Merrifield v. COUNTY COM'RS FOR COUNTY OF SANTA FE, 654 F.3d 1073

Merrifield, a Youth Services Administrator for Santa Fe County, was terminated after sending a sexually explicit image to a subordinate.
County's internal investigation and Romero's termination recommendation blamed Merrifield for improper supervisory conduct and a sexually inappropriate environment.
Merrifield retained counsel; the County disclosed some policy documents but limited full discovery during process.
Abeyta, the County Manager, denied the appeal, affirming termination; Merrifield challenged via a posttermination hearing.
A nine-day posttermination hearing upheld the termination; Merrifield sued in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for due process and First Amendment retaliation, and pursued a state-law claim for judicial review; the district court granted summary judgment on federal claims, struck some evidence, and remanded the state-law issue for state-court handling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural due process adequacy at pretermination	Merrifield contends pretermination notice/evidence were inadequate	Defendants maintained adequate notice and opportunity to respond under Loudermill	No due-process violation; notice at the pretermination hearing sufficed; affirm on federal claims
Public-concern requirement for association with counsel retaliation	Merrifield argues association with attorney is protected speech/petition	Retaliation claim not tied to public concern; association not on public-issue	Public-concern requirement applies to association-retaliation; Merrifield failed to show matter of public concern; affirm on federal claims

Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (pretermination due-process requirements; notice and opportunity to respond)
Powell v. Mikulecky, 891 F.2d 1454 (10th Cir. 1989) (no absolute pre-notification requirement; hearing suffices)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (employer interests limit public employee speech rights)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (public-concern test in speech cases; integration with Pickering lineage)
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (public-employee speech protected if on public concerns; informs association scope)
United Mine Workers v. Illinois State Bar Ass'n, 389 U.S. 217 (1967) (association to obtain legal services protected as means to exercise First Amendment rights)
City of San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S. 77 (2004) (public-concern concept in petitions; ties to retaliation analysis)
McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479 (1985) (Petition Clause rights treated with analogous First Amendment protections)
Guarnieri v. Duryea, 131 S. Ct. 2488 (2011) (public-petition rights and public-concern alignment in retaliation claims)