2006-09-13 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITIES AND COUNTIES LEGAL UPDATE Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney; l?A. Attorneys at Law 300 u.s. Tn/st Bllilding 730 Second Avenlle South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 339-0060 FAX (612) 339-0038 lVww.ratwiklaw.com JlIly 2006 2006 LEGISLATIVE SESSION BRINGS CHANGES TO TORT LIABILITY LAWS By Margaret A. Skelton & Sonya J. Guggemos Prior to last summer, municipalities participating in a joint powers agreement believed that they had formed a distinct governmental entity. Despite the number of municipalities involved, municipalities believed that the joint enterprise was subject to only Margaret A. Skelton one tort liability cap. Further, unless the governmental units had expressly agreed to do so, the governmental units believed that they would not be held liable for the negligent acts of other governmental units who participated in the joint venture. These understandings gave municipalities some measure of comfort in making the decision to become part of a joint powers entilY, The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit decision in the case of Reimer v. City of Crookston, et a\., 421 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2005), shattered this perception by significantly reinterpreting the way that liability was assigned to municipalities participating in a joint powers agreement or other joint ventures. The 2006 legislature effectively overturned Reimer and the new law will again encourage municipalities to work together. Background In the Reimer case, a repairman had been injured when a valve for a swimming pool boiler he was working on broke off The water and steam released by the broken valve severely burned the repairman. The swimming pool was operated under a Joint Recreation continued on page 2 U.S. SUPREME COURT RULES NO FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYEE SPEECH MADE PURSUANT TO OFFICIAL DUTIES By Ann R. Goering The United Stares Supreme Court ruled on May 30, 2006 that a prosecutor informing his supervisor of his concerns regarding proceeding with a pending criminal case did not constitute protected speech for the purposes of the First Amendment. In Garcetti. et a\. v. Ceballos, deputy district attorney Ceballos raised concerns in a memo to his supervisor and in a meeting with employees of both the prosecutor's office and sheriff's department regarding possible inaccuracies in an affidavit used to secure a search warrant. Ceballos recommended dismissal of the case, a proposal which his supervisor disregarded. Ceballos was subsequently reassigned to other duries, uansfcrred to another posirion and denied a promotion. He brought suit alleging retaliation for exercising his First Amendment right to speak on a matter of public concern. The trial court granted the defendants' morion for summary judgment, dismissing the case on the grounds that Ceballos wrote the memo pursuant to his job duties and that therefore he was not entitled to constitutional protections for the content of the speech contained in the memo. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the allegations of wrongdoing contained in the memo constituted protected speech. Defendants appealed and the United States Supreme Court sided with the trial court and the defendants. The Court distinguished the facts in Garcetti from Pickering v. Board of Ed. Township High School Distr. 205. Will Cty., 391 U.S. 563 (1968) one of its previous major cases addressing free speech rights in the workplace. Ann R. Goering continued on page 3