A former administrative manager with the Rochester Fire Department in Minnesota has lost his appeal in an age discrimination lawsuit alleging that fire department officials forced him into retirement by eliminating his supervisory responsibilities, reducing his salary, and reclassifying his position.

The US Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit brought by Curtis Pronk against the City of Rochester, Fire Chief Erik Kerska, Deputy Fire Chief Vance Swisher, and Human Resources Director Linda Hillenbrand. Pronk alleged age discrimination, constructive discharge, denial of due process, and civil conspiracy.

Pronk worked for the Rochester Fire Department since 2006 as the manager of Administrative Services. For more than a decade, he received favorable performance evaluations. In 2021, following a departmental review intended to improve efficiency, Pronk came under increased scrutiny. Two administrative assistants he supervised complained about his management abilities, while other employees raised concerns about his handling of budgeting, maintenance, and information technology responsibilities.

Deputy Fire Chief Swisher prepared performance evaluations documenting these concerns. Although Pronk had previously received satisfactory ratings, his July 2021 evaluation rated his performance as unsatisfactory.

Rather than place Pronk on a performance improvement plan, department officials reclassified his position to being an Administrative Services Specialist. The change eliminated his supervisory responsibilities, removed him from the executive management team, and reduced his annual salary by approximately $12,000.

Pronk, who was 60 years old, objected to the changes and expressed concern that he was being “walked out the door.” He subsequently announced his retirement, effective August 31, 2021. The department later filled his position with a 50-year-old employee.

Pronk claimed the reclassification was motivated by age discrimination and that the changes to his position effectively forced him to retire. He also alleged that the department violated provisions of his collective bargaining agreement governing job reclassifications.

The CBA required that a job reclassification involve changes to at least 40% of an employee’s duties and responsibilities. It also required notification to the union president before the proposed changes were submitted to the City Council. Fire Chief Kerska acknowledged that he did not know whether Pronk’s responsibilities had changed by 40%, and the department had not followed the CBA’s notification requirements.

The district court dismissed Pronk’s claims on summary judgment, prompting his appeal. The Eighth Circuit concluded that Pronk had failed to establish that he was constructively discharged. The court explained that constructive discharge requires proof that an employer deliberately made working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable employee would have no realistic alternative but to resign.

The court acknowledged that Pronk found the changes unacceptable but concluded that the circumstances did not satisfy the legal standard for constructive discharge. Quoting an earlier Eighth Circuit decision, the court explained:

“[S]uch things as loss of supervisory responsibilities, a feeling of being unfairly criticized, dissatisfaction with work assignments, and loss of pay are insufficient to constitute a constructive discharge.”

The court also found insufficient evidence that department officials intended to force Pronk into retirement or that his retirement was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of their actions. According to the court, the evidence suggested that officials were attempting to retain Pronk by creating a position they believed he could successfully perform. Deputy Fire Chief Swisher had previously prepared an alternative performance evaluation rather than place more severe criticisms in Pronk’s official review, allowing him to remain eligible for a merit increase.

The court also addressed the department’s apparent failure to comply with the collective bargaining agreement.  First, the apparent CBA violation did not independently establish liability because Pronk’s lawsuit alleged age discrimination and constitutional violations, not a breach of the collective bargaining agreement. Second, rather than establishing an intent to force Pronk out, the court concluded that the decision to redesign his position (albeit in violation of the agreement), supported the conclusion that officials wanted to retain him.

The court further noted that Pronk never informed department officials that he believed the actions were motivated by age discrimination. Although he expressed concern about being forced out, he retired without giving the department a reasonable opportunity to address his discrimination concerns. The court held that this provided an additional basis for dismissing his federal age discrimination and equal protection claims.

Pronk’s procedural due process claim also failed. The court recognized that the collective bargaining agreement’s just-cause termination provision gave him a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment. However, because his retirement was voluntary rather than a constructive discharge, he had not been deprived of that interest.

The court also found that Pronk had never utilized the grievance procedures available under his collective bargaining agreement. As a result, his due process rights were not violated.

With no underlying constitutional violation, his civil conspiracy claim necessarily failed as well. Here is a copy of the decision.