Gary Thompson v. Andy Shock
852 F.3d 786
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Gary Thompson, a Faulkner County transport deputy, publicly supported Sheriff candidate Tommy Earnhart in 2012; he engaged in off-duty campaign activities but made no public statements about the Sheriff’s Office or public issues.
- After Andy Shock won the sheriff’s election, Shock notified Thompson of his “non-selection” (termination) effective January 2013; Thompson requested and used the county grievance/predeprivation hearing provided by Faulkner County.
- At the hearing Shock testified the non-selection was for Thompson’s “lack of good work ethic,” though there were no prior disciplinary records or negative evaluations in the record.
- Thompson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First Amendment free-association/political-affiliation claim) and state-law political-freedom claims; the district court granted summary judgment to Shock in both individual and official capacities and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the official-capacity claim (no final policymaker under Arkansas law because the quorum court retained review authority), but vacated the individual-capacity qualified-immunity ruling and remanded for analysis under the Elrod–Branti patronage framework as clarified by Heffernan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shock is entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity for terminating Thompson | Thompson argues termination was a patronage dismissal (political affiliation) violating First Amendment rights | Shock and district court applied Pickering–Connick and contended the right was not clearly established | Vacated qualified-immunity grant; remanded for analysis using Elrod–Branti (patronage) in light of Heffernan |
| Which First Amendment test governs (Pickering–Connick vs. Elrod–Branti) | Patronage dismissal (no expressive public statements) requires Elrod–Branti narrow-justification test | District court used Pickering–Connick; relied on precedents like Nord | Court holds Heffernan/Elrod–Branti applies to patronage dismissal and directs district court to apply that line of cases |
| Whether Sheriff Shock, in his official capacity, is a final policymaker for county employment decisions (municipal liability) | Thompson contends Arkansas law vests elected officials with final hiring authority for their offices, so Shock is a final policymaker | Defendant points to Arkansas statutes granting quorum court authority to adopt general employment policies and retain review/grievance power | Affirmed: Shock not a final policymaker because Faulkner County’s quorum court retained review power; no municipal liability under Monell |
| Whether Arkansas authority (Crawford County) establishes sheriff as final policymaker | Thompson relied on Crawford County v. Jones to show county official actions can create county liability | Defendant and court read Crawford County as addressing state-law contract claims and as imputing agency, not establishing final policymaker status | Court rejects Thompson’s reliance on Crawford County and finds state law supports quorum court authority over employment policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (balancing test for public-employee speech)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (public concern and employer interest limits on employee speech)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (patronage dismissals violate First Amendment unless narrow justification)
- Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (party-affiliation requirement must be justified for effective performance)
- Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 136 S. Ct. 1412 (employer’s mistaken belief about employee’s political activity can violate First Amendment; applies Elrod–Branti framework)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires action pursuant to official policy)
- Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (single official decision can be municipal policy if official is final policymaker)
- Nord v. Walsh County, 757 F.3d 734 (Eighth Circuit decision applying Pickering–Connick to an intermixed campaign-speech/patronage case)