City of Midland v. O’Bryant

Facts

Plaintiff O’Bryant had previously sued Defendant twice. In the first instance, O’Bryant alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and subsequently voluntarily dismissed that suit. Defendant then notified Plaintiff O’Bryant and several other police officers that their duties were going to be reclassified as civilian positions. The officers had the option to remain in their current positions as civilians, apply for a transfer to another position within the police department and remaining an officer, or apply for a transfer to a civilian position in other city departments. If an officer chose a civilian position, the pay and benefits would be less. After these changes were announced, Plaintiffs filed a second suit for violations of the ADA, but they voluntarily dismissed that action. Defendant then reclassified many of the positions that police officers had held. Each of the plaintiffs in the ADA action were affected. Each officer was put in a position either more dangerous than his previous position, or a position that negatively affected his disability. Plaintiffs alleged that the reclassifications were in retaliation for filing the two prior suits. Among other theories of recovery, Plaintiffs claimed that Defendant owed them a duty of good faith and fair dealing. Defendant responded by arguing that it faced budgetary constraints and that limited resources made it difficult for Defendant to meet an increased need for law enforcement services. The chief of police testified that due to these circumstances, he filled positions formerly held by police officers with civilians. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing did not exist in employment agreements. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant. The appeals court reversed in part, holding that there was an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. Defendant appealed.