238 F. Supp. 3d 924
E.D. Ky.2017Background
- Willard Conn, a Pike County employee, was fired after refusing to speak in support of a proposed county occupational tax; he alleges First Amendment retaliation and due-process violations, among other state-law claims.
- Conn sued county officials individually and in their official capacities; defendants moved for summary judgment; the court announced rulings shortly before trial.
- The county code contains a "for cause" employment provision and a post-termination grievance procedure; Conn was placed on a one-year probation in November 2015, a fact the parties dispute as to its legal effect.
- Investigations (including a report by John Doug Hays), meetings (September, November, December), and the fiscal court vote preceded Conn’s suspension and termination; parties dispute who knew what and when.
- Conn pursues federal claims (First Amendment retaliation, procedural due process under § 1983) and state-law claims (wrongful discharge under Kentucky Constitution, breach of contract, state constitutional § 2 claim); defendants assert qualified and sovereign immunity and other state-law defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful discharge under Kentucky Constitution | Conn: termination violated Sections 1, 2, and 14 public-policy protections | Defs: no Kentucky authority creates wrongful-discharge tort from those constitutional provisions | Granted for defendants (summary judgment) |
| State § 2 claim for money damages | Conn: § 2 prohibits arbitrary power and supports damages remedy | Defs: Kentucky does not recognize private damages actions for state-constitutional violations | Granted for defendants (summary judgment) |
| Breach of contract (employment "for cause") | Conn: employment agreement is a written/unilateral contract or at least creates entitlement | Defs: county/fiscal court immune from suit; § 45A.245 waiver applies only to the Commonwealth | Granted for defendants (summary judgment) |
| First Amendment retaliation | Conn: refusal to speak on tax is protected speech on matter of public concern; termination was motivated in part by that refusal | Defs: termination driven by legitimate reasons (e.g., investigations, need to support tax) | Denied (material factual disputes—jury to decide motivation) |
| Procedural due process (pre- and post-termination) | Conn: had property interest ("for cause") and was denied required pretermination process | Defs: probation may have forfeited "for cause" status; adequate process was provided | Grant in part, deny in part — denied as to pre-termination claim (fact issues); granted as to post-termination claim (Conn waived grievance) |
| Municipal liability under § 1983 | Conn: fiscal court policy/custom or ratification by final policymakers caused violation | Defs: fiscal court vote is not municipal policymaking or liability inappropriate | Denied (insufficient briefing to decide; factual disputes whether fiscal court ratified unlawful motive) |
| Federal qualified immunity | Conn: law was clearly established re: right not to speak and pretermination process | Defs: arguable that law was not clearly established re: probationary status and process | Denied (factual disputes prevent immunity at summary judgment) |
Key Cases Cited
- Firestone Textile Co. Div. v. Meadows, 666 S.W.2d 730 (Ky. 1983) (recognized wrongful discharge exception to at-will employment for violation of fundamental public policy)
- Mitchell v. Coldstream Labs., Inc., 337 S.W.3d 642 (Ky. Ct. App. 2010) (court decides whether public policy is "fundamental and well-defined")
- Leary v. Daesehner, 228 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2000) (framework for due-process and First Amendment public-employee claims)
- Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (balancing public-employee speech on matters of public concern against employer interest)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (pretermination hearing requirement for public employees with property interest)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires policy or custom causation)
- Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391 (U.S. 1979) (Eleventh Amendment does not extend immunity to counties and municipalities for federal claims)
- Silberstein v. City of Dayton, 440 F.3d 306 (6th Cir. 2006) (discusses clearly established law and pretermination hearing analysis)