James Durham v. Robert Jones
737 F.3d 291
4th Cir.2013Background
- Durham, a long-time deputy, was terminated for allegedly retaliating against the Sheriff after reporting misconduct.
- He publicly disseminated documents and notes from an internal grievance and related materials to state officials and media.
- Supervisors pressured him to revise his incident report to reflect different facts and to charge the suspect.
- Interrogation by detectives Miles and Nelson involved coercive questioning and warnings, with Durham ultimately revising his report.
- LEOBR proceedings led to disciplinary action culminating in termination; Durham sued Sheriff Jones in his individual capacity under §1983, alleging First Amendment retaliation.
- District court denied Jones's qualified-immunity defense and the case went to trial, where the jury awarded Durham over $1.1 million; on appeal, the denial of qualified immunity was challenged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Durham's disclosures violated the First Amendment retaliation standard | Durham's public disclosures concerned governmental misconduct | No violation if speech not on public concern or outweighed by agency interest | Speech involved a matter of public concern and outweighed the agency interest |
| Whether Durham's speech regarding government misconduct was protected as public-employee speech | Speech addressed public misconduct and informed public; not merely personal grievances | Speech did not sufficiently relate to public concern or disrupted operations | Speech addressed public concern; protected under the balancing test |
| Whether the right to such public-employee speech was clearly established at the time | Circuit precedent recognized protection for public-employee speech on misconduct | No clearly established rule governing this exact scenario | Right clearly established by September 2009 for public misconduct speech by a government employee |
| Whether Jones is entitled to qualified immunity given the trial record | Durham's speech violated clearly established rights; Jones knew or should have known | No clear standard; should be entitled to immunity absent established violation | District court correctly denied summary judgment; qualified immunity not warranted given the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (public employee speech balancing test; public concern filter)
- Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (public employee speech First Amendment balance)
- Balog v. Balog, 160 F.3d 189 (4th Cir. 1998) (public employee speech not ordinary workplace dispute; balancing factors)
- Maciariello v. Sumner, 973 F.2d 295 (4th Cir. 1992) (public interest in allegations of misconduct; publication to inform public)
- Stroman v. Colleton Cnty. Sch. Dist., 981 F.2d 152 (4th Cir. 1992) (public concern standard; school context in evaluation of speech)
- Robinson v. Balog, 160 F.3d 183 (4th Cir. 1998) (public meetings and speech leading to press coverage support public concern)
- Ridpath v. Bd. of Governors Marshall Univ., 447 F.3d 292 (4th Cir. 2006) (establishes clearly established standard and retaliation inquiry in public employee speech)