Baker v. Woodbury, City of, The

Background

Joseph Paul Baker worked as a paramedic for the City of Woodbury. He voluntarily joined the City’s emergency-medical-services education group, where he helped with paramedic training and training documentation submitted to the Emergency Medical Services Regulatory Board. Baker raised concerns about alleged deficiencies in training records and contacted people outside his immediate chain of command about those concerns. He also complained after being asked to have ketamine ready during a call involving a person in a mental-health crisis.

Baker later received a performance improvement plan addressing his attitude, communication, cooperation, safety, and conflict-resolution issues. The plan required regular meetings with supervisors and a police sergeant. Baker resigned after receiving the plan and later brought this action against the City, John Wallgren, Chris Klein, and J.B. Guiton.

Claims and motions

Baker asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Wallgren, Klein, and Guiton retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech. He also alleged that the City was liable under the municipal-liability doctrine recognized in Monell v. Department of Social Services because it failed to adequately train, supervise, and discipline its employees. Finally, he claimed that the City violated the Minnesota Whistleblower Act by allowing Guiton to threaten him, placing him on the performance improvement plan, and forcing him to resign.

The defendants moved for summary judgment and moved to exclude expert testimony. Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

First Amendment retaliation claim

The court held that Baker’s speech was not protected by the First Amendment. For a public employee’s speech to receive protection, the employee generally must have spoken as a private citizen about a matter of public concern, rather than speaking as part of the employee’s official duties.

The court determined that Baker’s concerns about training records arose from his responsibilities in the education group. He discovered the alleged deficiencies through access available to him in that role, discussed the issue with education-group colleagues, and reported the concerns while acting in connection with that work. The court rejected Baker’s argument that his voluntary participation in the group made him a private citizen for First Amendment purposes.

The court also held that Baker’s complaint about preparing ketamine arose within his role as an emergency medical technician. Because Baker’s communications were made as part of his professional responsibilities, the court concluded that they were not protected speech.

The court separately held that Baker had not shown an adverse employment action. It concluded that the performance improvement plan, standing alone, was reasonable, minimally burdensome, and easily achievable. The plan addressed Baker’s attitude and communication issues and required meetings that the court viewed as minor changes that could benefit him. The court also rejected Baker’s constructive-discharge theory. It found that one threat by Guiton, combined with the plan, did not establish intolerable working conditions; Baker resigned before giving the City a reasonable opportunity to correct the meeting requirement; and the record did not show that the defendants intended to force him to quit.

Finally, the court found no causal connection between Baker’s complaints and the performance improvement plan. It noted that the record contained evidence of Baker’s attitude and communication problems supporting the plan, but no evidence that the plan was designed as retaliation.

Municipal-liability claim

The court rejected Baker’s claim against the City under Monell. Municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires an unconstitutional act carried out under a municipal policy or custom. Because Baker had not established a First Amendment violation, the court held that his municipal-liability claim also failed.

Minnesota Whistleblower Act claim

The court assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that Baker might have engaged in protected activity when he raised concerns about paramedic training. It nevertheless held that the claim failed because Baker could not establish a qualifying adverse employment action connected to that activity. The court relied on its earlier conclusions concerning the performance improvement plan and constructive discharge.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It denied the motion to exclude expert testimony as moot, meaning the court did not need to decide that motion after granting summary judgment. The court dismissed the case with prejudice and directed that judgment be entered.