Dr. Bob Lutz aims to revive federal case against Health District over 2020 firing

More than five years after his firing, Dr. Bob Lutz is trying to reopen his federal lawsuit against the Spokane Regional Health District.

Dismissed last year, the case may be revived by a federal appeals court.

A panel of three judges from the Ninth District U.S. Court of Appeals met at Gonzaga Law School to hear the appeal. Lutz’ federal case had been dismissed last March, and he appealed in hopes of allowing a jury to hear the case.

To dismiss a case under summary judgment, a judge must conclude that Lutz’s case did not hold merit even when viewed under the most favorable light. While they did not come to a conclusion Thursday, at least one appeals judge seemed prepared to reverse the ruling and allow Lutz to move forward with his case.

“I just can’t see why this was appropriate for summary judgment,” said Judge Holly Thomas.

At issue in the case was whether the Spokane Regional Health District used the correct procedure when firing Lutz in 2020 in the midst of the pandemic. According to Lutz, former SRHD administrator Amelia Clark fired him “effective immediately” during a meeting on Oct. 29, even though Lutz could only be fired by a vote of the SRHD Board of Health.

A Nov. 5 board vote to remove Lutz was a “foregone conclusion” after his firing by Clark days earlier, according to Lutz’s filing.

SRHD argued that Lutz was never fired by Clark in the first place. In their telling, Clark asked Lutz to resign and placed him on administrative leave when he refused.

The health district argued Lutz understood he had not been terminated by Clark because he told The Spokesman-Review that he was waiting for a final decision from the board.

“He knew he was waiting for something further,” SRHD attorney Heather Yakely said at the hearing.

But Lutz pointed to communications by Clark and others at the health district indicating they understood him to be fired on Oct. 29.

“Multiple communications confirm that he was gone – that he was fired,” said Lutz attorney Charles Hausberg.

An Oct. 29 email from an SRHD attorney stated employees should be “advised that Amelia has terminated Dr. Lutz’s employment.”

Breann Beggs, then a member of the SRHD board, had a conversation with Clark in which she confirmed Lutz’s termination.

“At the end of the conversation, I asked her just to confirm what is his status as an employee at the Health District, and she told me that he had been terminated,” Beggs said at a deposition for the case.

At a news conference the next day, Clark said she had terminated Lutz “with the full support of the board.”

Lutz inferred that meant the board had secretly voted to remove him prior to his Oct. 29 dismissal.

“The evidence only indicates that the Board was aware of employment issues and that … Clark wanted to take some sort of disciplinary action. Having the Board’s support is just an indication that they will support her disciplinary actions. Not that it had voted to terminate him,” reads SRHD’s response.

According to Yakely, Clark “misspoke” during that news conference.

Because Lutz had served on the health board prior to his appointment, he would have known only the board could have terminated him, she argued.

“Neither one of these parties are unsophisticated,” Yakely said.

Lutz attorney Charles Hausberg argued that just because Lutz might have known only the board could legally fire him, does not mean he was not fired by Clark.

“Because Dr. Lutz knew his rights were being violated, that means he doesn’t have a claim? That doesn’t make sense,” Hausberg said.

All three judges appeared skeptical of Yakely’s arguments. Judge Jennifer Sung said she “doesn’t see the difference” it would make if Lutz was aware of bylaws requiring removal by the board.

Thomas said all the communications describing Lutz as “terminated” are “all signs someone has been fired.”

“Is that language common if someone has not been terminated?” Thomas asked.

Yakely acknowledged there was “no doubt” Clark’s wording was imprecise.

Clark was later investigated by the state over the firing and eventually resigned as SRHD administrator because of the case.

With the hearing taking place at Gonzaga Law School, the auditorium was filled with law students viewing oral arguments. At times during Yakely’s interrogation by the judges, audible laughter could be heard from the assembled students.

It is unclear when the three judges will rule in the case. Should they find in Lutz’s favor, the case would be sent back to a lower federal court.

At the same time, a case in state court over the firing continues. A trial in that case is currently scheduled for May.