Board of County Comm'r Wabaunsee County v. Umbehr

Decision Date28 June 1996
Docket Number941654
PartiesBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, WABAUNSEE COUNTY, KANSAS v. UMBEHR
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

No. 94-1654.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued November 28, 1995

Decided June 28, 1996

Syllabus

During the term of his at-will contract with Wabaunsee County, Kansas (County), to haul trash, respondent Umbehr was an outspoken critic of petitioner Board of County Commissioners (Board). After the commissioners voted to terminate (or prevent the automatic renewal of) the contract, allegedly because they took Umbehr's criticism badly, he brought this suit against two of them under 42 U. S. C. Section(s) 1983. The District Court granted them summary judgment, but the Tenth Circuit reversed in relevant part and remanded, holding that the First Amendment protects independent contractors from governmental retaliation against their speech, and that the extent of that protection must be determined by weighing the government's interests as contractor against the free speech interests at stake in accordance with the balancing test applied in the government employment context under Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U. S. 563, 568.

Held: The First Amendment protects independent contractors from the termination or prevention of automatic renewal of at-will government contracts in retaliation for their exercise of the freedom of speech, and the Pickering balancing test, adjusted to weigh the government's interests as contractor rather than as employer, determines the extent of that protection. Pp. 4-17.

(a) Because of the obvious similarities between government employees and government contractors with respect to this issue, the Court is guided by its government employment precedents. Among other things, those precedents have recognized that government workers are constitutionally protected from dismissal for publicly or privately criticizing their employer's policies, see, e.g., Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593, but have also acknowledged that the First Amendment does not guarantee absolute freedom of speech, see, e.g., Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138, 146, and have required a fact-sensitive and deferential weighing of the government employer's legitimate interests against its employees' First Amendment rights, see, e.g., Pickering, supra, at 568. The parties' attempts to differentiate between independent contractors and government employees are unavailing. Each of their arguments for and against the imposition of liability has some force, but all of them can be accommodated by applying the existing government employee framework. Moreover, application of the nuanced Pickering approach is superior to a brightline rule giving the government carte blanche to terminate independent contractors for exercising their speech rights. Although both the individual's and the government's interests are typically-though not always-somewhat less strong in an independent contractor case, the fact that such contractors are similar in most relevant respects to government employees compels the conclusion that the same form of balancing analysis should apply to each. Pp. 4-12.

(b) Neither the dissent's fears of excessive litigation, nor its assertion that the allocation of government contracts on the basis of political bias is a longstanding tradition, can deprive independent contractors of protection. Its own description of ``lowest-responsible-bidder'' requirements in a wide range of government contracting laws voluntarily adopted by federal and state authorities suggests that government contracting norms incompatible with political bias have proliferated without unduly burdening the government, and such laws have a long history. Pp. 12-16.

(c) Because the courts below assumed that Umbehr's termination (or nonrenewal) was in retaliation for his protected speech activities, and did not pass on the balance between the government's interests and his free speech interests, the conclusion that independent contractors do enjoy some First Amendment protection requires affirmance of the Tenth Circuit's decision to remand the case. To prevail, Umbehr must show initially that the termination of his contract was motivated by his speech on a matter of public concern, see Connick, supra, at 146; he must therefore prove more than the mere fact that he criticized the Board members before he was terminated. If he can do so, the Board will have a valid defense if it can show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that, in light of their knowledge, perceptions, and policies at the time of the termination, the Board members would have terminated the contract regardless of his speech. See Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U. S. 274, 287. The Board will also prevail if it can demonstrate that the County's legitimate interests as contractor, deferentially viewed, outweigh the free speech interests at stake. See, e.g., Pickering, supra, at 568. And, if Umbehr prevails, evidence that the Board members discovered facts after termination that would have led to a later termination anyway, and evidence of mitigation of his loss by means of subsequent trash hauling contracts with cities in the County, would be relevant in assessing the appropriate remedy. Because Umbehr's suit concerns the termination or nonrenewal of a pre-existing commercial relationship with the government, this Court need not address the possibility of suits by bidders or applicants for new government contracts who cannot rely on such a relationship. Pp. 16-17. 44 F. 3d 876, affirmed and remanded.

O'Connor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-A, II-B-2, and III, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined, and the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II-B-1, in which Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined.

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

Justice O'Connor delivered the opinion of the Court. 1

This case requires us to decide whether, and to what extent, the First Amendment protects independent contractors from the termination of at-will government contracts in retaliation for their exercise of the freedom of speech.

I.

Under state law, Wabaunsee County, Kansas (County) is obliged to provide for the disposal of solid waste generated within its borders. In 1981, and, after renegotiation, in 1985, the County contracted with respondent Umbehr for him to be the exclusive hauler of trash for cities in the county at a rate specified in the contract. Each city was free to reject or, on 90 days' notice, to opt out of, the contract. By its terms, the contract between Umbehr and the County was automatically renewed annually unless either party terminated it by giving notice at least 60 days before the end of the year or a renegotiation was instituted on 90 days' notice. Pursuant to the contract, Umbehr hauled trash for six of the County's seven cities from 1985 to 1991 on an exclusive and uninterrupted basis.

During the term of his contract, Umbehr was an outspoken critic of petitioner, the Board of County Commissioners of Wabaunsee County (Board), the three-member governing body of the County. Umbehr spoke at the Board's meetings, and wrote critical letters and editorials in local newspapers regarding the County's landfill user rates, the cost of obtaining official documents from the County, alleged violations by the Board of the Kansas Open Meetings Act, the County's alleged mismanagement of taxpayers' money, and other topics. His allegations of violation of the Kansas Open Meetings Act were vindicated in a consent decree signed by the Board's members. Umbehr also ran unsuccessfully for election to the Board.

The Board's members allegedly took Umbehr's criticism badly, threatening the official county newspaper with censorship for publishing his writings. In 1990, they voted, 2-to-1, to terminate (or prevent the automatic renewal of) Umbehr's contract with the County. That attempt at termination failed because of a technical defect, but in 1991, the Board succeeded in terminating Umbehr's contract, again by a 2-to-1 vote. Umbehr subsequently negotiated new contracts with five of the six cities that he had previously served.

In 1992, Umbehr brought this suit against the two majority Board members in their individual and official capacities under 42 U. S. C. Section(s) 1983, alleging that they had terminated his government contract in retaliation for his criticism of the County and the Board. The Board members moved for summary judgment. The District Court assumed that Umbehr's contract was terminated in retaliation for his speech, and that he suffered consequential damages. But it held that "the First Amendment does not prohibit [the Board] from considering [Umbehr's] expression as a factor in deciding not to continue with the trash hauling contract at the end of the contract's annual term," because, as an independent contractor, Umbehr was not entitled to the First Amendment protection afforded to public employees. Umbehr v. McClure, 840 F. Supp. 837, 839 (D. Kan. 1993). It also held that the claims against the Board members in their individual capacities would be barred by qualified immunity, id., at 841, a ruling which was affirmed on appeal and which is not at issue here.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed (except as to qualified immunity), holding that "an independent contractor is protected under the First Amendment...

To continue reading

Request your trial
689 cases
  • Bowen v. M. Caratan, Inc., Case No. 1:14-CV-00397-LJO-JLT
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • November 2, 2015
    ...adverse employment action." See Lakeside – Scott v. Multnomah Cnty., 556 F.3d 797, 803 (9th Cir.2009) (citing Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 675, 116 S.Ct. 2342, 135 L.Ed.2d 843 (1996) ; Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1237 (9th Cir.2000) ).c. Substantial Motivating Factor Plaintiff asserts that De......
  • Martin v. Wrigley
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Georgia
    • May 21, 2021
    ...applies to those contracting with the government, absent a special government interest. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, Wabaunsee Cnty. v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 677-78, 116 S.Ct. 2342, 135 L.Ed.2d 843 (1996). The Supreme Court also has "long held ... that nonverbal expressive activity can be banned b......
  • Deluca v. City of Hazelton, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-02475
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • October 20, 2016
    ...conduct was constitutionally protected. Ambrose v. Twp. of Robinson, Pa., 303 F.3d 488, 493 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs. v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 675 (1996)). Second, a plaintiff must show that the protected activity "was a substantial factor in the alleged retaliatory actio......
  • Camp v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., Case No. 2:08-CV-227-WKW [WO].
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Alabama
    • October 22, 2009
    ...for purposes of First Amendment retaliation claims—requires the court to apply the public employees test. 518 U.S. 668, 678-79, 116 S.Ct. 2342, 135 L.Ed.2d 843 (1996). The issue in Umbehr was "whether, and to what extent, the First Amendment protects independent contractors from the termina......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Judge Abrams Harshly Criticizes SEC’s “Lifetime Gag” Settlement Requirement
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • October 31, 2022
    ...practices. Indeed, the very people who are arguably “in the best position to know” of governmental abuse, Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 674 (1996)—that is, those who have been subjected to the SEC’s enforcement actions—are those who are muzzled by the Provision from speaking...
21 books & journal articles
  • Off the Mapp: parole revocation hearings and the Fourth Amendment.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 89 No. 3, March 1999
    • March 22, 1999
    ...criticized overreliance on such tests. See, e.g., Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 98 (1997); Board of Cty. Commissioners v. Northlake, 518 U.S. 668 (1996) (Scalia, J., dissenting); United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) (Scalia, J., (277) Id. at 887 (Blackmun, J., dissenting). (27......
  • The context of ideology: law, politics, and empirical legal scholarship.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 75 No. 1, December - December 2010
    • December 22, 2010
    ...Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748 (1996). 135/0248 Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996). 135/0843 Bd. of County Comm'rs. v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668 (1996). 136/0347 Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996). 136/0696 Babbit v. Youpee, 519 U.S. 234 (1997). 137/0001 Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of......
  • IMPOSING SILENCE THROUGH SETTLEMENT: A FIRST-AMENDMENT CASE STUDY OF THE NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 84 No. 4, December 2021
    • December 22, 2021
    ...[https://perma.cc/RFE5-D4VH]. (82) See, e.g., Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 574-75 (1968); Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 684-85 (83) THOMAS M. COOLEY, A TREATISE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS WHICH REST UPON THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF THE STATES OF THE AMERICAN U......
  • The Ideology of Supreme Court Opinions and Citations
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review No. 97-3, March 2012
    • March 1, 2012
    ...517 U.S. 952 (1996) United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651 (1996) Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668 (1996) O’Hare Truck Serv., Inc. v. City of Northlake, 518 U.S. 712 (1996) ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT