The Wyoming Supreme Court has delivered a mixed ruling in a case involving former police officer Scott Drewry, the Town of Greybull, and Police Chief William Brenner. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision in part, while reversing it in another, setting the stage for further legal proceedings. The core of the dispute revolves around a memo issued by Chief Brenner after Drewry left the Greybull Police Department, and the implications of a settlement agreement between Drewry and the town.
The Genesis of the Lawsuit
[¶1] The case began when Scott Drewry sued the Town of Greybull and Chief Brenner, alleging breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation. The genesis of the dispute lies in a memorandum (the “Brenner memo”) Chief Brenner issued to Greybull PD officers and several city and county officials after Drewry had resigned from the department. The memo outlined concerns regarding Drewry’s past conduct, particularly concerning an internal investigation related to an incident where Drewry handled a blood draw for a DUI suspect. Drewry claimed the memo violated a non-disparagement clause within a settlement agreement reached when he left the Greybull PD.
Key Issues Before the Court
[¶2] The Supreme Court addressed two main questions: 1) whether Chief Brenner was protected by qualified immunity, thereby shielding him from the defamation and emotional distress claims, and 2) whether there were factual disputes that prevented a summary judgment on the breach of contract claim.
Qualified Immunity Shields Chief Brenner from Tort Claims
[¶21] The court first addressed the issue of qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that protects government officials from liability in civil lawsuits unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights, and there is no evidence of malice. The court found that Chief Brenner was entitled to qualified immunity on the defamation per se and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. In reaching this conclusion, the court determined that Chief Brenner acted in good faith and that his actions were reasonable under the circumstances.
[¶25] The court reasoned that a reasonably competent officer could have believed the memo was a good-faith effort to implement a new department policy based on legitimate concerns about Drewry. The court stated that even if some witnesses disagreed with Chief Brenner’s motivations, the focus of the qualified immunity analysis is whether a reasonable officer could have acted as Chief Brenner did.
[¶26] The court further noted that Chief Brenner’s actions were reasonable. They determined that, regardless of whether Chief Brenner’s concerns about Drewry were justified, there was an objective basis for setting the policy, given the multiple internal investigations that resulted in Drewry being disciplined. Based on the record, the court concluded that a reasonable officer might have implemented the same policy under the same circumstances.
Breach of Contract Claim: Ambiguity Requires Further Review
[¶27] The court then turned to the breach of contract claim, specifically the non-disparagement clause in the settlement agreement. This clause stated that Chief Brenner and the Town would not “demean, disparage, defame or otherwise talk negatively in any way about Mr. Drewry regarding the investigation, termination or resignation.” The central question was whether the Brenner memo, and its references to Drewry’s “history of deception,” violated this clause.
[¶28] The court acknowledged that the terms “demean,” “disparage,” and “defame” were clear. However, they determined that the clause’s broadest phrase, “otherwise talk negatively in any way,” was open to interpretation. The court then focused on the meaning of “the investigation,” as that was the part of the settlement Drewry alleged the memo violated.
[¶30-33] The court found the phrase “the investigation” to be ambiguous. While it was clear that the investigation was sparked by the blood draw incident, the scope of that investigation was unclear. The court noted that Chief Brenner’s statements indicated that the investigation may have encompassed Drewry’s past conduct, not just the blood draw. In the end, the court concluded that due to the open-ended nature of the term “investigation,” the contract was ambiguous and summary judgement was improper.
[¶34] The court added that the trier of fact would need to determine the scope of “the investigation” and then assess whether the Brenner memo included negative statements that concerned “the investigation.”
[¶35-36] The court also rejected the argument that Chief Brenner was obligated by law, specifically under *Brady v. Maryland*, to distribute the Brenner memo. The court noted that *Brady* places a duty on prosecutors to disclose evidence to the defense, and that the argument that the Chief was obligated to disclose Drewry’s alleged credibility issues in every future hypothetical case was not supported by the law.
The Ruling’s Impact
[¶37] The Supreme Court’s decision has several implications. First, it affirms that Chief Brenner is shielded from liability for the emotional distress and defamation claims due to qualified immunity. Second, it means that the breach of contract claim will proceed, with the scope of “the investigation” and the meaning of the Brenner memo being key issues for the trial court to consider. The case will be sent back to the lower court for further proceedings, where the court will need to determine the scope of the non-disparagement clause and whether the Brenner memo violated it. This ruling underscores the importance of clear contract language and the protections afforded to government officials under qualified immunity.