Kevin Buker v. Howard County, 851 F.3d 332

Background

Kevin Buker, a Howard County Battalion Chief, posted and "liked" politically charged and disrespectful Facebook content while on duty and after being directed to remove offending posts. He was investigated and terminated under the Department's Social Media Guidelines and Code of Conduct.
The challenged Facebook activity included a post joking about killing "liberals," a supportive "like" of a racially charged comment, a post criticizing the Department's social media policy as chilling speech, and a later "like" of a post mocking superiors.
Buker sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming First Amendment retaliatory discharge and bringing a facial challenge to the Department's social media and conduct policies.
The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants on the retaliation claim (finding some speech unprotected and balancing government interests outweighed protected speech) and later dismissed the facial challenge as moot after the Department revised the policies.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed: it found at least some of Buker’s posts implicated public concern but held the Department’s substantial interests (discipline, cohesion, supervisory role, public trust, and paramilitary structure) outweighed Buker’s speech interests; it also upheld mootness of the facial challenge given policy repeal and official assurances.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Buker spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern	Buker: posts about gun control and the social media policy addressed public issues and public interest in employees' informed opinions	Howard County: posts were personal, disruptive, and some were unprotected (insubordinate/advocating violence)	Some posts addressed public concern (gun control, policy critique); others were personal or purely insubordinate
Whether Buker’s interest in speaking outweighed the government’s interest in efficient service (Pickering balancing)	Buker: public interest in debate on gun control and in critique of a policy chilling speech	Howard County: speech disrupted discipline, coworker harmony, undermined supervisory role, harmed public trust in a paramilitary fire dept.	Government interest outweighed Buker’s speech interest; summary judgment for Defendants affirmed
Whether Buker’s speech was a substantial factor in termination (retaliation causation)	Buker: termination was motivated by his protected speech	Howard County: termination was justified by insubordination, disruption, and policy violations; causation disputed	Court did not need to decide causation after resolving balancing in favor of Defendants
Whether the facial challenge to the old policies was moot after policy revisions	Buker: repeal does not moot claim because policy could be reenacted	Howard County: revised policies removed challenged provisions and officials swore they would not reenact prior versions	Court held dismissal as moot was proper given repeal and sworn assurances that prior policies would not be reinstated

Key Cases Cited

Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (public-employee speech doctrine; distinction between public concern and personal grievance)
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (balancing employee speech interest against government efficiency)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (limits on public employee speech made pursuant to job duties)
Bland v. Roberts, 730 F.3d 368 (4th Cir.) ("liking" on Facebook as attributable, substantive expression)
Goldstein v. Chestnut Ridge Volunteer Fire Co., 218 F.3d 337 (4th Cir.) (weight accorded to fire dept. interest in cohesion and public safety)
Liverman v. City of Petersburg, 844 F.3d 400 (4th Cir.) (public-safety employee speech grounded in specialized knowledge may receive greater protection)
McVey v. Stacy, 157 F.3d 271 (4th Cir.) (three-prong test for retaliatory discharge under First Amendment)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. 167 (mootness and voluntary cessation standard)