Albert Flora, Jr. v. County of Luzerne
776 F.3d 169
| 3rd Cir. | 2015Background
- Albert Flora Jr. served as Chief Public Defender for Luzerne County (2010–2013) while also maintaining a private practice; he alleged chronic underfunding and staffing shortages in the Public Defender’s Office.
- After budget shortfalls and attorney departures, Flora sued in state court (class action/mandamus) on behalf of indigent defendants seeking adequate funding and staffing; he also filed and later dismissed a related federal action seeking protection from retaliation.
- The state court granted mandamus relief ordering improved funding/staffing and mediation; County later amended the budget and created a full-time chief position but did not rehire Flora.
- Flora discovered and reported that thousands of juvenile adjudications ordered expunged had not been expunged; he reported this to various officials (including the Special Master), angering County Manager Lawton.
- Flora was removed from duties and not reappointed; he sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation (claiming his funding litigation and reporting of expungements were protected speech). The District Court dismissed, finding his speech was pursuant to official duties under Garcetti.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Flora spoke as a citizen or pursuant to official duties (Garcetti question) | Flora: filing funding suit and reporting unexpunged records were outside his ordinary job duties and compelled by duties as an officer of the court, so he spoke as a citizen | County/Lawton: Flora’s statements arose from special knowledge and duties as Chief Public Defender and therefore related to his job duties (not protected) | Vacated dismissal; on the pleadings, allegations plausibly show the speech was outside Flora’s ordinary job responsibilities under Lane, so complaint survives dismissal |
| Whether District Court properly resolved factual disputes on motion to dismiss | Flora: factual disputes about job duties preclude resolving the Garcetti question at 12(b)(6) stage | County/Lawton: urged that pleadings show duties encompassed the speech | Held: District Court improperly made factual findings; scope of duties is a mixed question and factual disputes cannot be resolved on 12(b)(6) |
| Proper legal standard to determine citizen-speech | Flora: Garcetti and Lane require inquiry whether speech is within "ordinary" job responsibilities, not merely "related to" duties | County/Lawton: relied on pre-Lane "related to" and "owes its existence to" formulations | Held: District Court applied wrong standard; Lane controls—ask whether speech is ordinarily within scope of job duties, not merely related |
| Whether complaint plausibly alleges protected speech so as to survive dismissal | Flora: alleged extraordinary circumstances, reporting as officer of the court, and that internal channels failed, so lawsuit/reporting were not ordinary duties | County/Lawton: argued allegations show actions were part of his role and benefitted clients (thus within duties) | Held: Allegations sufficiently plausible that filing suit and reporting expungements were outside ordinary duties; remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (public-employee speech made pursuant to official duties is not protected by the First Amendment)
- Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369 (2014) (critical inquiry is whether speech is ordinarily within scope of employee’s duties; speech learned in employment may nonetheless be citizen speech)
- Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (balance government interest in efficient service against employee’s right to speak on matters of public concern)
- Foraker v. Chaffinch, 501 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2007) (speech directed up the chain of command may be within official duties; special-knowledge analysis discussed)
- Gorum v. Sessoms, 561 F.3d 179 (3d Cir. 2009) (speech part of an employee’s de facto advisory role to students was made pursuant to official duties)