Brown v. City of Tulsa, 124 F.4th 1251

Wayne Brown, an at-will Tulsa police officer, was terminated after a citizen called attention to several old Facebook posts alleged to violate the department's social media policy.
Brown’s posts included controversial images and views predating his employment as well as one updated profile photo while employed; only the latter was posted during his tenure as an officer.
Brown was fired swiftly, without an opportunity to present his side, based on allegations that his posts expressed bias against protected classes, contrary to department policy.
Brown filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment and Equal Protection violations, plus an Oklahoma wrongful discharge claim (Burk claim), seeking injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief.
The district court dismissed Brown’s federal claims under Rule 12(b)(6), ruling that the City’s interest outweighed Brown’s speech rights and that Chief Jordan was entitled to qualified immunity; it then declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reversed dismissal of the First Amendment claim, affirmed dismissal of the Equal Protection claim, and remanded for further proceedings on the state claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. First Amendment (Retaliatory Termination)	Termination over private, off-duty protected speech violated his rights.	Employer's interest in public trust outweighs Brown's speech rights.	District court erred; claim should not be dismissed at 12(b)(6).
2. Qualified Immunity (First Amendment)	Chief Jordan not protected due to clear right.	Chief Jordan is entitled to qualified immunity.	Qualified immunity improper to decide at 12(b)(6). Reversed.
3. Equal Protection (Class-of-One Theory)	Termination was arbitrary, unlike others' treatment.	Equal Protection "class-of-one" is not cognizable in employment.	Affirmed dismissal; class-of-one claim not available.
4. Supplemental Jurisdiction (State Law Claim)	District court should hear related state claim.	No original federal claim remained; jurisdiction declined.	District court must reconsider state claim on remand.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleading)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for motions to dismiss)
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (official vs. individual capacity distinction)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (public employee speech test framework)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (public concern in employee speech)
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability for policy/custom)
Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228 (employee speech balancing test)
Engquist v. Or. Dep’t of Agric., 553 U.S. 591 (class-of-one claims not viable in public employment)
Pickering v. Bd. of Ed., 391 U.S. 563 (balancing test for public employee speech)
City of San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S. 77 (public employee citizen speech rights)
Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (motivation in retaliation claims)
Police Dep’t of City of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (Equal Protection and expressive viewpoint discrimination)