Jacquelyn Johnston v. Gary S. Borders, 36 F.4th 1254

Background

Gary Borders, Lake County Sheriff, took over the county animal shelter and hired Jacquelyn Johnston as Director of Animal Services on October 1, 2014.
On October 9, Johnston inspected the shelter, instructed a subordinate (Jennifer Ferguson) to follow euthanasia policy and seek rescues, then left for Miami; Ferguson thereafter selected animals for euthanasia and some were put down.
The Sheriff approved an October 10 press release stating several animals had been euthanized under Johnston’s direction and that euthanasia occurred outside office policy; Johnston was fired the same day and was not informed of any right to a name‑clearing hearing.
Johnston sued Borders (Sheriff) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of a liberty interest (a name‑clearing hearing) and sued Ferguson (and the Sheriff in official capacity) for defamation under Florida law; a jury returned verdicts for Johnston ($65,000 § 1983; $35,100 defamation) and the District Court entered judgment.
On appeal the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the merits verdicts (finding sufficient evidence of false, stigmatizing public statements and of Ferguson’s defamatory remark), but VACATED and REMANDED the § 1988 attorney’s fee award because the district court improperly included time spent on non‑compensable state‑law defamation work in the lodestar.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported a § 1983 "name‑clearing" (stigma‑plus) claim	Johnston: Sheriff’s press release was false and stigmatizing, attended her discharge, and she had no meaningful opportunity to clear her name	Borders: press release accurate summary of policy; legal defenses included need to seek state remedies and Monell limits	Sufficient evidence for jury to find press release false and stigmatizing; denial of JMOL affirmed and verdict against Sheriff and Sheriff’s Office affirmed
Whether Monell (municipal policy or custom) was an element of Johnston’s official‑capacity § 1983 claim	Johnston: prior appellate mandate/law of the case meant Monell was not required	Borders: Monell required to recover from a municipal official in official capacity	Sheriff effectively waived the Monell issue in pretrial stipulation; court treated Monell as not preserved for appeal; panel did not hold Monell inapplicable as a matter of law
Whether Ferguson’s remark to a volunteer was defamatory or privileged	Johnston: Ferguson’s statement was false, would be understood as referring to Johnston, and caused reputational injury	Ferguson: statement not defamatory; protected by intracorporate/qualified or absolute privilege	Jury reasonably could find the statement false, concerning Johnston, and defamatory; absolute‑privilege defense forfeited/not preserved, so denial of JMOL upheld
Whether § 1988 fees may include time spent litigating the state‑law defamation claim	Johnston: claims arose from a common core of facts; relatedness justifies including those hours in the lodestar	Defendants: defamation work was separate/unrelated and thus not compensable under § 1988	Court held district court erred by including unrelated defamation hours; fee award vacated and remanded for recalculation (costs largely affirmed)

Key Cases Cited

Buxton v. City of Plant City, 871 F.2d 1037 (11th Cir. 1989) (discusses right to a post‑termination name‑clearing hearing and notice principles)
Cotton v. Jackson, 216 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2000) (stigma‑plus/name‑clearing elements articulated)
McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550 (11th Cir. 1994) (discusses availability of state remedies before federal relief for name‑clearing deprivation)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar method and when non‑fee claims may be compensable if related)
Norman v. Housing Auth. of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292 (11th Cir. 1988) (district court must deduct time spent on discrete, unsuccessful claims)
Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (2010) (lodestar presumptively reasonable; standards for enhancing fees)
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires action pursuant to policy or custom)
Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977) (equitable remedy of a name‑clearing hearing under Due Process)
ACLU of Ga. v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423 (11th Cir. 1999) (block‑billing can impair fee‑award review and justify reductions)
Loranger v. Stierheim, 10 F.3d 776 (11th Cir. 1994) (district court must explain fee reductions with principled reasons)
In re Home Depot, 931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019) (discussion of lodestar approach and appellate review standards)