Nadine Hemminghaus v. State of Missouri
756 F.3d 1100
8th Cir.2014Background
- Hemminghaus served as Judge Gaertner's official court reporter from October 2006 until April 28, 2009, holding office during the judge's pleasure.
- In September 2008 Hemminghaus learned her nanny abused her children and repeatedly sought leave to care for them; leave was inconsistently granted.
- She sought criminal charges against the nanny; the county prosecutor declined; she contemplated speaking to the media but was warned she could be fired.
- Hemminghaus posted anonymous blog entries about the case; escalating family stress and courtroom issues occurred; she was told not to discuss the nanny case at the courthouse.
- On April 27, 2009 Hemminghaus was denied leave; following a confrontation in chambers, she was terminated later that day; a meeting the next day was canceled when her attorney was on the line.
- Hemminghaus sued: (i) the State for FMLA § 102(a) denial/retaliation; (ii) Judge Gaertner under § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Hemminghaus an eligible FMLA employee? | Hemminghaus contends she is not the personal staff exempt from FMLA. | Gaertner argues Hemminghaus is personal staff of a public elective office holder, thus excluded. | Hemminghaus is excluded; not an eligible FMLA employee. |
| Was the First Amendment retaliation claim against Gaertner properly subject to qualified immunity? | Hemminghaus maintains her speech on public concerns was protected and violated by termination. | Gaertner contends the claim should be dismissed on qualified immunity. | Gaertner entitled to qualified immunity; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (public employee speech test)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (speech on public concerns; aim to determine context)
- Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) ( balancing speech vs. government efficiency)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (clarified order of prongs in qualified immunity)
- Kincade v. City of Blue Springs, 64 F.3d 389 (1995) (Pickering balancing questions are questions of law)