facebook likes case

8/22/2019 Facebook Likes Case

1/81

PUBLISHED

UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FOURTH CI RCUI T

No. 12-1671

BOBBY BLAND; DANI EL RAY CARTER, J R. ; DAVI D W. DI XON; ROBERTW. MCCOY; J OHN C. SANDHOFER; DEBRA H. WOODWARD,

Pl ai nt i f f s - Appel l ant s ,

v.

B. J . ROBERTS, i ndi vi dual l y and i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y asSher i f f of t he Ci t y of Hampt on, Vi r gi ni a,

Def endant - Appel l ee.

- -

AMERI CAN CI VI L LI BERTI ES UNI ON; AMERI CAN CI VI L LI BERTI ESUNI ON OF VI RGI NI A FOUNDATI ON; FACEBOOK, I NC. ; NATI ONALASSOCI ATI ON OF POLI CE ORGANI ZATI ONS,

Ami ci Suppor t i ng Appel l ant s.

Appeal f r om t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he East er nDi st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a, at Newpor t News. Raymond A. J ackson,Di st r i ct J udge. ( 4: 11- cv- 00045- RAJ - TEM)

Ar gued: May 16, 2013 Deci ded: September 18, 2013

Bef or e TRAXLER, Chi ef J udge, THACKER, Ci r cui t J udge, and El l enLi pt on HOLLANDER, Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct J udge f or t he Di st r i ctof Mar yl and, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.

Af f i r med i n par t , r ever sed i n par t , and r emanded by publ i shedopi ni on. Chi ef J udge Tr axl er wr ot e t he opi ni on, i n whi ch J udge


2/81

2

Thacker j oi ned. J udge Hol l ander wr ot e a separ at e opi ni onconcur r i ng i n par t and di ssent i ng i n par t .

ARGUED: J ames Har r el l Shoemaker , J r . , PATTEN, WORNOM, HATTEN &

DI AMONSTEI N, LC, Newpor t News, Vi r gi ni a, f or Appel l ant s. Aar onM. Panner , KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, EVANS & FI GEL,P. L. L. C. , Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Ami cus Facebook, I nc. J ef f W.Rosen, PENDER & COWARD, PC, Vi r gi ni a Beach, Vi r gi ni a, f orAppel l ee. ON BRIEF: Li sa Ehr i ch, PENDER & COWARD, PC, Vi r gi ni aBeach, Vi r gi ni a, f or Appel l ee. Andr ew E. Gol dsmi t h, KELLOGG,HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, EVANS & FI GEL, P. L. L. C. , Washi ngt on, D. C. ,f or Ami cus Facebook, I nc. Aden J . Fi ne, Kat hr yn A. Wood,AMERI CAN CI VI L LI BERTI ES UNI ON FOUNDATI ON, New Yor k, New Yor k;Rebecca K. Gl enber g, AMERI CAN CI VI L LI BERTI ES UNI ON OF VI RGI NI AFOUNDATI ON, I NC. , Ri chmond, Vi r gi ni a, f or Ami ci Amer i can Ci vi lLi ber t i es Uni on and ACLU of Vi r gi ni a. J . Mi chael McGui nness,THE MCGUI NNESS LAW FI RM, El i zabet htown, Nor t h Car ol i na; Wi l l i amJ . J ohnson, NATI ONAL ASSOCI ATI ON OF POLI CE ORGANI ZATI ONS,Al exandr i a, Vi r gi ni a, f or Ami cus Nat i onal Associ at i on of Pol i ceOr gani zat i ons.


3/81

3

TRAXLER, Chi ef J udge:

Si x pl ai nt i f f s appeal a di st r i ct cour t or der gr ant i ng

summar y j udgment agai nst t hem i n t hei r act i on agai nst B. J .

Rober t s i n hi s i ndi vi dual capaci t y and i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y

as t he Sher i f f of t he Ci t y of Hampt on, Vi r gi ni a. The sui t

al l eges t hat Rober t s r et al i at ed agai nst t he pl ai nt i f f s i n

vi ol at i on of t hei r Fi r st Amendment r i ght s by choosi ng not t o

r eappoi nt t hem because of t hei r suppor t of hi s el ect or al

opponent . We af f i r m i n par t , r ever se i n par t , and r emand f or

t r i al .

I .

Vi ewi ng t he f act s i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he

pl ai nt i f f s, as we must i n r evi ewi ng an or der gr ant i ng summar y

j udgment agai nst t hem, t he r ecor d r eveal s t he f ol l owi ng. Bobby

Bl and, Dani el Ray Car t er , J r . , Davi d W. Di xon, Rober t W. McCoy,

J ohn C. Sandhof er , and Debr a H. Woodwar d ( t he Pl ai nt i f f s) ar e

al l f or mer empl oyees of t he Hampt on Sher i f f s Of f i ce ( t he

Sher i f f s Of f i ce) .

Robert s was up f or r e- el ect i on i n November 2009, havi ng

ser ved as sher i f f f or t he pr i or 17 year s. J i m Adams announced

i n ear l y 2009 t hat he woul d r un agai nst Sher i f f Rober t s. Adams

had wor ked i n t he Sher i f f s Of f i ce f or 16 year s and had become

t he t hi r d most seni or of f i cer , wi t h a r ank of l i eut enant

col onel , when he r esi gned i n J anuary 2009 t o r un.


4/81

4

The Hampton Ci t y Pol i ce Depar t ment has pr i mar y

r esponsi bi l i t y f or l aw enf or cement i n Hampt on. However , t he

Sher i f f s Of f i ce mai nt ai ns al l ci t y corr ect i onal f aci l i t i es ,

secur es t he ci t y s cour t s, and ser ves ci vi l and cr i mi nal

war r ant s. I n December 2009, t he Sher i f f s Of f i ce had 190

appoi nt ees, i ncl udi ng 128 f ul l - t i me swor n deput y sher i f f s, 31

f ul l - t i me ci vi l i ans, 3 unassi gned act i ve dut y mi l i t ar y, and 28

part - t i me empl oyees. Cart er , McCoy, Di xon, and Sandhof er were

swor n, uni f or med sher i f f s deput i es who wor ked as j ai l er s i n t he

Sher i f f s Of f i ce Cor r ecti ons Di vi si on. 1 They had not t aken the

Vi r gi ni a Depar t ment of Cr i mi nal J ust i ce Ser vi ces Basi c Law

Enf or cement cour se, compl et i on of whi ch was r equi r ed i n

Vi r gi ni a f or an of f i cer t o pat r ol and have i mmedi at e ar r est

power s. 2 However , t hey di d t ake t he Basi c J ai l er and Cour t

Ser vi ces cour se, whi ch has about hal f as l ong a cur r i cul um as

t he Basi c Law Enf orcement cour se. Al t hough t hey di d not have

gener al power s of i mmedi at e ar r est , t he deput i es di d have t he

1 Sandhof er wor ked as a j ai l er f or most of hi s shor t t i me i nt he Sher i f f s Of f i ce, al t hough he wor ked as a ci vi l pr ocessser ver i n t he Sher i f f s Of f i ce Ci vi l Pr ocess Di vi si on f or t hef i nal t hr ee mont hs of hi s t enur e.

2 The Vi r gi ni a Depar t ment of Cr i mi nal J ust i ce Ser vi ces,Di vi si on of Law Enf or cement , has t he r esponsi bi l i t y ofover seei ng and managi ng t r ai ni ng st andar ds and r egul at i ons f ort he cr i mi nal j ust i ce communi t y.


5/81

5

aut hor i t y t o make i nci dent al ar r est [ s] i n [ t he] r ange of

[ t hei r ] wor k. J . A. 297.

Bl and and Woodward were not deput i es, but r ather worked i n

non- sworn admi ni st r at i ve posi t i ons. Woodwar d was a t r ai ni ng

coor di nator and Bl and was a f i nance and account s payabl e

of f i cer .

Not wi t hst andi ng l aws and r egul at i ons prohi bi t i ng t he use of

st at e equi pment or r esour ces f or pol i t i cal act i vi t i es, see Hat ch

Act , 5 U. S. C. 1501, et . seq. ; 22 Va. Admi n. Code 40- 675- 210

( 2012) , Sher i f f Rober t s used hi s of f i ce and t he r esour ces t hat

he cont r ol l ed, i ncl udi ng hi s empl oyees manpower , t o f ur t her hi s

own r e- el ecti on ef f or t s. Hi s seni or st af f of t en r ecrui t ed

Sher i f f s Of f i ce empl oyees t o assi st i n t hese ef f or t s. For

exampl e, he used hi s empl oyees t o work at hi s annual

bar beque/ gol f t our nament pol i t i cal f undr ai ser , and hi s

subor di nat es pr essured empl oyees t o sel l and buy t i cket s t o hi s

f undr ai si ng event s.

The Sher i f f won r eel ect i on i n November 2009. He

subsequent l y r eappoi nt ed 147 of hi s 159 f ul l - t i me empl oyees.

Those not r eappoi nted i ncl uded t he si x Pl ai nt i f f s as wel l as

f i ve ot her deput i es and one ot her ci vi l i an.

On Mar ch 4, 2011, t he Pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed sui t i n f eder al

di st r i ct cour t agai nst Sher i f f Rober t s i n hi s i ndi vi dual and

of f i ci al capaci t i es under 42 U. S. C. 1983. Al l s i x Pl ai nt i f f s


6/81

6

al l eged t hat t he Sher i f f vi ol at ed t hei r Fi r st Amendment r i ght t o

f r ee associ at i on when he r ef used t o r eappoi nt t hem based on

t hei r l ack of pol i t i cal al l egi ance t o hi m i n t he 2009 el ecti on.

Addi t i onal l y, Car t er , McCoy, Di xon, and Woodward al l eged t hat

t he Sher i f f vi ol at ed t hei r Fi r st Amendment r i ght t o f r ee speech

when he r ef used t o r eappoi nt t hem because of var i ous i nst ances

of speech t hey made i n suppor t of Adams s campai gn. Among t he

r emedi es Pl ai nt i f f s r equest ed wer e compensat i on f or l ost back

pay and compensat i on f or l ost f r ont pay or , al t er nat i vel y,

r ei nst at ement . The Sher i f f answer ed Pl ai nt i f f s compl ai nt and

asser t ed sever al af f i r mat i ve def enses.

Rober t s subsequent l y moved f or summary j udgment , and t he

di st r i ct cour t grant ed i t . See Bl and v. Rober t s, 857 F. Supp.

2d 599 ( E. D. Va. 2012) . Regar di ng t he f r ee- speech cl ai ms, t he

di st r i ct cour t concl uded that Car t er , McCoy, and Woodwar d had

al l f ai l ed t o al l ege t hat t hey engaged i n expr essi ve speech and

t hat Di xon had not shown that hi s al l eged speech was on a mat t er

of publ i c concer n. See i d. at 603- 06. Regar di ng t he

associ at i on cl ai ms, t he cour t concl uded t hat Pl ai nt i f f s f ai l ed

t o est abl i sh any causal r el at i onshi p bet ween t hei r suppor t of

Adams s campai gn and t hei r non- r eappoi nt ment . See i d. at 606-

07. Fi nal l y, assumi ng ar guendo t hat t he Sher i f f di d vi ol at e

Pl ai nt i f f s Fi r st Amendment r i ght s, t he di st r i ct cour t concl uded

he was ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y on t he i ndi vi dual - capaci t y


7/81

7

cl ai ms and El event h Amendment i mmuni t y on t he of f i ci al - capaci t y

cl ai ms. See i d. at 608- 10.

I I .

On appeal , t he Pl ai nt i f f s mai nt ai n t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

er r ed i n grant i ng summary j udgment agai nst t hem.

Thi s cour t r evi ews de novo a di st r i ct cour t s or der

gr ant i ng summary j udgment , appl yi ng the same st andards as t he

di st r i ct cour t . See Pr ovi dence Squar e Assocs. , L. L. C. v.

G. D. F. , I nc. , 211 F. 3d 846, 850 ( 4t h Ci r . 2000) . Summar y

j udgment i s appropr i at e i f t he movant shows t hat t her e i s no

genui ne di sput e as t o any mat er i al f act and t he movant i s

ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. Fed. R. Ci v. P.

56( a) .

The Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat t hey wer e r et al i at ed agai nst f or

exer ci si ng t hei r Fi r st Amendment r i ght s t o f r ee speech and

associ at i on. The Fi r st Amendment , i n r el evant par t , provi des

t hat Congr ess shal l make no l aw . . . abr i dgi ng t he f r eedom of

speech. U. S. Const . amend. I . The Four t eent h Amendment makes

t hi s pr ohi bi t i on appl i cabl e t o t he st at es. See Fi sher v. Ki ng,

232 F. 3d 391, 396 ( 4t h Ci r . 2000) . Not onl y does t he Fi r st

Amendment pr ot ect f r eedom of speech, i t al so pr ot ect s t he r i ght

t o be f ree f rom ret al i at i on by a publ i c of f i ci al f or t he

exer ci se of t hat r i ght . Suar ez Cor p. I ndus. v. McGr aw, 202

F. 3d 676, 685 ( 4t h Ci r . 2000) . Al t hough government empl oyees do


8/81

8

not f or f ei t t hei r const i t ut i onal r i ght s at wor k, i t i s wel l

est abl i shed t hat t he gover nment may i mpose cer t ai n r est r ai nt s

on i t s empl oyees speech and t ake act i on agai nst t hem t hat woul d

be unconst i t ut i onal i f appl i ed t o t he gener al publ i c. Adams v.

Tr ust ees of t he Uni v. of N. C. - Wi l mi ngt on, 640 F. 3d 550, 560 ( 4th

Ci r . 2011) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

The Supreme Cour t i n Conni ck v. Myer s, 461 U. S. 138 ( 1983) ,

and Pi cker i ng v. Boar d of Educat i on, 391 U. S. 563 ( 1968) , has

expl ai ned how t he r i ght s of publ i c empl oyees t o speak as pr i vat e

ci t i zens must be bal anced agai nst t he i nt er est of t he gover nment

i n ensur i ng i t s ef f i ci ent oper at i on. I n l i ght of t hese

compet i ng i nt er est s, we have hel d t hat i n or der f or a publ i c

empl oyee t o pr ove t hat an adver se empl oyment act i on vi ol ated hi s

Fi r st Amendment r i ght s t o f r eedom of speech, he must est abl i sh

( 1) t hat he was speaki ng as a ci t i zen upon a mat t er of publ i c

concern or as an empl oyee about a mat t er of personal i nt erest ;

( 2) t hat t he empl oyee s i nt er est i n speaki ng upon t he mat t er of

publ i c concer n out wei ghed the gover nment s i nt er est i n pr ovi di ng

ef f ect i ve and ef f i ci ent ser vi ces t o t he publ i c; and ( 3) t hat

t he empl oyee s speech was a subst ant i al f act or i n t he

empl oyee s t er mi nat i on deci si on. McVey v. St acy, 157 F. 3d 271,


9/81

9

277- 78 ( 4t h Ci r . 1998) . 3 I n conduct i ng t he bal anci ng t est i n t he

second pr ong, we must consi der t he cont ext i n whi ch t he speech

was made, i ncl udi ng t he empl oyee s r ol e and t he ext ent t o whi ch

t he speech i mpai r s t he ef f i ci ency of t he wor kpl ace. See Ranki n

v. McPherson, 483 U. S. 378, 388- 91 (1987) .

Fact or s r el evant t o t hi s i nqui r y i ncl ude whet her apubl i c empl oyee s speech ( 1) i mpai r ed t he mai nt enanceof di sci pl i ne by super vi sor s; ( 2) i mpai r ed har monyamong coworker s; ( 3) damaged cl ose personalr el at i onshi ps; ( 4) i mpeded t he per f or mance of t hepubl i c empl oyee s dut i es; ( 5) i nt er f er ed wi t h t heoper at i on of t he [ agency] ; ( 6) under mi ned t he mi ss i onof t he [ agency] ; ( 7) was communi cat ed t o t he publ i c ort o cowor ker s i n pr i vat e; ( 8) conf l i ct ed wi t h t her esponsi bi l i t i es of t he empl oyee wi t hi n t he [ agency] ;and ( 9) abused t he aut hor i t y and publ i c account abi l i t yt hat t he empl oyee s r ol e ent ai l ed.

Ri dpat h v. Boar d of Gover nor s Mar shal l Uni v. , 447 F. 3d 292, 317

( 4t h Ci r . 2006) . Accor di ngl y, a publ i c empl oyee who has a

conf i dent i al , pol i cymaki ng, or publ i c cont act r ol e and speaks

out i n a manner t hat i nt er f er es wi t h or under mi nes t he operat i on

of t he agency, i t s mi ssi on, or i t s publ i c conf i dence, enj oys

subst ant i al l y l ess Fi r st Amendment pr ot ect i on t han does a l ower

l evel empl oyee. McVey, 157 F. 3d at 278.

3 The Sher i f f appr opr i at el y does not cont end t hat t he f actt hat t he Pl ai nt i f f s wer e si mpl y not r eappoi nt ed as opposed t obei ng ot her wi se di schar ged af f ect s t he const i t ut i onal i t y ofhi s act i ons. The cri t i cal f act f or our pur poses i s t hat t het er mi nat i on of t he Pl ai nt i f f s empl oyment wi t h t he Sher i f f sOf f i ce was not t he Pl ai nt i f f s deci si on. See Br ant i v. Fi nkel ,445 U. S. 507, 512 n. 6 (1980) .


10/81

10

Thi s pr i nci pl e t ends t o mer ge wi t h t he est abl i shed

j ur i sprudence gover ni ng t he di schar ge of publ i c empl oyees

because of t hei r pol i t i cal bel i ef s and af f i l i at i on. I d. Such

cl ai ms must be anal yzed under t he pr i nci pl es est abl i shed by

El r od v. Bur ns, 427 U. S. 347 ( 1976) , and Br ant i v. Fi nkel , 445

U. S. 507 ( 1980) . See Fi el ds v. Pr at er , 566 F. 3d 381, 385- 86

( 4t h Ci r . 2009) . These cases make cl ear t hat t he Fi r st

Amendment gener al l y bar s t he f i r i ng of publ i c empl oyees sol el y

f or t he r eason t hat t hey wer e not af f i l i at ed wi t h a par t i cul ar

pol i t i cal par t y or candi dat e, Kni ght v. Ver non, 214 F. 3d 544,

548 ( 4t h Ci r . 2000) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) , as such

f i r i ngs can i mpose rest r ai nt s on f r eedoms of bel i ef and

associ at i on, El r od, 427 U. S. at 355 ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on) ; see

Smi t h v. Fr ye, 488 F. 3d 263, 268 ( 4t h Ci r . 2007) . 4 St i l l , t he

Supr eme Cour t i n El r od cr eat ed a narr ow except i on t o gi ve

ef f ect t o t he democr at i c pr ocess by al l owi ng pat r onage

di smi ssal s of t hose publ i c empl oyees occupyi ng pol i cymaki ng

posi t i ons. J enki ns v. Medf or d, 119 F. 3d 1156, 1161 ( 4t h Ci r .

1997) ( en banc) . Thi s except i on served t he i mpor t ant

gover nment goal of assur i ng t he i mpl ement at i on of pol i ci es of

4 The r i ght of f r ee associ at i on [ i s] a r i ght cl osel yal l i ed t o f r eedom of speech and a r i ght whi ch, l i ke f r ee speech,l i es at t he f oundat i on of a f r ee soci et y. Cr omer v. Br own, 88F. 3d 1315, 1331 ( 4t h Ci r . 1996) ( quot i ng Shel t on v. Tucker , 364U. S. 479, 486 ( 1960) ) .


11/81

11

[ a] new admi ni st r at i on, pol i ci es pr esumabl y sanct i oned by the

el ector at e. I d. ( quot i ng El r od, 427 U. S. at 367) . I n Br ant i ,

t he Supr eme Cour t modi f i ed t he El r od t est somewhat t o

r ecogni ze[ ] t hat t he l abel s used i n El r od i gnor ed t he pr act i cal

r eal i t i es of j ob dut y and st r uct ur e. I d. Under t he t est as

modi f i ed, t he ul t i mat e i nqui r y i s not whet her t he l abel

pol i cymaker or conf i dent i al f i t s a par t i cul ar posi t i on;

r at her , t he quest i on i s whet her t he hi r i ng aut hor i t y can

demonst r at e t hat par t y af f i l i at i on [ or pol i t i cal al l egi ance] i s

an appr opr i at e r equi r ement f or t he ef f ect i ve per f or mance of t he

publ i c of f i ce i nvol ved. Br ant i , 445 U. S. at 518.

I n St ot t v. Hawor t h, 916 F. 2d 134 ( 4t h Ci r . 1990) , we

adopt ed a t wo- par t t est f or conduct i ng t hi s anal ysi s. See

Fi el ds, 566 F. 3d at 386. Fi r st , we consi der whet her t he

[ pl ai nt i f f s] posi t i on i nvol ve[ s] gover nment deci si onmaki ng on

i ssues wher e t her e i s r oom f or pol i t i cal di sagr eement on goal s

or t hei r i mpl ement at i on. St ot t , 916 F. 2d at 141 ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . I f i t does, we t hen exami ne t he

par t i cul ar r esponsi bi l i t i es of t he posi t i on t o det er mi ne whet her

i t r esembl es a pol i cymaker , a pr i vy t o conf i dent i al i nf or mat i on,

a communi cator , or some ot her of f i ce hol der whose f unct i on i s

such t hat par t y af f i l i at i on [ or pol i t i cal al l egi ance] i s an

equal l y appr opr i at e r equi r ement . I d. at 142 ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . The f i r st st ep of t he i nqui r y


12/81

12

r equi r es us t o exami ne t he i ssues deal t wi t h by t he empl oyee at

a ver y hi gh l evel of gener al i t y, whi l e [ t ] he second st ep

r equi r es a much mor e concr et e anal ysi s of t he speci f i c posi t i on

at i ssue. Fi el ds, 566 F. 3d at 386. At t he second st ep,

cour t s f ocus on t he power s i nher ent i n a gi ven of f i ce, as

opposed t o t he f unct i ons per f or med by a par t i cul ar occupant of

t hat of f i ce. St ot t , 916 F. 2d at 142. I n t hi s r egar d, we f ocus

on t he j ob descr i pt i on f or t he posi t i on i n quest i on and onl y

l ook past t he j ob descr i pt i on wher e t he pl ai nt i f f demonst r at es

some syst emat i c unr el i abi l i t y, such as wher e t he descr i pt i on has

been mani pul ated i n some manner by of f i ci al s l ooki ng t o expand

t hei r pol i t i cal power . Nader v. Bl ai r , 549 F. 3d 953, 961 ( 4t h

Ci r . 2008) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . 5

Our causat i on anal ysi s f or t he associ at i on cl ai ms i s t he

same as f or t he speech cl ai ms. The pl ai nt i f f bear s t he i ni t i al

bur den of pr ovi ng t hat hi s exer ci se of hi s Fi r st Amendment

r i ght s was a subst ant i al or mot i vat i ng f actor i n t he

empl oyer s deci si on t o t ermi nate hi m. Wagner v. Wheel er , 13

5 We not e that i n cases i n whi ch t he El r od- Br ant i except i onappl i es, and an empl oyer t hus can t ermi nate hi s empl oyees f orpol i t i cal di sl oyal t y, he may al so t er mi nat e t hem f or speech t hatconst i t ut es such di sl oyal t y. See J enki ns v. Medf or d, 119 F. 3d1156, 1164 ( 4t h Ci r . 1997) ( en banc) ( hol di ng t hat becausepl eadi ngs est abl i shed t hat El r od- Br ant i except i on appl i ed,deput i es f ai l ed t o st at e a Fi r st Amendment speech r et al i at i oncl ai m t hat deput i es wer e di smi ssed f or campai gni ng agai nst t hesher i f f ) .


13/81

13

F. 3d 86, 90 ( 4t h Ci r . 1993) ; Sal es v. Gr ant , 158 F. 3d 768, 775-

76 ( 4t h Ci r . 1998) . And i f t he pl ai nt i f f sat i sf i es t hat bur den,

t he def endant wi l l avoi d l i abi l i t y i f he can demonst r at e, by a

preponder ance of t he evi dence, t hat he woul d have made t he same

empl oyment deci si on absent t he pr otected expr essi on. See Sal es,

158 F. 3d at 776 ( ci t i ng O Har e Tr uck Ser v. , I nc. v. Ci t y of

Nor t hl ake, 518 U. S. 712, 725 ( 1996) ) .

Pl ai nt i f f s chal l enge t he di str i ct cour t s rul i ngs wi t h

r egar d t o t he mer i t s of bot h t hei r associ at i on and t hei r speech

cl ai ms as wel l as wi t h r egar d t o qual i f i ed and El event h

Amendment I mmuni t y. We begi n our anal ysi s wi t h t he mer i t s of

Pl ai nt i f f s associ at i on cl ai ms and wi l l t hen addr ess t he mer i t s

of t he speech cl ai ms bef ore tur ni ng t o El event h Amendment and

qual i f i ed i mmuni t y.

A. Mer i t s of Associ at i on Cl ai ms

We concl ude t hat Car t er , McCoy, and Di xon at l east cr eat ed

genui ne f act ual di sput es r egar di ng whet her t he Sher i f f vi ol at ed

t hei r associ at i on r i ght s, but t hat Sandhof er , Woodwar d, and

Bl and di d not .

1. El r od- Br ant i

Wi t h r egar d t o t hese cl ai ms, we st ar t by aski ng whet her t he

Sher i f f had t he r i ght t o choose not t o r eappoi nt t he Pl ai nt i f f s

f or pol i t i cal r easons. Cer t ai nl y t her e i s l egi t i mat e

di sagr eement over t he goal s and i mpl ement at i on of t he goal s of a


14/81

14

sher i f f s of f i ce; accor di ngl y, t he out come of t he St ot t t est

wi l l t ur n on t he out come i n St ot t s second st ep. See, e. g. ,

Kni ght , 214 F. 3d at 548- 51. Thus, i t i s t hat par t of t he t est

on whi ch we f ocus our at t ent i on.

Cart er , McCoy, and Di xon al l occupi ed t he same posi t i on i n

t he Sher i f f s Of f i ce. 6 They wer e uni f or med j ai l er s and t hey hel d

t he t i t l e of sher i f f s deput y. Because t hey hel d t hat t i t l e,

much of t he debate between t he par t i es concer ni ng t he

appl i cat i on of t he El r od- Br ant i t est t o t hese t hr ee men r el at es

t o our deci si on i n J enki ns. I n J enki ns we anal yzed t he Fi r st

Amendment cl ai ms of sever al Nor t h Car ol i na sher i f f s deput i es

who al l eged t hat t he sher i f f f i r ed t hem f or f ai l i ng t o suppor t

hi s el ect i on bi d and f or suppor t i ng ot her candi dat es. I n so

doi ng, we consi der ed t he pol i t i cal r ol e of a sher i f f , t he

speci f i c dut i es per f or med by sher i f f s deput i es, and t he

r el at i onshi p bet ween a sher i f f and hi s deput i es as i t af f ect s

t he execut i on of t he sher i f f s pol i ci es. See J enki ns, 119 F. 3d

at 1162- 64. We gener al l y concl uded t hat deput i es pl ay a

speci al r ol e i n i mpl ement i ng t he sher i f f s pol i ci es and goal s,

t hat [ t ] he sher i f f i s l i kel y t o i ncl ude at l east some deput i es

6 We do not address whet her Sandhof er , Woodward, or Bl andcoul d be t er mi nat ed f or l ack of pol i t i cal al l egi ance because, aswe wi l l di scuss, t hey have not cr eat ed genui ne f act ual di sput esr egar di ng whet her l ack of pol i t i cal al l egi ance was a subst ant i albasi s f or t hei r non- r eappoi nt ment .


15/81

15

i n hi s cor e gr oup of advi sor s, t hat deput i es exer ci s[ e]

si gni f i cant di scr et i on i n per f or mi ng t hei r j obs when t hey ar e

on pat r ol , t hat [ t ] he sher i f f r el i es on hi s deput i es t o f ost er

publ i c conf i dence i n l aw enf or cement , t hat he expect s t hem t o

pr ovi de hi m wi t h t he t r ut hf ul and accur at e i nf or mat i on t he

sher i f f needs, and t hat somet i mes deput i es ser ve as t he

sher i f f s gener al agent s whose act s can expose the sher i f f t o

ci vi l l i abi l i t y. See i d. at 1162- 63. We t her ef or e concl uded

t hat i n Nor t h Car ol i na, t he of f i ce of deput y sher i f f i s t hat of

a pol i cymaker , and t hat deput y sher i f f s are t he al t er ego of t he

sher i f f gener al l y, f or whose conduct he i s l i abl e. I d. at

1164. On t hat basi s, we det er mi ned t hat such Nor t h Carol i na

deput y sher i f f s may be l awf ul l y t er mi nat ed f or pol i t i cal r easons

under t he El r od- Br ant i except i on t o pr ohi bi t ed pol i t i cal

t er mi nat i ons. I d. ; see al so i d. ( We hol d t hat newl y el ect ed

or r eel ect ed sher i f f s may di smi ss deput i es ei t her because of

par t y af f i l i at i on or campai gn act i vi t y. ) . We r easoned t hat

[ b] ecause t hey campai gned f or [ t he sher i f f s] opponent s, t he

deput i es i n t he i nst ant case had no const i t ut i onal r i ght t o

cont i nued empl oyment af t er t he el ect i on, and so have f ai l ed t o

st at e a cl ai m under 42 U. S. C. 1983. I d.

Had J enki ns s anal ysi s ended t her e, our El r od- Br ant i r evi ew

of Car t er s, McCoy s, and Di xon s cl ai ms woul d be qui t e

st r ai ght - f or war d. But J enki ns s anal ysi s di d not end t her e.


16/81

16

Sever al j udges di ssent ed f r om t he maj or i t y s deci si on, and t he

r esul t i ng opi ni ons i ncl uded an exchange of par t i cul ar r el evance

her e. The di ssent mai nt ai ned t hat t he maj or i t y br oadl y hol ds

t hat al l deput y sher i f f s i n Nor t h Car ol i na r egar dl ess of t hei r

act ual dut i es ar e pol i cymaki ng of f i ci al s. I d. at 1166 ( Mot z,

J . , di ssent i ng) . The di ssent cont ended t hat had a proper El r od-

Br ant i r evi ew been conduct ed, f ocusi ng on anal ysi s of t he

par t i cul ar dut i es of each deput y, t he r esul t of t he case woul d

have been di f f er ent . I d.

For i t s par t , t he maj or i t y f l at l y r ej ected t he di ssent s

cl ai m t hat t he deci si on was not based on t he dut i es of t he

deput i es bef or e t he cour t . The maj or i t y st at ed:

We l i mi t di smi ssal s based on t oday s hol di ng t ot hose deput i es act ual l y swor n to engage i n l awenf or cement act i vi t i es on behal f of t he sher i f f . Wei ssue t hi s l i mi t at i on t o caut i on sher i f f s t hat cour t s

exami ne the j ob dut i es of t he posi t i on, and not mer el yt he t i t l e, of t hose di smi ssed. [ FN66] Because t hedeput i es i n t he i nst ant case were l aw enf orcementof f i cer s, t hey ar e not pr ot ect ed by t hi sl i mi t at i on. [ FN67]

FN66. See St ot t , 916 F. 2d at 142; Zor zi v.Count y of Put nam, 30 F. 3d 885, 892 ( 7t hCi r . 1994) ( di spat cher s not i nvol ved i nl aw enf or cement act i vi t i es or pol i cy, sopol i t i cal af f i l i at i on i nappropr i at e j ob

r equi r ement ) .

The di ssent mani f est s ami sunder st andi ng of our hol di ng. I tappl i es onl y t o t hose who meet t her equi r ement s of t he r ul e as we st at ei t , and does not extend t o al l 13, 600


17/81

17

of f i cer s i n Nor t h Car ol i na, as t hedi ssent suggest s.

FN67. Amended Compl ai nt , 19.

I d. at 1165 ( maj or i t y opi ni on) . Respondi ng t o t he concl usi on

t hat t he deput i es l aw enf or cement dut i es made t hei r pol i t i cal

l oyal t y t o t he sher i f f an appr opr i at e requi r ement f or t he

ef f ect i ve per f or mance of t he deput i es j obs, t he di ssent

emphasi zed t hat t he onl y r el evant al l egat i ons i n t he pl ai nt i f f s

compl ai nt wer e t hat t he deput i es j ob r equi r ement s consi st ed of

per f or mi ng mi ni st er i al l aw enf or cement dut i es f or whi ch

pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on i s not an appr opr i at e r equi r ement and

t hat none of t he pl ai nt i f f s occupi ed a pol i cymaki ng or

conf i dent i al posi t i on. I d. at 1166 ( Mot z, J . , di ssent i ng)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

That br i ngs us t o t he quest i on of how t o r ead J enki ns.

Despi t e a si gni f i cant amount of l anguage i n t he opi ni on

seemi ngl y i ndi cat i ng t hat al l Nor t h Car ol i na deput i es coul d be

t er mi nat ed f or pol i t i cal r easons r egar dl ess of t he speci f i c

dut i es of t he par t i cul ar deput y i n quest i on, and despi t e t he

di ssent s al l egat i on t hat t he maj or i t y i ndeed hel d t hat al l

Nor t h Car ol i na deput i es may be f i r ed f or pol i t i cal r easons, t he

maj or i t y expl i ci t l y st at ed t hat i t anal yzed t he dut i es of t he

pl ai nt i f f s and not mer el y t hose of deput i es gener al l y. See i d.

at 1165 ( maj or i t y opi ni on) . I n t he end, t he maj or i t y expl ai ned


18/81

18

t hat i t was t he deput i es r ol e as swor n l aw enf or cement of f i cer s

t hat was di sposi t i ve and suggest s t hat t he resul t mi ght have

been di f f er ent had t he deput i es dut i es consi st ed of wor ki ng as

di spat cher s. See i d. at 1165 & nn. 66- 67. Accor di ngl y, t o be

t r ue to J enki ns, we too must consi der whet her r equi r i ng

pol i t i cal l oyal t y was an appr opr i at e requi r ement f or t he

ef f ect i ve per f or mance of t he publ i c empl oyment of t he deput i es

bef or e us i n l i ght of t he dut i es of t hei r par t i cul ar posi t i ons.

Accor di ng t o t hei r f or mal j ob descr i pt i on, t he deput i es

dut i es and r esponsi bi l i t i es wer e t o [ p] r ovi de pr ot ect i on of

j ai l personnel and t he publ i c, [ p] r ovi de saf ekeepi ng and

wel f ar e of pr i soner s, [p] r ot ect [ ] . . . soci et y by

pr event i [ ng] . . . escapes, [ c] onduct secur i t y r ounds,

[ s] uper vi se i nmat e act i vi t i es, [ p] r ovi de cl eani ng suppl i es t o

i nmat es t o cl ean t hei r cel l s, [ p] ass out r azor s on appr opr i at e

days, [ e] scor t i nmat es t hr oughout t he j ai l as r equi r ed,

[ m] ai nt ai n f l oor l og of dai l y i nmat e acti vi t i es, [ e] nsur e

i nmat es ar e [ f ed] , [ r ] un r ecreat i on and vi si t at i on as

schedul ed or aut hor i zed, [ a]nswer i nmate cor r espondences and

gr i evances, and [ s] uper vi se l aundr y det ai l . J . A. 602. None

of t he men had l eader shi p r esponsi bi l i t i es, nor wer e t hey

conf i dant s of t he Sher i f f .

These dut i es ar e essent i al l y i dent i cal t o t hose of t he

pl ai nt i f f i n Kni ght v. Ver non. I n t hat case, we consi der ed


19/81

19

whet her t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n gr ant i ng summar y j udgment

agai nst a sher i f f s of f i ce empl oyee on her Fi r st Amendment

pol i t i cal f i r i ng cl ai m on t he basi s t hat t he empl oyee coul d be

l awf ul l y t er mi nat ed f or pol i t i cal r easons. See Kni ght , 214 F. 3d

at 548. Unl i ke Cart er , McCoy, and Di xon, Kni ght di d not have

t he t i t l e of sher i f f s deput y, but Kni ght wor ked f or a Nor t h

Car ol i na sher i f f s depar t ment as a l ow- l evel j ai l er . See i d. at

549, 550. Not i ng t hat [ t ] he cent r al message of J enki ns i s t hat

t he speci f i c dut i es of t he publ i c empl oyee s posi t i on gover n

whet her pol i t i cal al l egi ance t o her empl oyer i s an appr opr i at e

j ob r equi r ement , see i d. at 549, we cl osel y exami ned t he dut i es

of Kni ght s j ob i n appl yi ng t he El r od- Br ant i anal ysi s at t he

summar y j udgment st age:

As a j ai l er Ms. Kni ght was r esponsi bl e f or t hepr ocessi ng, super vi si on and car e, and t r anspor t at i on

of i nmat es. Ms. Kni ght s pr ocessi ng dut i es i ncl udedf i nger pr i nt i ng new i nmat es, obt ai ni ng t hei r per sonaldat a ( addr esses, next of ki n, et c. ) , mar ki ng andst or i ng t hei r per sonal bel ongi ngs, r out i ng t hem f orphysi cal exami nat i ons, and ar r angi ng f or t hei r i ni t i albat hs and changes i nt o cl ean cl ot hi ng. Ms. Kni ght sdai l y super vi si on and car e dut i es i nvol ved moni t or i ngi nmat es ever y hal f hour , di st r i but i ng and l oggi ngt hei r medi cat i ons and suppl i es, ser vi ng t hem f ood, andmanagi ng t hei r vi si t or s. Occasi onal l y, Ms. Kni ghtf i l l ed i n as a cook when hel p was shor t i n t he j ai l s

ki t chen. Fi nal l y, Ms. Kni ght assi st ed i n t r anspor t i ngi nmat es t o pr i sons and medi cal f aci l i t i es.

I d. at 546. I n hol di ng t hat J enki ns di d not al l ow t he sher i f f

t o t er mi nat e Kni ght f or pol i t i cal r easons, we cont r ast ed

Kni ght s dut i es wi t h t hose of t he deput y sher i f f s i n J enki ns.


20/81

20

We noted t hat a deput y i s a sworn l aw enf orcement of f i cer [ and

t hus] has t he general power of ar r est , a power t hat may be

exer ci sed i n Nor t h Car ol i na onl y by an of f i cer who r ecei ves

ext ensi ve t r ai ni ng i n t he enf or cement of cr i mi nal l aw. I d. at

550. We al so not ed t hat [ a] swor n deput y i s t he sher i f f s

al t er ego: he has power s cont er mi nous wi t h hi s pr i nci pal , t he

el ected sher i f f . I d. (i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . I n

cont r ast , we expl ai ned t hat t he j ai l er s aut hor i t y i s much mor e

ci r cumscr i bed and [ h] er t r ai ni ng, whi ch i s much mor e l i mi t ed

t han t hat of a deput y, i s concent r at ed on mat t er s of cust odi al

car e and super vi si on. I d. We not ed t hat exer ci si ng t he power

of ar r est i s not one of t he j ob dut i es of a j ai l er , and Kni ght

was not out i n t he count y engagi ng i n l aw enf orcement

act i vi t i es on behal f of t he sher i f f , and she was not a

conf i dant of t he sher i f f . I d. We f ur t her not ed t hat she

nei t her advi se[ d] hi m on pol i cy mat t er s nor was i nvol ved i n

communi cat i ng t he sher i f f s pol i ci es or posi t i ons t o t he

publ i c. I d. Al t hough we r ecogni zed t hat the j ob of j ai l er

i nvol ves t he exer ci se of some di scr et i on, we concl uded t hat a

j ai l er does not exerci se t he si gni f i cant di scr et i on t hat t he

Nor t h Car ol i na deput i es gener al l y exer ci se. I d. at 551.

Rat her , because she wor ked most l y at t he j ai l per f or mi ng

mi ni st er i al dut i es, she was not ent r ust ed wi t h br oad

di scret i on, and [ t ] he sher i f f di d not r el y on her f or


21/81

21

assi st ance i n i mpl ement i ng hi s l aw enf or cement pl at f or m. I d.

at 550. We t her ef or e det er mi ned t hat t he sher i f f had not

est abl i shed as a mat t er of l aw t hat pol i t i cal l oyal t y was an

appr opr i at e requi r ement f or Kni ght s per f or mance of her j ob as a

j ai l er .

We concl ude t hat t he near i dent i t y between t he dut i es of

t he deput y pl ai nt i f f s i n t hi s case and Kni ght s dut i es war r ant s

t he same r esul t her e. Al t hough Sher i f f Rober t s poi nt s t o

var i ous di f f er ences bet ween Kni ght and t he pl ai nt i f f s her e that

he cl ai ms make t hi s case mor e l i ke J enki ns and l ess l i ke Kni ght ,

we concl ude t hat none of t hem i s suf f i ci ent l y si gni f i cant t o

j ust i f y a di f f er ent out come.

Fi r st , al t hough t he Sher i f f cor r ect l y poi nt s out t hat

Car t er , McCoy, and Di xon wer e al l swor n deput i es, t he oat h t hat

t hey t ook was si mpl y t o suppor t t he f eder al and Vi r gi ni a

const i t ut i ons and f ai t hf ul l y and i mpar t i al l y di schar ge t hei r

dut i es t o t he best of t hei r abi l i t y. See Va. Code Ann. 49- 1;

Thor e v. Chest er f i el d Cnty. Bd. of Super vi sor s, 391 S. E. 2d 882,

883 ( Va. Ct . App. 1990) . No one cont ends t hat t hese men t ook a

l aw enf or cement of f i cer s oat h, as t he J enki ns pl ai nt i f f s di d.

See N. C. Gen. St at . 11- 11. I n any event , i n Kni ght we

speci f i cal l y rej ect ed t he ar gument t hat t he r esul t i n Kni ght

woul d have been di f f erent even had Kni ght t aken a l aw

enf or cement of f i cer s oat h, not i ng t hat i t i s t he speci f i c


22/81

22

dut i es of t he publ i c empl oyees t hat must be t he f ocus of t he

El r od- Br ant i i nqui r y. See Kni ght , 214 F. 3d at 551. Because

Kni ght s dut i es wer e essent i al l y cust odi al and she, unl i ke t he

deput i es i n J enki ns, was not empower ed t o st and i n f or t he

sher i f f on a br oad f r ont , we hel d t hat she coul d not be r equi r ed

t o be pol i t i cal l y l oyal t o t he sher i f f . I d.

Sher i f f Rober t s not es t hat t he deput i es i n t he pr esent

case, l i ke t hose i n J enki ns, wer e ent i t l ed t o st and i n f or t hei r

sher i f f i n one way t hat Kni ght coul d not , namel y, by maki ng an

ar r est. I t i s t r ue t hat i n Vi r gi ni a sher i f f s deput i es ar e,

l i ke sher i f f s, st at ut or i l y aut hor i zed t o make ar r est s under a

wi de r ange of ci r cumst ances. See Va. Code Ann. 19. 2- 81( A) ( 2) .

That al l deput i es have been grant ed gener al ar r est power s by

st atut e, however , does not mean t hat exerci si ng t hose powers was

an appr eci abl e par t of t he dut i es of t hei r par t i cul ar posi t i ons.

I n f act , Car t er , McCoy, and Di xon wer e t r ai ned as j ai l er s, and

i t i s undi sput ed t hat t hey di d not t ake t he Basi c Law

Enf or cement cour se t hat t he Vi r gi ni a Depar t ment of Cr i mi nal

J ust i ce Ser vi ces r equi r es of f i cer s t o t ake bef or e t hey may

exer ci se t he st at ut or i l y gr ant ed gener al ar r est power . And,

whi l e the evi dence i n t he recor d was t hat t he deput i es wer e

aut hor i zed t o make ar r est s f or of f enses occur r i ng bef or e t hem i n

t he cour se of t hei r ever yday r esponsi bi l i t i es, J . A. 297, t he

Pl ai nt i f f s of f er ed evi dence t hat t hei r t echni cal aut hor i zat i on


23/81

23

t o make ar r est s had no appr eci abl e ef f ect what soever on the j ob

dut i es of t hei r posi t i on. Accor di ng t o t he decl ar at i ons of

Car t er , McCoy, and Di xon, not onl y had none of t hem ever made an

ar r est , but t hey were not even awar e they had t he aut hor i t y t o

do so. I n f act , Adams st at ed i n hi s decl ar at i on t hat i n hi s 16

year s at t he Hampt on Sher i f f s Of f i ce, dur i ng whi ch he r ose to

t he l evel of t hi r d most seni or of f i cer , he coul d not r ecal l a

sher i f f s deput y maki ng a si ngl e ar r est . Thus, at t hi s st age

of t he l i t i gat i on, t he Sher i f f has not est abl i shed t hat t he

j ai l er s ar r est dut i es wer e suf f i ci ent l y si gni f i cant t hat t hey

woul d af f ect whet her t hei r pol i t i cal al l egi ance t o t he Sher i f f

was an appr opr i ate requi r ement f or t he ef f ect i ve per f or mance of

t hei r j obs.

The Sher i f f al so notes t hat Car t er , McCoy, and Di xon each

sought and r ecei ved appr oval t o per f orm Ext r a Dut y Empl oyment

compr i si ng secur i t y wor k out si de of t he Sher i f f s Of f i ce dur i ng

whi ch t hey wer e i n uni f or m and ar med. J . A. 84. I t i s har d t o

see how t hi s f act coul d si gni f i cant l y i mpact our El r od- Br ant i

anal ysi s at t hi s st age, however , consi der i ng t hat t he recor d i s

si l ent concer ni ng what dut i es t he pl ai nt i f f deput i es had

concer ni ng t hi s ext r a wor k. Mor eover , t he Sher i f f di d not

make any showi ng t hat such apparent l y opt i onal work out si de of

t he Sher i f f s Of f i ce, J . A. 84, was par t of t he speci f i c dut i es

of t he publ i c empl oyee[ s ] posi t i on. Kni ght , 214 F. 3d at 549.


24/81

24

I n sum, we hol d t hat at t hi s st age of t he l i t i gat i on, t he

Sher i f f has not demonst r at ed t hat t he dut i es of Car t er , McCoy,

and Di xon di f f er ed f r om Kni ght s dut i es i n any si gni f i cant way,

and we concl ude t hat Sher i f f Rober t s has not shown t hat t hei r

dut i es r esembl ed t hose of a pol i cymaker , a pr i vy t o

conf i dent i al i nf or mat i on, a communi cat or , or some ot her of f i ce

hol der whose f unct i on i s such t hat par t y af f i l i at i on [ or

pol i t i cal al l egi ance] i s an equal l y appr opr i at e r equi r ement .

St ot t , 916 F. 2d at 142. Accor di ngl y, he al so has not

demonst r at ed that pol i t i cal al l egi ance was an appr opr i at e

r equi r ement f or t he j ai l er s per f or mance of t hei r j obs. Accor d

Di r uzza v. Count y of Tehama, 206 F. 3d 1304, 1310- 11 (9t h Ci r .

2000) ( hol di ng t hat sher i f f di d not est abl i sh appl i cat i on of

El r od- Br ant i except i on as a mat t er of l aw i n t he case of a

Cal i f or ni a deput y sher i f f who wor ked as a j ai l er ) . Thus, we

hol d that t he Sher i f f was not ent i t l ed to summar y j udgment on

t he basi s t hat he coul d t er mi nat e Car t er , McCoy, and Di xon f or

t hei r l ack of pol i t i cal al l egi ance t o hi m.

2. Causat i on

We now t ur n t o t he i ssue of whet her t he Pl ai nt i f f s l ack of

pol i t i cal al l egi ance t o t he Sher i f f was a subst ant i al basi s f or

t he Sher i f f s deci si on not t o r eappoi nt t hem. See Wagner , 13

F. 3d at 90. For r easons t hat we wi l l expl ai n, we concl ude t hat

Car t er , McCoy, and Di xon have al l at l east cr eat ed a genui ne


25/81

25

f act ual di sput e r egar di ng whet her l ack of pol i t i cal al l egi ance

was a subst ant i al basi s f or t hei r non- r eappoi nt ment , but t hat

Sandhof er , Woodward, and Bl and have not .

Car t er and McCoy

I n t he l ate summer of 2009, Cart er and McCoy vi si t ed

Adams s campai gn Facebook page and made st at ements on t he page

i ndi cat i ng t hei r suppor t f or hi s campai gn. Speci f i cal l y, Car t er

l i ked t he page and wr ot e and post ed a message of

encour agement t hat he si gned. J . A. 570. McCoy al so post ed an

ent r y on t he page i ndi cat i ng [ hi s] suppor t f or [ Adams s]

campai gn. J . A. 586. 7 Cart er s and McCoy s Facebook act i ons

became wel l - known i n t he Sher i f f s Of f i ce as many were shocked

because t hey appear ed not t o be suppor t i ng t he sher i f f . J . A.

681. 8 Col onel Bowden, who was t he second most seni or of f i cer i n

t he Sher i f f s Of f i ce, l ear ned of Car t er s and McCoy s pr esence

on Adams s Facebook Page and i nf ormed Sher i f f Rober t s.

7 Both men al so ver bal l y expr essed t hei r support f or Adamst o several peopl e, and al t hough both had vol unt eer ed and workedvi gor ousl y f or Rober t s s past campai gns, t hey di d not vol unt eerat al l f or Rober t s i n t he 2009 el ect i on.

8 McCoy t est i f i ed t hat he was appr oached by t en or 15peopl e who asked hi m why he woul d r i sk hi s j ob wi t h t he post i ngwhen he was onl y 18 mont hs away f r om becomi ng el i gi bl e f orr et i r ement . J . A. 162. I ndeed, McCoy event ual l y t ook hi spost i ng down.


26/81

26

I n the l at e summer of 2009, Car t er and Ramona J ones9 al so

a Hampt on sher i f f s deput y co- host ed a cookout ( t he August

cookout ) at t ended by many Sher i f f s Of f i ce empl oyees, i ncl udi ng

Adams. The next day at wor k, J ones was appr oached by her

super vi sor , Li eut enant Cr yst al Cooke, who t ol d J ones t hat she

had hear d t hat Adams had at t ended her cookout . J ones t r ut hf ul l y

t ol d Cooke t hat Car t er had i nvi t ed Adams. Shor t l y t her eaf t er ,

t hen- Capt ai n Kenneth Ri char dson appr oached J ones and asked her

who had at t ended. She t ol d hi m t hat Adams had been t here, and

Ri char dson st at e[ d] t hat t he event had t he appear ance of a

campai gn event and sai d speci f i cal l y t hat i t does not l ook

good. J . A. 702. J ones t ol d Ri char dson, as she had t ol d

Cooke, t hat i t was Cart er who had i nvi t ed Adams, and Ri char dson

r esponded t hat J ones needed t o expl ai n t hat t o t he Sher i f f .

J . A. 702. I ndeed, t he Sher i f f l earned about t he cookout and

t hat Adams had at t ended. Pi ct ures showi ng Sandhof er and McCoy

at t he event were post ed on Facebook by ear l y Oct ober .

I n ear l y Sept ember , Sher i f f Rober t s addr essed hi s

empl oyees suppor t f or Adams i n speeches he gave dur i ng the

var i ous shi f t changes. He expr essed hi s di sappr oval wi t h t he

deci si on of some t o suppor t Adams s candi dacy on Facebook. He

st at ed t hat he woul d be sher i f f f or as l ong as he want ed and

9 J ones was named Ramona Lar ki ns at t he t i me.


27/81

27

t hus that hi s t r ai n was the l ong t r ai n. J . A. 572 ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . He i ndi cat ed t hat Adams s t r ai n was

t he short t r ai n and t hat t hose who openl y suppor t ed Adams

woul d l ose t hei r j obs. J . A. 572 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . Addi t i onal l y, af t er t he concl usi on of t he meet i ng

t hat occur r ed bef or e Car t er s shi f t change, t he Sher i f f angr i l y

appr oached Cart er and ma[ de] sever al i nt i mi dat i ng st at ement s.

J . A. 572. He t hen added, You made your bed, and now you r e

goi ng t o l i e i n i t af t er t he el ecti on, you r e gone. J . A. 572

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

The Sher i f f r epr esent ed t hat hi s heat ed exchange wi t h

Car t er af t er one of Rober t s s l ong t r ai n speeches per t ai ned t o

Car t er s obj ect i ons about di sci pl i nar y pr oceedi ngs concer ni ng

Car t er s wi f e r at her t han t o Car t er s suppor t of Adams. 10

I ndeed, t he Sher i f f t est i f i ed t hat t hat conver sat i on was t he

r eason t hat he chose not t o r eappoi nt Car t er . Car t er f l at l y

deni ed t hat Rober t s made any ref er ence t o Car t er s wi f e dur i ng

t hat conver sat i on, however . 11

10 Car t er s wi f e was al so a Sher i f f s Of f i ce empl oyee.

11 Accor di ng t o Car t er s decl ar at i on, Car t er wor ked f or t heSher i f f s Of f i ce f or mor e t han 11 year s, per f or med hi s j ob i nan exempl ary manner , and al ways r ecei ved per f or manceeval uat i ons of above aver age. J . A. 568. Nei t her hi s f i r st -nor hi s second- l evel super vi sor i ndi cat ed at any t i me pr i or t ohi s t er mi nat i on t hat t hey had any concer ns r egar di ng hi sper f ormance. Car t er conceded t hat he had had several( Cont i nued)


28/81

28

I f a j ur y cr edi t ed Car t er s account of t hei r heat ed

exchange, however , i t coul d r easonabl y concl ude t hat Robert s was

not t el l i ng t he t r ut h i n an at t empt t o cover up hi s i l l egal

r et al i at i on. See Reeves v. Sander son Pl umbi ng Pr ods. , I nc. , 530

U. S. 133, 147 ( 2000) ( expl ai ni ng t hat [ p] r oof t hat t he

def endant s expl anat i on i s unwor t hy of cr edence i s . . . one

f or m of ci r cumst ant i al evi dence t hat i s pr obat i ve of i nt ent i onal

di scr i mi nat i on, and i t may be qui t e per suasi ve) . The Sher i f f ,

af t er al l , had speci f i cal l y war ned hi s empl oyees not t o suppor t

Adams t hr ough Facebook and had t ol d Cart er t hat hi s support f or

Adams woul d cost hi m hi s j ob. For t hese r easons, we concl ude

t hat a r easonabl e j ur y coul d f i nd t hat Car t er s l ack of

pol i t i cal al l egi ance t o t he Sher i f f was a subst ant i al mot i vat i on

f or t he Sher i f f s deci si on not t o r eappoi nt hi m.

Based on t he evi dence of Rober t s s s t r ong ani mus t oward

t hose of hi s empl oyees who suppor t ed Adams, a reasonabl e j ur y

coul d al so concl ude t hat Robert s s knowl edge of McCoy s support

f or Adams woul d have st r ongl y mot i vat ed Robert s not t o reappoi nt

McCoy. Rober t s cl ai med hi s pr i mar y r eason f or not r eappoi nt i ng

di sci pl i nar y act i ons t aken agai nst hi m f or mi st akes he made i nal l owi ng pr i soner s t o be r el eased pr emat ur el y. However , t heonl y f or mal di sci pl i ne i n hi s r ecor d was mor e t han f i ve year sol d at t he t i me he was not r eappoi nt ed, and t he Sher i f f di d nott est i f y that t hose past di sci pl i nar y act i ons pl ayed any par t i nhi s deci si on not t o r eappoi nt Car t er .


29/81

29

McCoy was t hat McCoy had had heat ed ar gument s wi t h deput i es

when he was i n ci vi l and t hat Rober t s swi t ched hi m up and

br ought hi m back t o cor r ect i ons. J . A. 102. McCoy, however ,

st at ed t hat he had wor ked i n t he Sher i f f s Of f i ce f or mor e t han

21 year s and al ways r ecei ved above aver age or out st andi ng

eval uat i ons, and t hat at no t i me pr i or t o hi s non- r eappoi nt ment

di d hi s i mmedi at e super vi sor or second- l evel super vi sor i ndi cat e

t hat t hey had any pr obl ems wi t h hi s per f or mance. I n l i ght of

t he Sher i f f s t hr eat t hat suppor t er s of Adams woul d l ose thei r

j obs and hi s speci f i c st at ement of di sapproval of empl oyees

bei ng on Adams s Facebook page, we concl ude that a reasonabl e

j ury coul d concl ude t hat McCoy s l ack of pol i t i cal al l egi ance t o

Rober t s was a subst ant i al mot i vat i on f or t he Sher i f f s deci si on

not t o reappoi nt hi m.

Di xon

Pl ai nt i f f s pr esent ed evi dence t hat Di xon per f or med hi s j ob

i n an exempl ary manner dur i ng hi s more t han 13 year s wi t h the

Sher i f f s Of f i ce, al ways ear ni ng per f or mance eval uat i ons of at

l east above aver age and ear ni ng a rat i ng of out st andi ng i n

hi s l ast eval uat i on. At no t i me di d hi s f i r st - or second- l evel

super vi sor expr ess concer ns wi t h hi s per f ormance.

Di xon voi ced hi s opposi t i on t o Sher i f f Rober t s s candi dacy

on El ect i on Day t o Fr ances Pope, who was worki ng t he pol l s f or

Rober t s s campai gn. On Di xon s way out , r ef er r i ng t o t he


30/81

30

Sher i f f s campai gn mat er i al , he t ol d Pope t hat she shoul d j ust

t hr ow t hat st uf f away ( t he pol l i ng- pl ace comment ) . J . A. 581

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Di xon spoke i n a f r i endl y,

nonconf r ont at i onal t one and di d not use any expl et i ves. Di xon

al so had an Adams bumper st i cker on hi s car t hat he was pr et t y

sur e peopl e saw. J . A. 148.

The Sher i f f deni es t hat Di xon was not r eappoi nt ed because

of hi s l ack of pol i t i cal al l egi ance. Rat her , t he Sher i f f

r epr esent s t hat Di xon i n f act was l et go because he used

pr of ani t y i n maki ng t he pol l i ng- pl ace comment , al t hough t he

Sher i f f does not i ndi cat e t he sour ce of hi s bel i ef and admi t s

t hat he never sought Di xon s si de of t he st or y bef or e r epl aci ng

hi m. 12 See Appel l ee s br i ef at 10; J . A. 99 ( st at i ng t hat [ I ] t

was [ t he Sher i f f s] under st andi ng t hat Di xon sai d, You can

t ake t hi s f - - - i ng s- - - , stuf f , and t hr ow i t i n t he t r ash can. ) .

For hi s par t , Di xon deni es usi ng any pr of ani t y i n maki ng t he

pol l i ng- pl ace comment . We concl ude t hat i f a j ur y cr edi t ed

Di xon s t est i mony, i t coul d al so r easonabl y f i nd t hat t he

Sher i f f knew Di xon had not used pr of ani t y and t hat hi s suppor t

f or Adams, as r eveal ed by t he pol l i ng- pl ace comment and bumper

12 The Sher i f f t est i f i ed t hat he al so consi der ed t he f actt hat Di xon t r ansf er r ed mul t i pl e t i mes bet ween wor ki ng i n t hej ai l and i n ci vi l process af t er r equest i ng t o be a t r ai ni ngof f i cer but l at er deci di ng t hat he coul d not handl e t hepr essur es of t hat posi t i on.


31/81

31

st i cker , subst ant i al l y mot i vat ed hi m not t o r eappoi nt Di xon.

See Reeves, 530 U. S. at 147.

Sandhof er

I n cont r ast , we concl ude t hat Pl ai nt i f f s have f ai l ed t o

cr eat e a genui ne f act ual di sput e r egar di ng whet her Sandhof er s

pol i t i cal di sl oyal t y t o Sher i f f Rober t s was a subst ant i al basi s

f or hi s non- r eappoi nt ment . The Sher i f f had used Sandhof er who

had exper i ence worki ng f or a downt own market i ng or gani zat i on

f or si gni f i cant mar ket i ng ef f or t s and f undr ai si ng i n 2008. As a

r esul t , Col onel Bowden asked Sandhof er i n 2009 t o obt ai n

promi nent si gn l ocat i ons among downtown Hampton busi nesses i n

conj unct i on wi t h t he 2009 el ect i on. Sandhof er agr eed t o hel p

t he Sher i f f i n t hi s way, even t hough he act ual l y never f ol l owed

t hr ough. Sandhof er al so was ordered by Li eut enant Mi r anda

Har di ng t o wor k the pol l s on El ect i on Day, but he decl i ned on

t he basi s t hat hi s f ami l y comes f i r st . J . A. 169.

Addi t i onal l y, he ver bal l y expr essed hi s suppor t f or Adams t o

sever al peopl e, as di scr eet l y as possi bl e, and he at t ended t he

August cookout and was depi ct ed i n pi ct ur es of t he cookout

post ed on Facebook. Pl ai nt i f f s f ur t her poi nt out t hat

Sandhof er s gi r l f r i end dr ove hi m t o wor k and t o campai gn debat es

i n her car , whi ch had an Adams bumper st i cker af f i xed t o i t .

Sergeant J ohn Meyers ment i oned t he st i cker t o Sandhof er on at

l east one occasi on. J . A. 591.


32/81

32

We concl ude t hat t hi s evi dence i s si mpl y too t hi n t o cr eat e

a genui ne f act ual di sput e r egar di ng whet her Sandhof er s l ack of

pol i t i cal al l egi ance t o t he Sher i f f was a subst ant i al basi s f or

hi s non- r eappoi nt ment . Sandhof er admi t t ed at t endi ng a r ecept i on

f or t he Sher i f f s campai gn at t he mayor s house at t he Sher i f f s

r equest . And, he admi t t ed agr eei ng t o hel p t he Sher i f f l ocat e

si gns f or t he 2009 el ect i on, al t hough he never act ual l y l ocat ed

any of t he si gns. Fur t her mor e, whi l e he r ef used t o wor k t he

pol l s on El ect i on Day, t he reason he gave had not hi ng t o do wi t h

suppor t i ng Adams. Wi t hout mor e, t her e si mpl y i s not suf f i ci ent

evi dence t hat t he Sher i f f i dent i f i ed Sandhof er as an Adams

suppor t er , even assumi ng t hat t he Sher i f f bel i eved hi s

gi r l f r i end was support i ng Adams. And t here was no r easonabl e

basi s f or a j ur y t o concl ude t hat t he Sher i f f woul d have

decl i ned t o reappoi nt Sandhof er based si mpl y on hi s l ack of

af f i r mat i ve assi st ance t o t he Sher i f f s 2009 campai gn. We

t her ef or e concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t pr oper l y gr ant ed

summary j udgment t o t he Sher i f f on Sandhof er s cl ai m.

Woodwar d

We al so concl ude t hat Woodward di d not cr eat e a genui ne

f act ual di sput e concer ni ng whet her her l ack of pol i t i cal

al l egi ance t o t he Sher i f f was a subst ant i al basi s f or her non-

r eappoi nt ment .


33/81

33

Dur i ng her mor e t han 11 year s wi t h t he Sher i f f s Of f i ce,

Woodwar d s per f ormance eval uat i ons had al ways been above

aver age or out st andi ng. J . A. 601 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . Accor di ng t o Woodwar d, [ i ] t was ver y wel l known

wi t hi n t he of f i ce t hat [ she] was cl ose t o J i m Adams. J . A. 600.

I n ear l y 2009, Woodward s f ormer supervi sor and ment or , Deborah

Davi s, became t he t r easurer of Adams s campai gn. Woodward al so

i nf ormed sever al of her coworker s t hat she support ed Adams s

candi dacy, al t hough she gener al l y t r i ed t o keep her suppor t

qui et t o pr ot ect her j ob.

Dur i ng Rober t s s pr i or campai gns, Woodward had worked

t i r el ess[l y] handi ng out f l yer s, wor ki ng t he pol l s, pl aci ng

yar d si gns, at t endi ng campai gn event s, and sel l i ng and

pur chasi ng t i cket s. J . A. 599. I n l i ght of her suppor t f or

Adams, however , she di d none of t hose thi ngs i n 2009, except f or

pur chasi ng gol f t our nament t i cket s ( because she f el t coer ced) .

I n t he summer of 2009, Woodward not i ced t hat her col l eague,

Li eut enant Geor ge Per ki ns, was ci r cul at i ng a pet i t i on t o pl ace

t he Sher i f f s name on t he bal l ot . Woodward compl ai ned t o

Sergeant Sharon Mays, Sergeant Meyers, Per ki ns hi msel f , and

ot her s, on the basi s t hat Per ki ns was not a Hampt on resi dent and

onl y Hampt on r esi dent s coul d ci r cul at e such pet i t i ons. She al so

l ear ned t hat anot her non- r esi dent was ci r cul at i ng pet i t i ons and

she had var i ous conver sat i ons wi t h Mays about t hat as wel l .


34/81

34

I n the end, however , we concl ude t hat i t woul d be mere

specul at i on f or a j ur y t o concl ude that Woodwar d was l et go

because of l ack of pol i t i cal al l egi ance t o Rober t s. Out si de of

her pet i t i on compl ai nt s, t her e i s no si gni f i cant evi dence t hat

woul d suppor t an i nf er ence t hat t he Sher i f f bel i eved Woodwar d

was suppor t i ng Adams. Woodwar d conceded t hat she shar ed her

pr ef erence f or Adams onl y wi t h peopl e she t hought woul d keep her

f eel i ngs secr et . And Woodwar d mai nt ai ned t hat t he pet i t i on

compl ai nt s were not based on t he f act t hat Robert s was t he

subj ect of t he pet i t i ons but on t he pr i nci pl e t hat t hey shoul d

not be ci r cul ated i n t he workpl ace by a non- Hampt on r esi dent .

Ther e i s no evi dence t hat t he Sher i f f or ot her s di d not t ake her

compl ai nt s at f ace val ue or otherwi se assumed t hat her t r ue goal

was t o work agai nst Rober t s s campai gn.

The Sher i f f t est i f i ed t hat t he r eason he di d not r eappoi nt

Woodwar d and Bl and was t hat he expect ed t hat t he number of

deput i es he woul d be al l ocat ed by t he Compensat i on Boar d woul d

be reduced, based on t he decl i ni ng popul at i on of t he Hampt on

Ci t y J ai l . See Va. Code Ann. 15. 2- 1609. 1. Woodward and Bl and

count ed agai nst t hat al l ot ment and t he Sher i f f mai nt ai ns t hat he

deci ded he needed t o have deput i es i n Woodwar d s and Bl and s

posi t i ons. Al t hough Woodwar d s and t he Sher i f f s account s ar e

i n conf l i ct concer ni ng whet her he ever of f er ed Woodwar d the

oppor t uni t y t o become a deput y, we concl ude t hat t hat conf l i ct


35/81

35

i s si mpl y not a suf f i ci ent basi s f or a r easonabl e i nf er ence t hat

her l ack of pol i t i cal al l egi ance t o Rober t s was a subst ant i al

mot i vat i on f or her non- r eappoi nt ment .

Bl and

Fi nal l y, we det er mi ne t hat Pl ai nt i f f s f ai l ed t o creat e a

genui ne f act ual i ssue concer ni ng whet her a l ack of pol i t i cal

al l egi ance was a subst ant i al basi s f or t he Sher i f f s deci si on

not t o r eappoi nt Bl and. Bl and had a f i nanci al posi t i on i n t he

Sher i f f s Of f i ce Admi ni st r at i on Di vi si on. He had wor ked wi t h

t he Sher i f f s Depar t ment f or mor e t han ni ne year s, per f or med i n

an exempl ary manner , and recei ved per f ormance eval uat i ons of

above aver age. Bl and had decl i ned t o pr ovi de si gni f i cant

vol unt eer assi st ance t o t he Sher i f f s 2009 campai gn af t er havi ng

pr ovi ded many t ypes of suppor t f or t he Sher i f f s past campai gns.

He was al so known to be ver y cl ose t o Debor ah Davi s, who had

l ef t t he Sher i f f s Of f i ce i n 2008 t o become Adams s campai gn

t r easur er i n ear l y 2009.

However , Bl and admi t t ed pur chasi ng r af f l e t i cket s f or t he

Sher i f f s f undr ai si ng gol f t our nament , and he al so admi t t ed

hel pi ng t o set up el ect r oni c equi pment t he ni ght of t he

el ect i on. He f ur t her admi t t ed t hat he di d not act i vel y suppor t

Adams s campai gn i n any way and t hat Woodwar d was t he onl y


36/81

36

per son he even t ol d of hi s i nt ent i on t o vot e f or Adams. 13

Somethi ng more woul d be necessary i n or der t o warr ant a

r easonabl e i nf er ence t hat Bl and s l ack of pol i t i cal al l egi ance

t o Sher i f f Rober t s was a subst ant i al basi s f or t he Sher i f f s

deci si on not t o reappoi nt hi m.

B. Mer i t s of Fr ee- Speech Cl ai ms

The Pl ai nt i f f s next ar gue t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n

gr ant i ng summary j udgment agai nst t hem on t hei r speech cl ai ms.

We concl ude t hat Cart er , McCoy, and Di xon at l east cr eat ed

genui ne f act ual di sput es r egar di ng whet her t he Sher i f f vi ol at ed

t hei r f r ee- speech r i ght s, but t hat Woodwar d di d not .

Car t er

The f i r st quest i on t o be addressed wi t h r egard t o t he

speech cl ai ms i s whether t he conduct t hat t he empl oyee mai nt ai ns

pr eci pi t at ed hi s non- r eappoi nt ment const i t ut ed speech at al l .

Car t er s conduct consi st ed of hi s l i ki ng Adams s campai gn page

on Facebook. The di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat mer el y l i ki ng

a Facebook page i s i nsuf f i ci ent speech t o mer i t const i t ut i onal

pr ot ect i on and t hat t he r ecor d di d not suf f i ci ent l y descr i be

what st at ement McCoy made. Bl and, 857 F. Supp. 2d at 603. To

consi der whether t hi s conduct amount ed t o speech, we f i r st must

13 I ndeed, even Bl and s wi f e di d not know t hat he f avor edAdams.


37/81

37

under st and, as a f act ual mat t er , what i t means t o l i ke a

Facebook page.

Facebook i s an onl i ne soci al net work wher e member s devel op

per sonal i zed web pr of i l es t o i nt er act and shar e i nf or mat i on wi t h

other members. Lane v. Facebook, I nc. , 696 F. 3d 811, 816 ( 9t h

Ci r . 2012) . Member s can shar e var i ous t ypes of i nf or mat i on,

i ncl udi ng news headl i nes, phot ogr aphs, vi deos, per sonal

st or i es, and act i vi t y updat es. I d. Dai l y mor e t han 500

mi l l i on Facebook members use t he si t e and more t han t hr ee

bi l l i on l i kes and comment s ar e post ed. See Br i ef of Facebook,

I nc. as Ami cus Cur i ae, at 3.

Ever y Facebook user has a pr of i l e, whi ch t ypi cal l y

i ncl udes, among other t hi ngs, t he User s name; photos t he User

has pl aced on t he websi t e ( i ncl udi ng one phot o that serves as

t he User s pr of i l e phot o) ; a br i ef bi ogr aphi cal sket ch; a l i st

of i ndi vi dual Facebook User s wi t h whom t he User [ i nt er act s,

known as f r i ends ] ; and . . . a l i st of Facebook Pages t he

User has Li ked. I d. at 4 ( f oot not e omi t t ed) . [ B] usi nesses,

or gani zat i ons and br ands, can al so use Pages f or si mi l ar

pur poses. What i s a Facebook Page?, Facebook,

ht t p: / / www. f acebook. com/ hel p/ 281592001947683 ( l ast vi si t ed Sept .

17, 2013) .

When a user l ogs on to Facebook, hi s home page i s t he f i r st

t hi ng t hat he t ypi cal l y sees. I ncl uded on a home page i s a news


38/81

38

f eed, whi ch, f or most Users, i s t he pr i mar y pl ace wher e they

see and i nt er act wi t h news and st or i es f r om and about t hei r

Fr i ends and Pages t hey have connect ed wi t h on Facebook. Br i ef

of Facebook, I nc. as Ami cus Cur i ae, at 5; see What i s News Feed,

Facebook, ht t p: / / www. f acebook. com/ hel p/ 327131014036297 ( l ast

vi si t ed Sept . 17, 2013) . I t i s a const ant l y updat i ng l i st of

st or i es f r om peopl e and Pages t hat [ t he User ] f ol l ow[ s] on

Facebook. What i s News Feed?, Facebook,


17, 2013) .

Li ki ng on Facebook i s a way f or Facebook user s t o shar e

i nf or mat i on wi t h each ot her . The l i ke but t on, whi ch i s

r epr esent ed by a t humbs- up i con, and the word l i ke appear next

t o di f f er ent t ypes of Facebook cont ent . Li ki ng somet hi ng on

Facebook i s an easy way t o l et someone know t hat you enj oy i t .

What does i t mean t o Li ke somethi ng?, Facebook,


17, 2013) . Li ki ng a Facebook Page means you are connect i ng t o

t hat Page. When you connect t o a Page, i t wi l l appear i n your

t i mel i ne and you wi l l appear on t he Page as a person who l i kes

t hat Page. The Page wi l l al so be abl e t o post cont ent i nt o your

News Feed. What s t he di f f er ence bet ween l i ki ng an i t em a

f r i end post s and l i ki ng a Page?, Facebook,


39/81

39


17, 2013) .

Here, Car t er vi si t ed t he J i m Adams s campai gn Facebook page

( t he Campai gn Page) , whi ch was named J i m Adams f or Hampton

Sher i f f , and he cl i cked t he l i ke but t on on t he Campai gn Page.

When he di d so, t he Campai gn Page s name and a phot o of Adams

whi ch an Adams campai gn repr esent at i ve had sel ect ed as t he

Page s i con wer e added t o Car t er s pr of i l e, whi ch al l Facebook

user s coul d vi ew. On Cart er s pr of i l e, t he Campai gn Page name

served as a l i nk t o t he Campai gn Page. Car t er s cl i cki ng on t he

l i ke but t on al so caused an announcement t hat Car t er l i ked t he

Campai gn Page t o appear i n t he news f eeds of Cart er s f r i ends.

And i t caused Car t er s name and hi s prof i l e phot o t o be added to

t he Campai gn Page s Peopl e [ Who] Li ke Thi s l i st .

Once one underst ands t he natur e of what Car t er di d by

l i ki ng t he Campai gn Page, i t becomes apparent t hat hi s conduct

qual i f i es as speech. 14 On t he most basi c l evel , cl i cki ng on t he

l i ke but t on l i t er al l y causes t o be publ i shed t he st at ement

t hat t he User l i kes somet hi ng, whi ch i s i t sel f a subst ant i ve

st at ement . I n t he cont ext of a pol i t i cal campai gn s Facebook

14 The Supr eme Cour t has r ej ect ed t he not i on that onl i nespeech i s somehow not wort hy of t he same l evel of pr otect i on asother speech. See Reno v. ACLU, 521 U. S. 844, 870 ( 1997) ; seeal so Ashcrof t v. ACLU, 542 U. S. 656 ( 2004) .


40/81

40

page, t he meani ng t hat t he user appr oves of t he candi dacy whose

page i s bei ng l i ked i s unmi st akabl e. That a user may use a

si ngl e mouse cl i ck t o pr oduce t hat message t hat he l i kes t he

page i nst ead of t ypi ng t he same message wi t h sever al i ndi vi dual

key st r okes i s of no const i t ut i onal si gni f i cance.

Asi de f r om t he f act t hat l i ki ng t he Campai gn Page

const i t ut ed pur e speech, i t al so was symbol i c expr essi on. The

di st r i but i on of t he uni ver sal l y under st ood t humbs up symbol i n

associ at i on wi t h Adams s campai gn page, l i ke t he act ual t ext

t hat l i ki ng t he page pr oduced, conveyed t hat Cart er suppor t ed

Adams s candi dacy. See Spence v. Washi ngt on, 418 U. S. 405, 410-

11 ( 1974) ( per cur i am) ( hol di ng t hat per son engaged i n

expr essi ve conduct when t here was [ a]n i nt ent t o convey a

par t i cul ar i zed message . . . , and i n t he sur r oundi ng

ci r cumst ances t he l i kel i hood was gr eat t hat t he message woul d be

under st ood by t hose who vi ewed i t ) ; see al so Tobey v. J ones,

706 F. 3d 379, 388 n. 3 ( 4t h Ci r . 2013) .

I n sum, l i ki ng a pol i t i cal candi dat e s campai gn page

communi cates t he user s appr oval of t he candi date and support s

t he campai gn by associ at i ng t he user wi t h i t . I n t hi s way, i t

i s t he I nt er net equi val ent of di spl ayi ng a pol i t i cal si gn i n

one s f r ont yar d, whi ch t he Supr eme Cour t has hel d i s

subst ant i ve speech. See Ci t y of Ladue v. Gi l l eo, 512 U. S. 43,

54- 56 ( 1994) . J ust as Car t er s pl aci ng an Adams f or Sher i f f


41/81

41

si gn i n hi s f r ont yar d woul d have conveyed t o t hose passi ng hi s

home t hat he suppor t ed Adams s campai gn, Car t er s l i ki ng Adams s

Campai gn Page conveyed t hat message t o those vi ewi ng hi s pr of i l e

or t he Campai gn Page. 15 I n f act , i t i s har dl y sur pr i s i ng t hat

t he r ecor d r ef l ect s t hat t hi s i s exact l y how Car t er s act i on was

under st ood. See J . A. 160 ( McCoy s t est i mony t hat i n l i ght of

Cart er s l i ki ng Adams s Campai gn Page, ever ybody was sayi ng

t hat . . . Car t er i s out of t her e because he suppor t ed Adams

openl y) ; see al so J . A. 793 ( Sher i f f s Of f i ce empl oyee st at i ng

t hat Rober t s had sai d t hat cert ai n empl oyees were on t he

Facebook page of hi s opponent , J i m Adams, i ndi cat i ng t hei r

suppor t of Adams f or Sher i f f ) .

15 I ndeed, i n hol di ng t hat an or di nance banni ng si gns at

r esi dences except f or t hose si gns f i t t i ng wi t hi n par t i cul arexcept i ons vi ol at ed t he pl ai nt i f f - r esi dent s f r ee- speech r i ght s,t he Gi l l eo Cour t hi ghl i ght ed sever al aspect s of di spl ayi ngpol i t i cal si gns at one s r esi dence t hat appl y as wel l t o l i ki nga Facebook campai gn page:

Di spl ayi ng a si gn f r om one s own r esi dence of t encar r i es a message qui t e di st i nct f r om pl aci ng t he samesi gn somepl ace el se, or conveyi ng t he same text orpi ct ur e by ot her means. Preci sel y because of t hei rl ocat i on, such si gns pr ovi de i nf or mat i on about t he

i dent i t y of t he speaker . . . .

Resi dent i al si gns are an unusual l y cheap andconveni ent f or m of communi cat i on. Especi al l y f orpersons of modest means or l i mi t ed mobi l i t y, a yar d orwi ndow si gn may have no pr act i cal subst i t ut e.

Ci t y of Ladue v. Gi l l eo, 512 U. S. 43, 56- 57 ( 1994) .


42/81

42

The second par t of McVey s f i r st prong, concer ni ng whet her

Car t er was speaki ng as a pr i vat e ci t i zen on a mat t er of publ i c

concer n, need not det ai n us l ong. The Sher i f f does not di sput e

t hat Car t er s speech, i f i t was speech, was made i n hi s capaci t y

as a pr i vat e ci t i zen. Cf . Gar cet t i v. Cebal l os, 547 U. S. 410,

421 ( 2006) ( hol di ng t hat empl oyee does not speak as a pr i vat e

ci t i zen when hi s speech i s pur suant t o [ hi s] of f i ci al dut i es) .

And, i t i s wel l est abl i shed t hat an empl oyee can speak as a

pr i vat e ci t i zen i n hi s wor kpl ace, even i f t he cont ent of t he

speech i s r el at ed t o t he speaker s j ob. I d. ; see Pi cker i ng,

391 U. S. at 564- 65 ( hol di ng t hat l et t er t o l ocal newspaper f r om

t eacher concer ni ng school boar d pol i ci es was pr ot ect ed speech) .

Fur t her , t he i dea expr essed i n Car t er s speech t hat he

suppor t ed Adams i n t he 2009 el ect i on cl ear l y r el at ed t o a

mat t er of publ i c concer n. See Ci t i zens Uni t ed v. Fed. El ect i on

Comm n, 558 U. S. 310, 329 ( 2010) ( descr i bi ng pol i t i cal speech as

cent r al t o t he meani ng and pur pose of t he Fi r st Amendment ) ;

McI nt yr e v. Ohi o El ect i ons Comm n, 514 U. S. 334, 346 (1995)

( Di scussi on of publ i c i ssues and debat e on t he qual i f i cat i ons

of candi dat es ar e i nt egr al t o t he oper at i on of t he syst em of

government est abl i shed by our Const i t ut i on. The Fi r st Amendment

af f or ds t he br oadest pr ot ect i on t o such pol i t i cal expr essi on i n

or der t o assur e t he unf et t er ed i nt er change of i deas f or t he


43/81

43

br i ngi ng about of pol i t i cal and soci al changes desi r ed by the

peopl e. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) .

Next , on t he r ecor d bef or e us, Car t er s i nt er est i n

expr ess i ng support f or hi s f avor ed candi dat e out wei ghed t he

Sher i f f s i nt er est i n pr ovi di ng ef f ecti ve and ef f i ci ent ser vi ces

t o t he publ i c. Car t er s speech was pol i t i cal speech, whi ch i s

ent i t l ed t o t he hi ghest l evel of prot ect i on. See Meyer v.

Gr ant , 486 U. S. 414, 422, 425 ( 1988) ( descr i bi ng const i t ut i onal

pr ot ect i on of cor e pol i t i cal speech as bei ng at i t s zeni t h

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) ; see al so Conni ck, 461 U. S.

at 152 ( We caut i on t hat a st r onger showi ng [ of di sr upt i on] may

be necessary i f t he empl oyee s speech mor e subst ant i al l y

i nvol ved mat t er s of publ i c concer n. ) . I ndeed, t he publ i c s

i nt er est i n Car t er s opi ni ons r egar di ng t he el ect i on may have

had par t i cul ar val ue t o t he publ i c i n l i ght of hi s st at us as a

Sher i f f s Of f i ce empl oyee. See, e. g. , Wat er s v. Chur chi l l , 511

U. S. 661, 674 ( 1994) ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on) ( Gover nment empl oyees

ar e of t en i n t he best posi t i on t o know what ai l s t he agenci es

f or whi ch t hey wor k; publ i c debat e may gai n much f r om t hei r

i nf or med opi ni ons. ) . I n cont r ast , despi t e t he Sher i f f s

r ef er ence t o the need f or har mony and di sci pl i ne i n t he

Sher i f f s Of f i ce, not hi ng i n t he r ecor d i n t hi s case i ndi cat es

t hat Cart er s Facebook suppor t of Adams s campai gn di d anyt hi ng

i n par t i cul ar t o di sr upt t he of f i ce or woul d have made i t mor e


44/81

44

di f f i cul t f or Cart er , t he Sher i f f , or ot hers t o per f orm t hei r

wor k ef f i ci ent l y. See Gol dst ei n v. Chest nut Ri dge Vol unt eer

Fi r e Co. , 218 F. 3d 337, 356 ( 4t h Ci r . 2000) ( hol di ng t hat

gener al i zed and unsubst ant i at ed i nt er est s i n mai nt ai ni ng

mor al e and ef f i ci ency wi t hi n t he f i r e depar t ment di d not

out wei gh pl ai nt i f f s speech i nt er est ) . The Sher i f f s case i n

t hi s r egar d i s especi al l y weak consi der i ng t hat he has f ai l ed t o

show t hat t he j ai l er s occupi ed any conf i dent i al , pol i cymaki ng,

or publ i c cont act r ol e i n t he Sher i f f s Of f i ce. McVey, 157

F. 3d at 278.

Fi nal l y, f or t he same r easons t hat we hol d t hat Car t er has

cr eat ed a genui ne f actual i ssue r egardi ng whether he was

t er mi nat ed because of hi s l ack of pol i t i cal al l egi ance t o t he

Sher i f f , we concl ude that Car t er has cr eat ed a genui ne f act ual

i ssue concerni ng whether hi s Facebook support f or Adams was al so

a subst ant i al f act or . The Sher i f f war ned Car t er t hat hi s

suppor t of Adams woul d cost hi m hi s j ob, and a j ur y reasonabl y

coul d t ake t he Sher i f f at hi s wor d.

McCoy

Our appl i cat i on of t he McVey test t o McCoy s speech cl ai m

i s ver y si mi l ar t o our appl i cat i on of i t t o Car t er s. McCoy

pr esent ed evi dence t hat he engaged i n Fi r st Amendment speech

when he went on J i m Adams campai gn Facebook page and post ed an

ent r y on t he page i ndi cat i ng [ hi s] suppor t f or hi s campai gn.


45/81

45

J . A. 586; see al so J . A. 156 ( st at i ng t hat he went on [ Adams s]

Facebook page and post ed [ hi s] pi ct ur e . . . as a suppor t er ) .

I ndeed, t he evi dence i ndi cat ed t hat many i n t he Sher i f f s Of f i ce

were shocked by t he post i ng because i t i ndi cated t hat McCoy

was not . . . suppor t i ng t he sher i f f . J . A. 681. The di st r i ct

cour t concl uded t hat McCoy di d not suf f i ci ent l y al l ege t hat he

engaged i n speech because t he recor d di d not suf f i ci ent l y

descr i be what st at ement McCoy made. See Bl and, 857 F. Supp. 2d

at 604.

Cer t ai nl y a post i ng on a campai gn s Facebook Page

i ndi cat i ng suppor t f or t he candi dat e const i t ut es speech wi t hi n

t he meani ng of t he Fi r st Amendment . 16 For t he same r easons as

appl i ed t o Cart er s speech, McCoy s speech was made i n hi s

capaci t y as a pr i vat e ci t i zen on a mat t er of publ i c concer n,

namel y, whether Adams shoul d be el ect ed Hampt on Sher i f f . That

t he recor d does not r ef l ect t he exact words McCoy used t o

expr ess hi s suppor t f or Adams s campai gn i s i mmater i al as t her e

i s no di sput e i n t he r ecor d t hat t hat was t he message that McCoy

16 At or al ar gument , t he Sher i f f ar gued f or t he f i r st t i met hat McCoy di d not act ual l y i nt end hi s st at ement of suppor t t obe post ed on t he Campai gn Page, and thus t hat t he message di dnot const i t ut e speech. That McCoy may have i nt ended hi sexpr ess i on of suppor t t o be kept pr i vat e rat her t han madepubl i c, however , does not depr i ve i t of i t s st at us as speech.See, e. g. , Ranki n v. McPher son, 483 U. S. 378, 387 (1987)( hol di ng t hat const abl e s of f i ce empl oyee engaged i n pr ot ect edspeech when she made a pr i vat e pol i t i cal r emark t hat wasover hear d by a t hi r d per son she di d not r eal i ze was i n ear shot ) .


46/81

46

conveyed. Addi t i onal l y, al t hough many were shocked t hat McCoy

woul d so openl y suppor t Sher i f f Rober t s s opponent , not hi ng i n

t he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hat hi s speech cr eat ed any sor t of

di sr upt i on or expl ai ns how t he Sher i f f s i nt er est i n oper at i ng

t he Sher i f f s Of f i ce ef f i ci ent l y coul d out wei gh McCoy s i nt er est

i n suppor t i ng t he Sher i f f s opponent i n t he el ect i on. See

Gol dst ei n, 218 F. 3d at 356.

Fur t her , f or t he same reasons t hat we concl ude that a

r easonabl e j ur y coul d f i nd t hat McCoy s pol i t i cal di sl oyal t y was

a subst ant i al mot i vat i on f or t he Sher i f f s deci si on not t o

r eappoi nt hi m, such a j ur y coul d al so f i nd t hat McCoy s

( pol i t i cal l y di sl oyal ) speech was al so a subst ant i al mot i vat i on

f or hi s non- r eappoi nt ment . Wi t h t he Sher i f f havi ng speci f i cal l y

warned hi s empl oyees not t o suppor t Adams t hrough Facebook and

havi ng t hr eat ened t hat Adams suppor t ers woul d not be

r eappoi nt ed, a j ur y coul d r easonabl y f i nd t hat t he Sher i f f

si mpl y f ol l owed t hr ough wi t h hi s t hr eat by not r eappoi nt i ng

McCoy.

Di xon

Di xon al l eges he was not r eappoi nt ed because he di spl ayed

an Adams bumper st i cker on hi s car and because he made t he

pol l i ng- pl ace comment . The di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat t her e

was no evi dence t hat Rober t s or ot her seni or Sher i f f s Of f i ce

empl oyees had knowl edge of hi s bumper st i cker and that t he


47/81

47

pol l i ng- pl ace comment was merel y a personal gr i evance r ather

t han a st atement t ouchi ng on a mat t er of publ i c concern. See

Bl and, 857 F. Supp. 2d at 605.

Al t hough t he evi dence t hat t he Sher i f f or hi s seni or

of f i cer s knew of Di xon s bumper st i cker was t hi n, t o say t he

l east , t he Sher i f f admi t s t hat he t er mi nat ed Di xon because of

t he pol l i ng- pl ace comment . And, t he st at ement t hat Pope shoul d

j ust t hr ow [ her Rober t s campai gn mat er i al s] away cl ear l y

const i t ut ed speech on a mat t er of publ i c concer n t he mer i t s of

Robert s s campai gn made i n Di xon s capaci t y as a pr i vat e

ci t i zen. See McI nt yr e, 514 U. S. at 346; cf . Cohen v.

Cal i f or ni a, 403 U. S. 15, 18 ( 1971) ( concl udi ng t hat Cal i f or ni a

l ack[ed] power t o puni sh t he wear i ng of a j acket bear i ng t he

pl ai nl y vi si bl e wor ds F - - k t he Dr af t based on t he

under l yi ng . . . evi dent posi t i on on t he i nut i l i t y or i mmor al i t y

of t he dr af t ) . Di xon r epr esent ed t hat he made t he st at ement i n

a nonconf r ont at i onal , f r i endl y manner , and no speci f i c evi dence

i n t he recor d i ndi cated how hi s support f or Adams mi ght have

cr eat ed a l ack of har mony i n t he Hampt on Sher i f f s Of f i ce.

As f or causat i on, t he Sher i f f does not deny the f act t hat

Di xon s pol l i ng- pl ace comment was t he r eason he was not

r eappoi nt ed. The Sher i f f s i mpl y mai nt ai ned t hat he bel i eved

Di xon used prof ani t y i n maki ng t he comment al t hough he does

not expl ai n t he sour ce of hi s bel i ef . Wer e a j ur y t o credi t


48/81

48

Di xon s deni al of t hat char ge, i t coul d r easonabl y concl ude that

what act ual l y mot i vat ed t he Sher i f f not t o r eappoi nt Di xon was

t he f act t hat Di xon voi ced hi s di sappr oval of t he Sher i f f s

candi dacy.

Woodwar d

Woodward s al l eged prot ect ed speech occur r ed when she

compl ai ned about Li eut enant Geor ge Per ki ns s ci r cul at i on of a

pet i t i on i n suppor t of Sher i f f Rober t s on t he basi s t hat Per ki ns

was not a Hampt on r esi dent . As we have al r eady expl ai ned,

however , we concl ude that i t woul d be specul at i ve f or a j ur y t o

concl ude t hat Woodward s compl ai nt r egardi ng t he pet i t i on was

based on anyt hi ng other t han t he reasons she voi ced at t he t i me,

whi ch were unr el ated t o the quest i on of whether she support ed

Adams or Robert s i n t he el ect i on. We t heref ore concl ude she has

not cr eat ed a genui ne f act ual di sput e regar di ng whet her her

compl ai nt was a subst ant i al mot i vat i on f or her non-

r eappoi nt ment .

C. El eventh Amendment I mmuni t y

Pl ai nt i f f s next ar gue t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n

r ul i ng t hat El event h Amendment i mmuni t y woul d bar cl ai ms

advanced agai nst t he Sher i f f i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y. We agr ee

t o the ext ent t hat t he Pl ai nt i f f s seek t he remedy of

r ei nst atement .


49/81

49

The El event h Amendment t o t he Uni t ed Stat es Const i t ut i on

pr ovi des: The J udi ci al power of t he Uni t ed

facebook likes case

Documents