Lauck v. Campbell County
627 F.3d 805
| 10th Cir. | 2010Background
- Lauck, a CCSO deputy for 22 years and former Lead Officer, was transferred to the Civil Process Division in Nov 2006 but kept pay and Deputy Sheriff III status.
- Transfer followed discussions in which Lauck was told to report to the Civil Process Division; he refused and did not report for duty.
- Two documents surfaced: a letter Lauck claimed he had been fired and a list of equipment returned; he requested a hearing, which was granted but he did not attend.
- Lauck asserted a contract-based claim under Wyo. Stat. § 18-3-611 and the CCSO Manual, arguing the transfer was a demotion in rank and violated due process.
- Defendants argued the Lead Officer role had no contractually protected status and the transfer did not reduce rank or pay; Lauck offered no contrary evidence.
- Lauck pursued constitutional claims: due process (demotion and constructive discharge) and First Amendment retaliation related to speech.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contract claim viability | Lauck wields a contract via the Manual and statute; transfer demotes without hearing. | No contractual protection for Lead Officer; transfer leaves rank and pay unchanged. | No contractual breach; transfer permissible under contract. |
| Due process for demotion | Transfer to Civil Process Division without due process violates entitlement. | No protected property interest; no due process violation from transfer. | No due process violation; no protected property interest shown. |
| Constructive discharge | Intolerable conditions amount to constructive discharge requiring due process. | Conditions not shown to be intolerable; proper hearing occurred; no coercive resignation. | Lauck failed to prove three-element constructive-discharge test; claim fails. |
| First Amendment retaliation | Speech about CCSO misconduct protected; transfer retaliatory. | Some speech not protected or not causally tied to transfer; timing insufficient. | No causation; two alleged statements fail Garcetti-Pickering analysis on summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. Supreme Court 2006) (speech on official duties limits First Amendment protection)
- Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. Supreme Court 1968) (public concern and employee interests balance in retaliation claims)
- Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (pretermination hearing rights for property interests)
- Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. Supreme Court 1972) (public employees' property interests depend on entitlement)
- Potts v. Davis Cnty., 551 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2009) (no protected property interest absent contract or statute)
- Shrum v. City of Coweta, Okla., 449 F.3d 1132 (10th Cir. 2006) (public policy and wrongful discipline not arising from ordinary contractual right)
- Meiners v. Univ. of Kan., 359 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2004) (causal inference in retaliation requires more than temporal proximity)
- Anderson v. Coors Brewing Co., 181 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 1999) (retaliation requires evidence linking protected activity to adverse action)
- Richmond v. ONEOK, Inc., 120 F.3d 205 (10th Cir. 1997) (causation for retaliation scrutiny in timing of events)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (U.S. Supreme Court 1998) (negligence and due process boundaries in conduct)