Rapp v. Franklin County

FILED IN THE 3 EASTERU N. S D. I SD TI RS IT CR TI C OT F C WO AU SR HT I NGTON 4 Apr 15, 2020 5 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON GEORGE RAPP, individually, No. 4:19-CV-05150-SAB 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER DENYING FRANKLIN COUNTY, a Municipal DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR Corporation; and FRANKLIN COUNTY SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHERIFF JIM RAYMOND, in his individual and official capacity, 16 Defendants.

18 Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 19. The motion was originally set for oral argument on April 15, 2020, but due to the COVID-19 outbreak and related court closures, the motion was reset without oral argument. ECF No. 43. Having considered the motion, the briefing, and the relevant caselaw—and for the reasons discussed herein—the Court denies Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

24 Plaintiff is an employee of the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office. He was terminated from his position as a road deputy in 2016. After winning at an arbitration proceeding guaranteed by his collective bargaining agreement, Plaintiff was reinstated by Defendant Sheriff Raymond to a position that was different from his original job. Plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights were violated, and he 1|| has been retaliated and discriminated against by Defendants because he won at the 2|| arbitration proceedings. Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not been retaliated 3|| against or discriminated and, to the extent he has not been reinstated to the same position, that Sheriff Raymond is merely following the arbitration order and has 5|| legitimate reasons for not reinstating Plaintiff to his original position.

The credibility of Plaintiff and various other witnesses are at the heart of this matter. Because there are general issues of material fact as to the conditions of 8|| Plaintiff's employment and the legitimacy of Defendants’ proffered reasons for their treatment of Plaintiff since his reinstatement, summary judgment is not 10|| appropriate. See Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 890 (9th Cir. 1994).

11 Accordingly, IT IS SO ORDERED: 12 1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 19, is DENIED.

13 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order 14)| and forward copies to counsel.

15 DATED the 15th day of April 2020.

18 ‘ Sfruckeyll Ere toan Stanley A. Bastian United States District Judge 22) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY