Morgan v. Robinson, No. 17-1002 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseA public employee cannot be terminated for making protected statements during a campaign for public office where that speech has no demonstrated impact on the efficiency of office operations. The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity in an action alleging that defendant terminated plaintiff's employment as a deputy in the Sheriff's Office for statements plaintiff made during an election campaign. The court held that plaintiff's statements were made as a citizen on matters of public concern; defendant failed to show an adequate justification for his actions, and thus plaintiff's speech was protected by the First Amendment; and defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity where defendant's termination of plaintiff violated a right secured by the First Amendment and that right was clearly established at the time of the termination.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Benton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. In action alleging defendant retaliated against plaintiff in violation of his First Amendment rights after plaintiff ran against defendant for the office of Sheriff of Washington County, Nebraska, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity; plaintiff's speech regarding conditions in the department and the state of its services were made as a citizen on matters of public concern; defendant failed to show the statements caused a single concrete incident of disruption, and the speech was protected by the First Amendment; plaintiff's termination violated a right secured by the First Amendment, and that right was clearly established at the time of plaintiff's termination; a public employee cannot be terminated for making protected statements during a campaign for public office where that speech has no demonstrated impact on the efficiency of office operations.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on March 29, 2019.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.