Morgan v. Robinson, No. 17-1002 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
On rehearing en banc, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment to defendant in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by plaintiff, alleging that defendant, plaintiff's boss, retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment. In this case, plaintiff had run against his boss in a primary election and had publicly made statements about the sheriff's department and his plans to improve it. Defendant won the election and then terminated plaintiff's employment, claiming that plaintiff's campaign violated the department's rules of conduct.
The court held that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. As in Nord v. Walsh. Nord, 757 F.3d 734, defendant could have reasonably believed that plaintiff's speech was at least potentially damaging to and disruptive of the discipline and harmony of and among co-workers in the sheriff's office and detrimental to the close working relationships and personal loyalties necessary for an effective and trusted local policing operation.
Court Description: Benton, Author, for the Court En Banc] Civil case - Civil rights. In this action, plaintiff alleged he was terminated from his position in the sheriff's department after he opposed defendant in a primary election and lost; the district court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity and a panel of his court affirmed. See Morgan v. Robinson, 881 F.3d 646 (8th Cir. 2016), reh'g en banc granted, opinion vacated, March 21, 2018). The evidence established that defendant could have reasonably believed that plaintiff's speech was at least potentially damaging to and disruptive of the discipline and harmony of the office and detrimental to the close working relationships and personal loyalties necessary to maintain an effective police force; at the time of the personal action at issue here, the law was not sufficiently clear so that defendant would have known terminating plaintiff violated his First Amendment rights, and defendant was entitled to qualified immunity on the claim. Judge Shepherd, with whom Judge Kelly and Judge Erickson join, dissenting.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on February 2, 2018.
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.