Edmiston v. Idaho State Liquor Division et al, No. 1:2011cv00395 - Document 62 (D. Idaho 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 48 Motion to Reconsider. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO MARGO M. EDMISTON, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:11-CV-395-BLW v. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER IDAHO STATE LIQUOR DIVISION, a department of the State of Idaho, and JEFFREY R. ANDERSON, Director of the Idaho State Liquor Division, in his individual and official capacity Defendants. INTRODUCTION The Court has before it a motion to reconsider filed by defendant Anderson. The motion is fully briefed and at issue. For the reasons explained below, the Court will deny the motion. ANALYSIS Plaintiff Edmiston claims that she was fired from her job with the Idaho State Liquor Division (ISLD) without due process. While her complaint contained various causes of action, Judge Robert J. Bryan presiding as a Visiting Judge granted a partial summary judgment, dismissing all claims except her claim under ยง 1983 against the ISLD Director, Jeffrey Anderson, in his individual capacity for violating her due process rights. Judge Bryan then referred the case back to this Court for all further proceedings. Memorandum Decision & Order page 1 Anderson asks the Court to reconsider Judge Bryan s ruling allowing that single claim to remain in the case. He argues that Edmiston s position was eliminated as part of a mandate from the State Legislature to cut the ISLD budget, and that no process is due to an employee laid off for this reason. It is undisputed, however, that if she was targeted for firing that is, if she was fired for some reason connected to her performance she would be entitled to a hearing and other due process protections. Anderson argues that there is no evidence that she was targeted. Judge Bryan disagreed, and this Court also disagrees. Former ISLD Director James Nally testified about a personal vendetta between Edmiston and officials at the Department of Human Resources (DHR) and the Department of Financial Management (DFM). See Nally Deposition at p. 20. During this long-standing feud of 20 years, these officials were watching [Edmiston] like a hawk, much more than they watched other employees, trying to find something wrong . . . watching to try to catch a mistake, to get a reason to fire her for cause. Id. at pp. 20-21, 22. Nally recalled DHR officials stating that we re going to need to get several people in this reduction to make it look like we re not retaliating against [Edmiston]. Id. at p. 29. This evidence creates issues of fact over Anderson s claim that Edmiston was not fired for any reason personal to her but was laid off when her position was eliminated as part of a legislative mandate to cut the ISLD budget. If she was fired for reasons connected to her performance rather than as part of a system-wide reduction-in-force, there is no dispute that she was entitled to certain due process rights that she did not Memorandum Decision & Order page 2 receive. Moreover, her right to that due process would have been so clear that Anderson would not be entitled to qualified immunity for denying her that due process. For these reasons, Judge Bryan denied summary judgment on this claim. For the same reasons, the Court will deny the motion to reconsider. ORDER In accordance with the Memorandum Decision above, NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to reconsider (docket no. 48) is DENIED. DATED: May 7, 2014 _________________________ B. Lynn Winmill Chief Judge United States District Court Memorandum Decision & Order page 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
