Kenneth Hunter v. Town of Mocksville, North Caro
789 F.3d 389
| 4th Cir. | 2015Background
- Three Mocksville police officers (Hunter, Donathan, Medlin) privately suspected Chief Cook and Deputy Chief Matthews of misconduct (drinking on duty, misuse of police lights/authority, possible embezzlement, racial discrimination, fixing tickets).
- After internal complaints to Town Manager Bralley produced no relief and raised retaliation concerns, the officers met off-duty, consulted the NAACP, and used a disposable phone to contact the North Carolina Attorney General and then the Governor’s Office to request an outside investigation; they initially remained anonymous.
- The Governor’s Office offered to refer the matter to the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI); local law-enforcement contacts traced the disposable number back to the department; Cook and Bralley learned of the call.
- On December 29, 2011, Chief Cook fired all three officers, citing performance/insubordination and referencing the call to the Governor/SBI in internal memoranda.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment retaliation; district court denied qualified-immunity summary judgment for Cook and Bralley; plaintiffs’ municipal-liability claim against the Town was dismissed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed as to the qualified-immunity denial (to the extent reviewable) and declined to reach some issues as unappealable at that interlocutory stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers spoke as citizens or as employees when calling the Governor’s Office | Officers acted as private citizens raising matters of public concern (corruption), outside their ordinary duties | Calling the Governor’s Office was within officers’ duties to report crimes/misconduct and police manual obligations; thus not citizen speech | Court: Officers spoke as citizens on a matter of public concern; speech protected (Garcetti/Lane analysis) |
| Whether plaintiffs’ protected speech was a motivating/substantial factor in termination | Plaintiffs contend the call motivated their termination; termination letters referenced the call | Defendants assert nonretaliatory, performance-based reasons for firing | Not decided on appeal — district court denied summary judgment because genuine factual dispute exists; appellate court lacked jurisdiction to resolve causation on interlocutory appeal |
| Whether Cook and Bralley are entitled to qualified immunity (was the right clearly established in Dec. 2011?) | Plaintiffs: Circuit precedent (Andrew, Durham) clearly established that speech exposing law-enforcement misconduct is protected, so officials are not immune | Defendants: Law was not clearly established whether reporting to a supervisory/state agency (vs. media) was citizen speech; reasonable officials could think termination lawful | Court: Right was clearly established in this Circuit that speech about serious misconduct in a law-enforcement agency is protected; denial of qualified immunity affirmed (to the extent reviewable) |
| Municipal liability — whether Town is liable because Cook/Bralley were final policymakers | Plaintiffs: Bralley and Cook were final decisionmakers, so Town is liable for their actions | Defendants: District court dismissed municipal claim; appeals court lacks jurisdiction over that non-final order | Appellate court declined to reach municipal-liability issue for lack of finality / Rule 54(b) certification |
Key Cases Cited
- Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369 (U.S. 2014) (public-employee speech on matters of public concern can be protected; critical of overbroad readings of Garcetti)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (speech pursuant to official duties is not protected by the First Amendment)
- Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (balancing public-employee speech rights against government employer’s interest in efficient services)
- Andrew v. Clark, 561 F.3d 261 (4th Cir. 2009) (retaliation claim for disclosure of internal report about police operations; protected speech re: government misconduct)
- Durham v. Jones, 737 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2013) (denial of qualified immunity where deputy distributed materials about sheriff’s-office corruption; speech on government misconduct protected)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (U.S. 1995) (limits interlocutory appeals of summary judgment denials when denial rests on genuine dispute of material fact; qualified-immunity appeals are immediately reviewable only on certain legal/established-law grounds)