Love v. Rehfus, 946 N.E.2d 1

Love, a Sugar Creek Township volunteer/part-time firefighter, was terminated by Chief Rehfus for sending a private email supporting Boyer and criticizing park spending, alleging false statements.
The email was sent off-duty from Love's home computer to a small group of citizens, addressing campaign issues and departmental expenditures including take-home vehicles.
Chief Rehfus terminated Love for conduct unbecoming a firefighter and for lying, citing specific statements he alleged to be false in the email.
Love sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Hancock County, asserting First and Fourteenth Amendment violations by Rehfus in his individual and official capacities and by Sugar Creek Township.
The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Court of Appeals reversed; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer for review.
The Court held Love's speech was protected and remanded for further consideration of municipal liability, including who had final policymaking authority.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Love's email protected public-employee speech?	Love argues the speech addressed a matter of public concern and he spoke as a citizen.	Defendants contend the email is not protected because it contains false statements and disrupts operations.	Yes; speech protected; summary judgment incorrect
Were any statements made with actual malice to defeat protection for defamation?	Love contends the statements were substantially true or made in good faith.	Defendants allege knowingly/recklessly false statements, requiring malice.	No genuine issue of material fact; no actual malice as a matter of law
Can the Township be held liable under § 1983 for the Chief's actions?	Pembaur/Monell liability possible if the Chief acted as a final policymaker.	Scope of final policymaking authority unclear; should be determined with state law on remand.	Genuine issues of material fact exist; summary judgment inappropriate
Did the record establish that the Chief had final policymaking authority over employment decisions for firefighters?	Policy authority may rest with the Trustee; record suggests possible delegation to the Chief.	It's unclear whether the Trustee delegated authority; review mechanisms raise questions.	Remand required to resolve final policymaker issue

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (government as employer; speech may be restricted for efficiency)
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (two-step Pickering balancing for public employee speech)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (U.S. 1983) (public concern threshold for speech)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (actual malice standard for defamation by public officials)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires policy or custom)
Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1986) (final policymaker requirement for municipal liability)
Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701 (U.S. 1989) (state and local law for determining final policymaker)
Gustafson v. Jones, 290 F.3d 895 (7th Cir. 2002) (Pickering balance and harm considerations)