Sean Smith v. Peter Gilchrist, III, 749 F.3d 302

Sean P. Smith, an assistant district attorney (ADA) in Mecklenburg County, announced a judicial campaign in 2010 while remaining an ADA under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 126-13(b).
On his own time, Smith gave an on-camera interview as part of his campaign criticizing a private defensive-driving course (SHC) that provided PJCs and reduced the DA office’s caseload; his criticisms addressed student inattention, police giving legal advice, and drivers harming their own interests.
DA Peter Gilchrist, who had not watched the interview, questioned Smith about it; Smith described the interview and, when asked about other office policies he disagreed with, declined to identify them.
Gilchrist fired Smith the next day, later testifying that the termination was based solely on Smith’s refusal to identify policies he opposed (insubordination); Smith sued alleging First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a parallel North Carolina constitutional claim.
At summary judgment the district court assumed Smith raised a jury issue on causation but granted qualified immunity to Gilchrist, concluding a reasonable official could believe the DA’s interest in efficiency outweighed Smith’s speech rights; the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gilchrist is entitled to qualified immunity for firing Smith in retaliation for protected speech (First Amendment)	Smith: he spoke as a private citizen on matters of public concern; his speech did not (and there was no reason to believe it would) impair DA office efficiency, so firing violated his rights	Gilchrist: balancing test is subtle; because the SHC program substantially reduced the DA caseload, a reasonable DA could conclude criticism threatened office efficiency, so qualified immunity applies	Reversed: qualified immunity denied. Right clearly established that an ADA running for office cannot be fired for public criticism of a program that reduces caseload when there is no reason to anticipate harm to office efficiency
Whether the state-law (North Carolina Constitution) claim survives summary judgment	Smith: state claim parallel to federal claim and cannot be resolved by qualified immunity/public-official immunity if federal claim stands	Gilchrist: relied on same public-official immunity rationale as federal qualified immunity	Reversed: summary judgment on state claim also vacated and remanded (no separate grounds to affirm)

Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (balancing test for public-employee speech)
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (public-employee speech protected where no evidence of operational harm)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (clearly-established-right standard for qualified immunity)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (distinguishing official-duty speech from protected speech)
Ridpath v. Board of Governors Marshall Univ., 447 F.3d 292 (Fourth Circuit summary of public-employee speech balancing factors)
McVey v. Stacy, 157 F.3d 271 (Fourth Circuit articulation of three-prong test for public-employee speech claims)
Maciariello v. Sumner, 973 F.2d 295 (employer need only show adverse effect reasonably to be apprehended)