Taylor v. Ohio County Commission
5:17-cv-00148
N.D.W. Va.Nov 28, 2017Background
- Taylor was an at-will employee in the Ohio County Assessor’s Office who ran for county assessor in the November 2016 election against Tiffany Hoffman.
- After Taylor announced her candidacy, she alleges supervisors (Powell and later Hoffman) created a hostile work environment: withholding paperwork, excluding her from duties, removing earned compensatory time, disciplining her, placing her on undefined probation, and ultimately terminating her on March 17, 2017.
- Taylor sued in West Virginia state court asserting federal and state claims: § 1983 First Amendment retaliation (Count I), state constitutional free-speech claims (Count II), § 1983 Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection (Count III), § 1983 political-patronage First Amendment claim (Count IV), and a state tort of outrage (Count V).
- Defendants removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss, arguing failure to state federal claims, lack of clearly established law for candidacy protection, qualified immunity, and that Taylor had no property or liberty interest in her at-will employment.
- The district court dismissed all federal § 1983 claims (Counts I, III insofar as federal Due Process and Equal Protection, and IV) and declined to retain supplemental jurisdiction, remanding remaining state-law claims to Ohio County Circuit Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether announcement of candidacy and termination for running constitute First Amendment retaliation (Counts I & IV) | Taylor: her declaration of candidacy and campaign are protected political speech/association; termination was retaliation. | Defs: candidacy alone is not clearly protected speech; pleading insufficient under Twombly/Iqbal; qualified immunity. | Court: dismissal. Fourth Circuit law on candidacy protection is unsettled; candidacy-alone not clearly established; qualified immunity applies. |
| Whether Taylor had a property interest in employment (Due Process claim in Count III) | Taylor: state law protects public employees from adverse actions for exercising First Amendment rights; thus due process required. | Defs: Taylor is an at-will employee; no contract/statute creates an entitlement to continued employment. | Court: dismissal. No property interest alleged; no due process violation. |
| Whether Taylor pleaded a liberty interest (reputation) tied to termination (Due Process) | Taylor: termination and alleged actions harmed reputation and employment prospects. | Defs: no allegation that defendants created/disseminated false, defamatory impressions in connection with termination. | Court: dismissal. No liberty interest pleaded (no defamatory dissemination alleged). |
| Equal Protection — "class of one" claim (Count III) | Taylor: other employees were allowed to run without retaliation; she was singled out. | Defs: public-employment context makes class-of-one theory inapplicable (discretionary personnel decisions). | Court: dismissal. Engquist bars class-of-one claims in public employment context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions not accepted as facts at pleading stage)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified-immunity two-prong framework)
- Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (property interest in employment defined by state law)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (patronage dismissals of nonpolicy positions violate First Amendment)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (class-of-one equal protection theory not applicable in public-employment context)
- Carver v. Dennis, 104 F.3d 847 (6th Cir.: candidacy-alone dismissal not protected by First Amendment)