Jordan v. Ector County
516 F.3d 290, 27 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 132, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 2333 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public employee's past political candidacy against their supervisor, combined with a perceived likelihood of future candidacy, can constitute ongoing protected activity under the First Amendment, and termination motivated by this political rivalry is an unconstitutional basis for adverse employment action.
Facts:
- Donna Jordan and Janis Morgan were employees in the Ector County District Clerk’s office.
- In 2002, when the incumbent clerk did not seek reelection, both Jordan and Morgan ran for the office.
- Morgan won the election and became Jordan's supervisor.
- Upon taking office, Morgan demoted Jordan from Chief Deputy to Assistant Chief Deputy, though Jordan remained an employee.
- In August 2004, Jordan was reprimanded by Morgan for using Wite-Out on a docket sheet entry and holding a signed order without a judge's permission.
- In March 2005, Jordan entered a judge's locked office with a security guard's help to retrieve a case file, for which the judge complained to Morgan.
- Following the March 2005 incident, Morgan terminated Jordan's employment.
- Leading up to the firing, it was widely assumed within the office, including by Morgan, that Jordan would run against Morgan in the upcoming 2006 election, though Jordan had not explicitly announced her candidacy. Morgan admitted it would be 'easier' to run against a disgruntled former employee.
Procedural Posture:
- Donna Jordan filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Ector County and Janis Morgan in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
- Jordan alleged violations of her First Amendment rights, equal protection, and due process.
- The district court dismissed the due process claim before trial.
- At trial, the court granted a directed verdict for the defendants on the equal protection claim but denied it for the First Amendment claim.
- A jury found in favor of Jordan on the First Amendment retaliation claim and awarded her $64,000 in damages.
- The district court entered a final judgment based on the jury's verdict.
- Defendants Ector County and Janis Morgan, as appellants, appealed the final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does firing a public employee based on her past political candidacy against her supervisor and her perceived future candidacy violate the employee's First Amendment rights to free speech and association?
Opinions:
Majority - Higginbotham
Yes, firing the employee under these circumstances violates her First Amendment rights. To prevail on a First Amendment retaliation claim, an employee must show (1) an adverse employment decision, (2) engagement in protected activity, and (3) a causal link. Termination is an adverse action, so the court focused on the other two elements. Jordan's 2002 campaign for office was protected speech on a matter of public concern and established her as Morgan's political rival, which is a form of protected political affiliation. While an unexpressed intent to run in 2006 alone would be insufficient, the court found that her 2002 candidacy 'breathe[d] fresh life' into her potential 2006 candidacy, creating a continuous state of political rivalry. Jordan's ambiguous responses about running again, viewed in this context, constituted an 'outward sign' of her ongoing status as a political opponent. Applying the Pickering-Connick balancing test, the court found no evidence that Jordan's political activities caused any workplace disruption, so the balance favored Jordan's core First Amendment rights. The court found sufficient evidence of causation for a jury to conclude the firing was motivated by this rivalry, citing Morgan's admission that it would be 'easier' to run against a fired employee, a pattern of hostility after the 2002 election (demotion, no pay raise), and evidence that the proffered reasons for firing were pretextual, as other employees were not disciplined for similar conduct.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for public employee speech rights as it broadens the definition of ongoing protected activity. It establishes that a combination of past political action (running for office) and a supervisor's perception of future political ambition can constitute a protected status of 'political rivalry,' even without an explicit announcement of candidacy. The case demonstrates that courts will look at the entire history and context of an employment relationship, including subtle signals and ambiguous statements, to determine if an employee's protected status was the motivating factor for termination. It reinforces the principle that an employer's own admissions about political motivations, even if framed hypothetically, can serve as powerful evidence of unconstitutional retaliation.
