POTTER v. DOOLY COUNTY GEORGIA, 5:14-cv-00315

Background

Lorie Potter, a part-time EMT for Dooly County EMS, and her husband publicly supported a challenger to Sheriff Lucius Van Peavy in the 2012 election; the Potters had prior conflicts with the Sheriff’s Office.
In September 2012 a nurse reported Potter (and her partner) failed to assess an inmate; Sheriff Peavy instructed EMS director Don Williford that Potter not be allowed past certain jail doors (the ban).
Potter recorded conversations with Williford in which Williford acknowledged he was "doing what [he was] asked" regarding the ban and, later, that a June 2013 promotion decision was made to “diversify” the department (promoting an African‑American applicant over Potter, who is white).
Potter applied for two full‑time EMT openings (Dec. 2012 and June 2013) and was passed over first for Lee Wiley and then for Sandera Woodson; Williford cited coworker preferences and community interactions as reasons.
Potter sued asserting First Amendment retaliation claims, equal protection/race discrimination claims under §§ 1981 and 1983, a Title VII claim, state constitutional and tort claims against the Estate of Sheriff Peavy, Williford, and Dooly County.
The court granted summary judgment in part and denied it in part: dismissed federal First Amendment claim against Sheriff Peavy (Estate) on qualified immunity grounds and dismissed federal and state First Amendment claims against Williford and Dooly County; permitted race discrimination (§§ 1981/1983) and Title VII claims to proceed against Williford (individual) and Dooly County; allowed punitive damages claim against Williford on race claim to proceed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sheriff Peavy retaliated (First Amendment) by banning Potter from LEC for political support of his opponent	Potter says the ban was motivated by her political support and deterred speech and job duties	Sheriff Peavy claims the ban was based on nurse/jail administrator complaints about Potter’s conduct (legitimate non‑retaliatory reason)	Court: Genuine issue on motive but qualified immunity for Estate because Sheriff had an independent lawful motive (ban based on reported misconduct); federal claim against Estate dismissed
Whether Williford/Dooly County retaliated against Potter (First Amendment) by not promoting her	Potter contends Williford adopted Peavy’s unlawful motive (ban) and denied promotions because of political activity	Defendants say Williford relied on non‑retaliatory reasons (coworker preferences, performance) and no subjective motive tied to speech	Court: Summary judgment for Williford and Dooly County on federal and state First Amendment claims — Potter failed to show Williford was subjectively motivated by her political speech
Whether Williford and Dooly County discriminated on basis of race (Equal Protection / §1981 / Title VII) by promoting Woodson over Potter	Potter argues Williford’s recorded statements and other evidence show decision was to "diversify" and favor a minority candidate — pretext for race discrimination	Defendants offer nondiscriminatory reasons (coworker poll, teamwork, community interactions)	Court: Denied summary judgment — genuine issues of fact on pretext and discriminatory motive; claims under §§1981/1983 and Title VII proceed against Dooly County and Williford (individual)
Whether Williford is entitled to qualified immunity for the race discrimination claim	Potter says law clearly forbids racial discrimination in employment decisions; evidence shows discriminatory motive	Williford argues no clearly established law made his mixed‑motive decision unlawful or that his decision was protected	Court: Qualified immunity denied for June 2013 race decision — law clearly established that racial discrimination violates Equal Protection; factual disputes preclude immunity

Key Cases Cited

Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (Sup. Ct.) (public‑employee speech balancing test)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (Sup. Ct.) (speech‑on‑public‑concern inquiry)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Sup. Ct.) (prima facie and burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination)
Bennett v. Hendrix, 423 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir.) (standards for private‑citizen retaliation claims against public officials)
Foy v. Holston, 94 F.3d 1528 (11th Cir.) (qualified immunity where adequate lawful motive exists)
Busby v. City of Orlando, 931 F.2d 764 (11th Cir.) (official‑capacity suits redundant with municipal suits)
Kolstad v. Am. Dental Ass'n, 527 U.S. 526 (Sup. Ct.) (standard for punitive damages in employment discrimination suits)
City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247 (Sup. Ct.) (municipal immunity from punitive damages)