1017
i
RESOLUTION N0. 1017
Whereas, the West Memphis City Council made a Voice Resolution
to Accept the Judgement of the Court on the case of David Cody'Us.
City of West Memphis, Et Al. Case No. E-84-175, Chancery Court,
Crittenden County, Arkansas.
Whereas, the City Council of the City of West Memphis decided
not to appeal the case to a higher court.
Whereas, the Judgement handed down in the David Cody Vs.
City of West Memphis, ET Al is attached hereto.
PASSED and APPROVED this 20th day of June, 1985.
~r
Mayor
ll
I
l
ATTEST:
Da raf
City Clerk
,~:;r.
;~+~. ,.~
~~~`~~' .
~~~~ ~~ ~
Rr
~+ \QP~
,~~~" 1
LCU 1.1111.1IIG11
~ ~ ~.
§.L
IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF CRITTENDEN COUNTY, ARKANSAS
DAVID CODY M
CITY OF WEST MEMPHIS, ~`~"~® Aj_' Q~~
BILL RALPH, CHIEF OF POLICE, and .JUN ~ 9 ~''"
LEO CHITMAN, MAYOR OF THE
CITY OF WEST MEMPHIS, ARKANSAS S ~E~~' C~,ER~`
M~~~
J U D G M E N T
~~
PLAINTI~,~p ~~'~
~~
E-84-175 1g, ~9
~~~ti
DEFENDANT
Now on this 5th day of June, 1985, this matter comes on to
be heard= same being presented upon all the pleadings filed in
this matted the Plaintiff being present and represented by Clint
Saxon and the Defendants being present and represented. by Robert
L. Smith= and from the oral testimony of the Plaintiff, Bobby
Keen, Joyce Ferguson, Wyman Morgan, J. D. Hall, and Bill Ralph,
statements of counsel and other things before the Court, the
Court loth find t
I.
The Plaintiff, David Cody, was a salaried employee of the
City of West Memphis under the terms of the personnel manual
which was adopted as an ordinance by the City of West Memphis in
August of 1978 and amended twice, once in November of 1979 and
again in January of 1981. The Plaintiff had met his probationary
period and was entitled to all rights and protections contained
in the ordinance. The City of West Memphis did not have to adopt
the ordinance, but the City of West Memphis did and it is bound
by the terms of the ordinance. On April 13, 1982, the Plaintiff
received a letter dated April 12, 1982 from his department head,
Chief of Police Bobby Reen, advising the Plaintiff that he was
terminated and that the Plaintiff might request a hearing with
the Mayor within ten days from receipt of the letter. The Court
finds that the letter itself was in substantial compliance with
the ordinance, however, as a salaried employee, the Plaintiff was
entitled to two weeks notice, which the Plaintiff did not receive
nor did the Plaintiff receive two weeks pay. On April 20,1982,
less than ten days after the letter the Plaintiff received •from
.~ ,.
a ~,,~,~
r ~ ~r~
Chief Reen, the Plaintiff, by and through his attorn®y, gave
notice to Chief Reen and Mayor Ferguson that until the ordinance
was complied with and a hearing was held, that the Plaintiff
would consider himself an employee of West Memphis. The Plain-
tiff further requested that due process be followed under the
personnel manual. The Plaintiff also requested that the appeal
~, procedures as set out in Rule 2.15 of the personnel manual be
followed. The Court finds that the letter of April 20, 1982 as a
request by the Plaintiff for a hearing or an appeal of his
" dismissal. The Chief of Police responded to the letter of April
20, 1982 with a letter dated April 21, 1982 stating that the
Chief of Police had referred the matter to the City Attorney and
" the Mayor for their disposition. ey letter dated April 23, 1982,
the City Attorney wrote to the Plaintiff's attorney advising
Plaintiff's attorney that it was a position of the City of West
Memphis that all the procedural rules and regulations set'out in
the personnel manual were followed in the termination of the
Plaintiff. The Court finds that the procedural rules and
regulations of the personnel manual had not been followed as of
April 23, 1982 and have not been followed to this date (June ,5,
1985). The letter of April 23,.1982, further indicated that as
far as the City of West Memphis was concerned the matter was
closed. The Court finds that the local ordinance was not
complied with in the termination of the Plaintiff. The Court
finds that the Plaintiff has never been validly discharged and
that he is entitled to all of the back pay which has accumulated,
„..p....,..~.~..-,, .-: ~......
less what he has earned in the interim or received from unemploy-
ment compensation, including the pension and other rights to
which he is entitled~as an employee and further that until the"
procedure~is followed as set out in the ordinance, the Plaintiff
will remain an employee of the City.
-2-
II.
The Plaintiff, David Cody is entitled to judgment against
the City of West Memphis in the sum of $34,077.35 representin
the difference between what David Cody has earned since he g
wrongfully terminated and what he would have made had he rema was
employed by the City of West Memphis; costs fn the su ined
m of $76.25;
pre-judgment interest at the rate of six percent (68) per annum
in the amount of $2,590.02; for an aggregate judgment of
$36,743.62 together with interest at the rate of ten percent
(108) per annum until paid.
III.
Plaintiff is further entitled to Judgment against the City
of West Memphis in the sum of $1,897.91 representing the City's
contribution to the Plaintiff's pension plan together with
pre-judgment interest at the rate of 68 per annum in the amount
of $117.14 for an aggregate Judgment of $2,015.05. Said Judgment
may be satisfied by the City of West Memphis, paying said Judgment
of 52,015.05 into the Plaintiff's pension fund account.
IV.
That David Cody is an employee of the City of West Mem his
P
Arkansas until the procedures to terminate calle or n city
personnel manual which has been codi£fed as an ordinance are
correctly adhered to.
IT IS, THEREFORE, CONSIDERED, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT:
1. The Plaintiff, David Cody, is awarded Judgment against
the Defendant, City of West Memphis in the sum o '~~~~,
$34,077.35, .~
(which is all of the back pay which has accumulated epreaentfng
the difference between what David Cody has earned since he was
wrongfully terminated and what he would have made had he remained
employed by the City of West Memphis) costs~in the sum of $76.25;
pre-judgment interest at the rate of six percent (68) per annum
in the amount of $2,590.02 f
~, t or an aggregate judgment of
$36,743.62 ogether with interest at the rate of ten percent
nnum until paid.
-3-
~'.
• '+
~- • r
i
t
tc
> \V
w,r -~
~k
R r
2. The Plaintiff, David Cody, is also awarded Judgment
against the Defendant, City of West Memphis in the sum of
$1,897.91 representing the City's contribution to the Plaintiff's
pension plan together with pre-judgment interest at the rate of
six percent (6~) per annum in the amount of $117.14 for an
aggregate Judgment of $2,015.05. Said. Judgment may be t-f~" `e
by the City of West Memphis paying said Judgmen of $2,015.05
into the Plaintiff's # ~ .~~`~
pension fund account.
3. David Cody i.s an employee of the City of West Memphis
until the City of West Memphis correctly follows the procedures
to terminate as set out in the personnel manual which has been
codified as an ordinance.
ENTERED: This ~~ day of .June, 1985.
• A C O R
• ~ y
•,
Attorney~f'or the Plaintiff
awar.s~s a+• ve~aan
Attorney for the Defendant
-4-
z