William Hunt v. County of Orange
672 F.3d 606
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- After winning the 2006 election, Carona placed Hunt on administrative leave and later demoted him for campaign criticisms of Carona.
- Hunt filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit alleging First Amendment retaliation; district court held Hunt’s campaign speech was protected only if Hunt was a policymaker.
- The district court relied on Fazio factors to label Hunt a policymaker and thus sustain the demotion under Elrod/Branti.
- The jury answered special interrogatories finding Hunt lacked policymaking authority county-wide, though he influenced San Clemente-specific policy and could implement OCSD plans there.
- Orange County was dismissed from Monell liability; the district court later denied Hunt’s Monell claim relief and Carona moved for judgment as a matter of law.
- The Ninth Circuit held Hunt was not a policymaker under Elrod/Branti and affirmed Carona’s qualified immunity for demotion, while concluding Hunt’s First Amendment rights were violated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hunt fits the Elrod policymaker exception | Hunt was a policymaker due to his San Clemente duties and influence. | Hunt lacked general policymaking authority; political loyalty not required for his role. | Hunt is not a policymaker. |
| Whether the district court correctly applied the policymaker analysis | Fazio factors support policymaker status. | Fazio factors do not override the underlying purpose; facts show no policy-making necessity. | District court misapplied Elrod/Branti; Hunt not a policymaker. |
| Whether Carona’s demotion violated Hunt's First Amendment rights | Demotion for political speech constitutes retaliation under Elrod/Branti. | If Hunt were a policymaker, firing for political reasons could be constitutional. | Demotion violated the First Amendment; but Carona is entitled to qualified immunity. |
| Whether Carona is entitled to qualified immunity | Right clearly established; Carona should be liable. | A reasonable official could believe Hunt was a policymaker; thus qualified immunity applies. | Carona entitled to qualified immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (narrow policymaker exception for political firings)
- Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980) (political allegiance as a hiring/firing consideration must be justified by essential job requirements)
- Fazio v. City and County of San Francisco, 125 F.3d 1328 (9th Cir.1997) (nine-factor test guiding policymaker determination)
- Bardzik v. County of Orange, 635 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir.2011) (illustrates policymaker analysis with broader command and program influence)
- Thomas v. Carpenter, 881 F.2d 828 (9th Cir.1989) (policy-making status requires substantial discretion and impact)
- DiRuzza v. County of Tehama, 206 F.3d 1304 (9th Cir.2000) (public employees’ First Amendment rights protected when not policymakers)
- Lopez-Quinones v. Puerto Rico Nat’l Guard, 526 F.3d 23 (1st Cir.2008) (clarifies analysis of clearly established rights and reasonable beliefs)
- Greene v. Camreta, 588 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir.2010) (qualified immunity inquiry considering reasonable beliefs at time)
- Jackson v. City of Bremerton, 268 F.3d 646 (9th Cir.2001) (standard for determining clearly established rights in qualified immunity)