Ron Nord v. Walsh County
757 F.3d 734
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Nord, a Walsh County deputy sheriff, ran against incumbent Sheriff Lauren Wild in the 2010 election and continued working as a deputy during his campaign. Wild won and terminated Nord the morning after the election.
- Wild consulted the county HR consultant and county attorney before firing Nord; both advised she had authority to terminate. Wild later stated an “unwritten rule” that deputies who run against the sheriff will be fired.
- Nord sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations and various state-law claims; Wild raised qualified immunity for the First Amendment claim.
- The district court denied Wild’s summary-judgment qualified-immunity motion; Wild appealed interlocutorily. The Eighth Circuit reviews de novo and limited its review to legal issues.
- The majority accepted Wild’s concession (for purposes of the appeal) that Nord’s termination violated the First Amendment but held Wild entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established in context after applying Pickering/Connick balancing.
- A dissent argued Wild’s concession meant the only issue was whether the right was clearly established, contending it was clearly established and that the record lacked evidence of workplace disruption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nord’s termination violated the First Amendment | Nord: fired for campaign speech (protected political speech) | Wild (conceded for purposes of summary judgment) that termination was for protected speech | Majority accepted the concession and proceeded to next question |
| Whether Pickering/Connick balancing applies (i.e., whether speech was a matter of public concern and whether employer interest outweighs) | Nord: campaign speech is political and public; no evidence of workplace disruption to justify firing | Wild: deputy role demands loyalty; speech (including alleged falsehoods) could disrupt discipline and trust; sheriff has broad managerial authority | Majority: Pickering/Connick applies; some statements may be unprotected, and even if protected, Wild could reasonably believe termination lawful due to potential disruption and position’s confidentiality |
| Whether the Elrod/Branti political-affiliation exception applies (allowing discharge for political reasons where affiliation is essential) | Nord: position not policymaking/confidential; Elrod/Branti should block firing for political activity | Wild: deputy is agent of sheriff; loyalty is appropriate requirement; position akin to policymaker/confidential | Majority: this is an "intermixed" case; Pickering/Connick is appropriate; position’s confidential aspects weigh for employer under balancing |
| Whether Wild is entitled to qualified immunity (was the right "clearly established") | Nord: right to engage in campaign speech without firing was clearly established; no evidence disruption occurred | Wild: given state law (deputies at-will) and deference to law-enforcement management, he could reasonably (even if mistakenly) conclude termination lawful | Held: Majority reverses district court and grants Wild qualified immunity; dissent would affirm denial of immunity (finding right clearly established and no evidence of disruption). |
Key Cases Cited
- Coker v. Arkansas State Police, 734 F.3d 838 (8th Cir.) (qualified immunity standard)
- Winslow v. Smith, 696 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2012) (qualified-immunity two-step inquiry)
- Brown v. City of Golden Valley, 574 F.3d 491 (8th Cir.) (qualified-immunity framework citation)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (courts may decide which prong of qualified immunity first)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (clearly established-right formulation)
- Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 568 (1968) (balancing employee speech vs. employer efficiency)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (public-concern requirement and Pickering application)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (political-affiliation discharge doctrine)
- Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980) (narrow exception for party-affiliation where necessary for effective performance)
- Jenkins v. Medford, 119 F.3d 1156 (4th Cir.) (deputy sheriffs may be dismissed for political reasons under some state frameworks)
- Buzek v. County of Saunders, 972 F.2d 992 (8th Cir.) (deference to law-enforcement employer interests)
- Kincade v. City of Blue Springs, 64 F.3d 389 (8th Cir.) (Pickering used to resolve constitutional violation before assessing whether right was clearly established)
- O'Hare Truck Service, Inc. v. City of Northlake, 518 U.S. 712 (1996) (Elrod/Branti functional test for political-affiliation removals)