Soraya McClung v. W. Va. State Police Dept.
16-1157
| W. Va. | Nov 22, 2017Background
- Soraya McClung was Director of the West Virginia State Police (WVSP) forensic crime laboratory (appointed 2007); employed by WVSP since 1990.
- During the 2014 legislative session McClung provided information and testified to the Legislature about removing the lab from WVSP and about employee pay increases; she gathered information from lab staff and used her director title in doing so.
- WVSP learned of her contacts; after she initially denied but then admitted involvement, WVSP reassigned her from Laboratory Director to Analyst IV (a demotion).
- McClung sued in Kanawha County alleging retaliatory demotion and constructive discharge in violation of free speech under Article III, § 7 of the West Virginia Constitution (parallel to the First Amendment).
- The circuit court granted WVSP summary judgment, concluding McClung spoke in her official capacity (as an employee), not as a private citizen, so her speech was not constitutionally protected.
- McClung appealed; the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed, applying Garcetti and related state precedents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McClung spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern | McClung: she engaged the Legislature as a private citizen on public-policy matters (lab governance/pay) and thus has First Amendment protection | WVSP: she spoke in her capacity as Laboratory Director, using her official role and staff, so speech was part of her job duties and not protected | Court: Held she spoke as an employee, not a citizen; no protected First Amendment claim |
| Whether employer discipline was justified under Garcetti framework | McClung: discipline violated free speech protections for public concern speech | WVSP: had adequate justification to discipline because speech was within official duties and could affect operations | Court: affirmed employer could discipline; summary judgment appropriate |
| Whether factual disputes precluded summary judgment | McClung: factual context supports citizen-speech inference and should go to trial | WVSP: undisputed record shows director role, solicitation of staff, and use of office in legislative contacts | Court: viewed facts favorably to McClung but found record establishes speech was official; no genuine issue to avoid summary judgment |
| Whether state constitutional provision alters federal Garcetti analysis | McClung: invoked Article III, §7 protections | WVSP: state provision construed interchangeably with First Amendment; federal framework applies | Court: applied federal Garcetti framework to state claim and affirmed lower court |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (public employees speaking pursuant to official duties are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes)
- Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369 (2014) (whether speech is within scope of job duties is critical to protection analysis)
- Painter v. Peavy, 192 W. Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (W. Va. 1994) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Alderman v. Pocahontas Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 223 W. Va. 431, 675 S.E.2d 907 (W. Va. 2009) (applying Garcetti framework in West Virginia)