Sullivan v. Coney, 2013 Ark. 222

Sullivan, McRae's mayor, terminated Coney as chief of police on Feb 13, 2009 for alleged falsification of fire-department records and insubordination.
A special city-council meeting on Feb 24, 2009 affirmed the Mayor’s termination; council did not overturn.
Coney sued the City of McRae and Sullivan (individually and in his official capacity) among others on Mar 27, 2009, asserting multiple statutory and constitutional claims.
Defendants answered and moved for summary judgment, arguing qualified immunity because Coney had no property interest in at-will employment and no due-process right.
A hearing on Aug 22, 2011 left unresolved issues of fact; the circuit court denied Sullivan’s qualified-immunity motion but did not address it on the merits.
The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that qualified immunity is a pure question of law reviewable de novo and that the court should determine whether Coney alleged and proved violations of clearly established rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sullivan is entitled to qualified immunity as to Coney’s claims.	Coney alleges constitutional and statutory rights violated by termination.	Sullivan claims Coney had no protected interest and no due-process rights; actions were within immunity.	No; the court assesses de novo and remands for merits.
Whether Coney had a protected property interest in the building-official position.	Coney asserted appointment as building official with due-process rights.	No valid appointment; ordinance requires mayor appointment and for-cause removal; minutes show no appointment.	Coney failed to prove appointment; no due-process violation shown.
Whether Coney’s Whistle-Blower Act claim supports a denial of immunity.	Termination was in retaliation for whistle-blowing.	Coney’s reported conduct did not violate law; mayor acted for insubordination and falsification.	Qualified immunity applies; no clearly established violation shown.
Whether due-process and ACRA claims survive under at-will employment.	Termination without just cause violated due-process and ACRA.	At-will status precludes property interest and procedural due process; no violation.	Immune; no protected interest shown; claims fail on summary judgment.

City of Farmington v. Smith, 366 Ark. 473, 237 S.W.3d 1 (2006) (immunity analysis for qualified immunity in Arkansas)
Sykes v. City of Gentry, 114 F.3d 829 (8th Cir. 1997) (elimination of property interest due to statutory changes)
Robinson v. Langdon, 338 Ark. 662, 970 S.W.2d 292 (1998) (at-will employee has no protected employment interest)
City of Fayetteville v. Romine, 373 Ark. 318, 284 S.W.3d 10 (2008) (summary-judgment standard for establishing immunity when proof is not met)
Osborn v. Bryant, 2009 Ark. 358, 324 S.W.3d 687 (2009) (treats appeal on petition for review as original in Supreme Court; de novo review of immunity)
Smith v. Brt, 363 Ark. 126, 211 S.W.3d 485 (2005) (standard for qualified-immunity analysis in Arkansas)