William D. Hughley v. Upson County Board of Commissioners
696 F. App'x 932
11th Cir.2017Background
- William Hughley served as an associate magistrate judge in Upson County from 1991 to 2013 and was not reapproved by the Superior Court judges after a 2013 inquiry by the Judicial Qualifications Commission.
- Hughley sued the Upson County Board of Commissioners and four Superior Court judges, alleging age and race discrimination (ADEA, Title VII, § 1981), § 1983 equal protection and First Amendment retaliation claims, and related theories based on non-reappointment.
- He alleged the judges falsely reported his appointment was improper, sought to replace him with a white woman, and harbored racial animus; he also alleged retaliation for disciplining/banning a police officer from his courtroom.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim, citing deficient allegations on employer numerosity, discriminatory intent, and protected First Amendment activity.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, finding Hughley failed to plead that defendants were employers under Title VII/ADEA, failed to allege comparative or inferential facts supporting discrimination or discriminatory intent, and failed to show constitutionally protected speech.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants qualify as "employers" under Title VII/ADEA | Hughley alleged defendants were his employers and gave fair notice of employer status | Defendants lacked the 15+ employees numerosity required by statute | Dismissed — complaint failed to allege defendants employed 15+ employees; charge even listed employees as “unknown” |
| Whether pleadings plausibly allege race or age discrimination | Hughley alleged he was in protected classes, qualified, suffered adverse action, and alleged replacement intent | Defendants argued missing facts showing a comparator or that a substantially younger person replaced him; legitimate nondiscriminatory reason (disciplinary conflict) given | Dismissed — no facts plausibly showing similarly situated comparator, replacement, or that age/race motivated non-reappointment |
| Whether allegations support § 1983/equal protection claim (intentional discrimination) | Hughley asserted his removal violated equal protection and § 1983 because of racial animus | Defendants argued plaintiff failed to plead facts showing intentional discrimination by decisionmakers | Dismissed — conclusory allegations lacked factual detail to infer discriminatory intent |
| Whether speech was protected under the First Amendment (retaliation) | Hughley contended he spoke as a citizen and was retaliated against for scolding/banning officer | Defendants relied on Garcetti: his actions were official duties, not citizen speech | Dismissed — speech was made in role as magistrate judge (not citizen on public concern) and thus not protected |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (statutory employer numerosity is an element not jurisdictional)
- Burke-Fowler v. Orange Cty., Fla., 447 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2006) (elements for Title VII and § 1981 claims)
- Turlington v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 135 F.3d 1428 (11th Cir. 1998) (ADEA pleading standards re: replacement/age inference)
- Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2000) (requirements to infer age played role in adverse employment action)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (speech pursuant to official duties not protected by First Amendment)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (§ 1983 is procedural vehicle, not source of substantive rights)
- Ziegler v. Martin Cty. Sch. Dist., 831 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2016) (First Amendment public‑employee speech analysis)
- Williams v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 477 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2007) (§ 1983 pleading and constitutional deprivation requirements)