was no resolution changing the
a p p e l l a n t f s s t a t u s u n t i l March 1978. Wolf also testified
that prior to that time, he had given appellant a verbal
warning b u t had n o t g i v e n h e r any w r i t t e n n o t i f i c a t i o n t h a t
s h e was u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r s u s p e n s i o n o r t e r m i n a t i o n .
Appellant testified that during the time she was
clerk and recorder of Deer Lodge County, as an elected
o f f i c i a l , s h e c o u l d n o t j o i n a union b e c a u s e of h e r e l e c t i v e
status. Some q u e s t i o n i s r a i s e d by t h e r e s p o n d e n t s a l l e g i n g
t h a t when a p p e l l a n t was demoted from c l e r k and r e c o r d e r t o a
lesser position i n J a n u a r y o r F e b r u a r y s h e was r e q u i r e d t o
j o i n t h e u n i o n a n d , h a v i n g f a i l e d t o do s o , s h e h a s waived
her rights to a collective bargaining hearing. However,
testimony of both the appellant and the courthouse union
s h o p s t e w a r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t made an e f f o r t t o
j o i n t h e u n i o n b u t was e i t h e r d e n i e d membership o r t o l d t h a t
the union would look into the matter for her. Her
termination came before anything could be done in her
capacity as a nonofficial employee of the Anaconda-Deer
Lodge County o f f i c e .
Three i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w :
1. Whether the plaintiff-appellant was d e n i e d due
p r o c e s s when s h e was d i s c h a r g e d from h e r p o s i t i o n a s c l e r k
and r e c o r d e r o f Anaconda-Deer Lodge County w i t h o u t a h e a r i n g
t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e r e was c a u s e f o r h e r t e r m i n a t i o n .
2. Whether the plaintiff-appellant was d e n i e d due
p r o c e s s r i g h t s when a new s u p e r v i s o r o f c l e r k and r e c o r d e r ' s
o f f i c e o f Anaconda-Deer Lodge County was a p p o i n t e d w h i l e t h e
appellant had never been removed officially as clerk and
recorder of Deer Lodge C o u n t y , a s required by s t a t u t e and
t h e l o c a l government c h a r t e r .
3. Whether t h e p l a i n t i f f - a p p e l l a n t i s p r e c l u d e d from
maintaining this action if she failed to exhaust the
adrninistrative remedies which may have been available to
her.
In view of the fact that issues one and two,
concerning t h e due p r o c e s s q u e s t i o n , a r e c o n t r o l l i n y i n t h i s
c a s e and r e q u i r e r e v e r s a l o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t ,
t h e two w i l l be combined f o r d i s c u s s i o n .
The r e s p o n d e n t s a r g u e t h a t t h e i s s u e s o f d u e p r o c e s s
were not raised at the trial court level and, therefore,
cannot be considered on appeal. Chadwick v. Giberson
(1980) t Mont. , 618 P.2d 1 2 1 3 , 37 St.Rep. 1723. We
do n o t a g r e e .
Here, t h e due p r o c e s s issue ran through the entire
t r i a l and was b r o u g h t t o t h e a t t e n t i o n o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
by the a p p e l l a n t ' s proposed f i n d i n g s of fact. T h e r e was a
specific charge that the county's failure to adopt a
" p e r s o n n e l s y s t e n ~ "p r o v i d i n g f o r a h e a r i n g b e f o r e d i s c h a r g e s
was a " v i o l a t i o n of . . . due process.'' The c a s e was t r i e d
as a due process question in spite of the fact that the
w o r d s "due p r o c e s s n do n o t a p p e a r i n e i t h e r t h e p l e a d i n g s o r
the trial transcript and the due process concern is the
pivotal issue presented i n t h i s appeal.
From the city-county manager's first transfer of
appellant's duties to his final t e r m i n a t i o n of her employ-
ment, appellant's rights under the charter were neither
recognized nor protected. The charter dictated how each
a p p o i n t e d d e p a r t m e n t head was t o be rernoved, and i t r e q u i r e d
a n y removal t o be a p p r o v e d by t h e c o m m i s s i o n . The c h a r t e r
provisions were never followed in the transfer of appel-
lant's duties after her appointment as supervisor of the
c l e r k and r e c o r d e r ' s office, and t h e y were n o t f o l l o w e d i n
removii~g her from h e r job until e a r l y March. The record
i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e n o t a r y p u b l i c s e a l o b t a i n e d by a p p e l l a n t
d u r i n g t h e t i m e s h e was c l e r k and r e c o r d e r was s t i l l b e i n g
used up u n t i l t h e t i m e s h e was f i r e d . In addition, appel-
l a n t was p a i d t h e same s a l a r y t h r o u g h o u t t h e e n t i r e p e r i o d
u n t i l s h e was t e r m i n a t e d .
In her capacity as clerk and recorder before the
consolidation, t h e a p p e l l a n t was t h e g e n e r a l s u p e r v i s o r o f
h e r o f f i c e and d i d n o t p e r f o r m t h e s p e c i f i c j o b s w i t h i n t h e
off ice which required special skills. Rather, she was
always available to the board of county commissioners as
t h e i r c l e r k and c a r r i e d o u t o t h e r d u t i e s o f t h e o f f i c e which
d i d n o t r e q u i r e t h e s p e c i a l i z a t i o n c a l l e d f o r u n d e r t h e new
form o f g o v e r n m e n t . Following her t r a n s f e r t o r e c o r d s c l e r k
s h e was c a l l e d upon t o d o t e c h n i c a l jobs within the o f f i c e
f o r which s h e had no e x p e r t i s e . One o f t h e r e a s o n s g i v e n by
Manager Wolf f o r h e r t e r m i n a t i o n was t h a t h e had c o m p l a i n t s
from two a b s t r a c t o r s i n town t h a t a p p e l l a n t d i d n o t p r o p e r l y
r e c o r d instruments and h e r w r i t i n g was s o bad m i s t a k e s were
being made in the recording. However, the record is a l s o
c l e a r t h a t Wolf d i d n o t c a l l t h i s t o h e r a t t e n t i o n u n t i l t h e
d a y h e n o t i f i e d h e r t h a t s h e was no l o n g e r employed, n o r was
a n y e f f o r t made to train her for the s k i l l s necessary to
s t a y on t h e j o b .
I n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e due p r o c e s s p r o t e c t i o n argument of
t h e a p p e l l a n t , we l o o k t o t h r e e r e c e n t c a s e s o f t h i s C o u r t :
R e i t e r v . Y e l l o w s t o n e County ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - Mont. -, 627 P.2d
845, 38 St.Rep. 686; Gates v. Life of Montana Insurance
Company ( 1 9 8 2 ) , - Mont. -, 638 P.2d 1 0 6 3 , 39 S t . R e p . 16;
and Nye v . Department of L i v e s t o c k ( 1 9 8 2 ) , Ivlon t . 1
639 P.2d 498, 39 S t . R e p . 49. See: Love, Damages: A Remedy
f o r t h e V i o l a t i o n o f C o n s t i t u t i o n a l R i g h t s , 67 C a l . Law Rev.
This Court held in Reiter, supra, that to show a
property interest or liberty interest i n h i s job, and t h u s
be entitled to claim due process protection, an ernployee
m u s t be a b l e t o p o i n t t o an i n d e p e n d e n t s o u r c e s u c h a s s t a t e
law or an understanding between the employer and the
employee. Here, we find three s o u r c e s by which a p p e l l a n t
c a n e s t a b l i s h a due p r o c e s s p r o t e c t i o n : (1) t h e c h a r t e r ;
(2) the statute, section 16-5115.12, R.C.M. 1947; and (3)
the collective bargaining agreement which we find
unnecessary t o consider i n deciding t h i s case.
W n o t e t h a t n e i t h e r G a t e s n o r - had been d e c i d e d
e Nye
when the parties in this case filed their briefs so t h e y
were n o t d i s c u s s e d t h e r e . However, in addition to Reiter,
this Court's holding in -
Nye adds strength to appellant's
cause in this matter. There, this Court held on the
p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m of wrongful d i s c h a r g e t h a t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
r u l e s may become t h e s o u r c e o f a p u b l i c p o l i c y which would
s u p p o r t a c l a i m of wrongful d i s c h a r g e . In -
Nye, as in this
case, t h e r e was no showing o f " j u s t c a u s e " f o r removal from
her s t a t u s a s permit clerk. She was, a s t h e a p p e l l a n t h e r e ,
entitled to a proper hearing before termination from her
permanent p o s i t i o n .
W r e v e r s e t h e judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n y i n g
e
appellant reinstatement in her position as clerk and
recorder. The c a u s e i s remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w i t h
the following instructions: t h a t a p p e l l a n t be r e i n s t a t e d t o
h e r p o s i t i o n a s c l e r k and r e c o r d e r ; t h a t s h e be p a i d b a c k p a y
for the period from March 1978 t o p r e s e n t , s u b j e c t t o any
offsets; and t h a t h e a r i n g s be h e l d t o determine her future
s t a t u s a s an employee o f t h e C i t y of Anaconda-County o f Deer
Lodge.
W concur:
e
-- --
P -
- Justice
,Chief Justice r,
Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l . s p e c i a l l y c o n c u r r i n g :
I concur in the result on the basis that appellant
L o v e 1 1 was denied due p r o c e s s because there was n o v a l i d
change in her status and she was discharged without a
hearing .
aAt~%&- P
Chief J u s t i c e