Collins v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 04 June 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-2400,83-2400 |
| Citation | 734 F.2d 1321 |
| Parties | 34 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,430 Charles COLLINS and James Woody McNeely, Appellees, v. Tommy ROBINSON, Sheriff of Pulaski County, Arkansas, Individually and in his Official Capacity, and Pulaski County, Arkansas, Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Henry & Duckett, Stephen L. Curry, Little Rock, Ark., for appellants.
Mays & Crutcher, P.A., Richard L. Mays, Little Rock, Ark., for appellees.
Before HEANEY, McMILLIAN and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges.
The defendant, Sheriff Tommy Robinson, appeals from the district court judgment in favor of James Woody McNeely and Charles Collins on their race discrimination claims brought under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 2000e et seq., and in favor of Collins on his action brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for violations of his first amendment right to free speech and his fourteenth amendment right to due process. See Collins v. Robinson, 568 F.Supp. 1464 (E.D.Ark.1983). We affirm.
Sheriff Robinson fired Collins after he wrote a memorandum to his superiors describing the inappropriate conduct of a superior officer. On the evening of November 10, 1981, Collins, who is black, was the ranking officer at the Pulaski County Jail. While at a meeting of the local legislative body, the sheriff heard a rumor that the personnel at the jail were planning a walkout. He dispatched his second in command, Major Mark Bowman, to the jail to investigate. When Bowman arrived at the jail, he threatened and cursed Collins in front of other jail personnel. Collins submitted a memorandum to his superiors protesting the incident. The memorandum was also widely distributed among jail personnel, although the district court specifically found Collins was not responsible for distribution of the memorandum outside the chain of command. Sheriff Robinson subsequently fired Collins without a pretermination hearing. Collins filed a grievance with the Pulaski County Grievance Board. After a hearing, the Board recommended Collins be given reinstatement with full back pay and an apology. Sheriff Robinson refused the Board's recommendation. Collins filed an EEOC charge and, after receiving a right-to-sue letter, he commenced this action on May 17, 1982.
McNeely joined the sheriff's department in 1977. He left the department for a short time to work as an investigator for the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, but returned in September, 1980. In June, 1981, McNeely's platoon leader recommended McNeely and two white deputies for promotion to corporal. In April, 1982, McNeely was the only black on a list of five persons recommended for such a promotion. A group of superiors interviewed each of the five candidates and ranked them in the recommended order of promotion. Although McNeely was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roberts v. Van Buren Public Schools
...461 U.S. at 143, 146, 103 S.Ct. at 1687, 1689; see Collins v. Robinson, 568 F.Supp. 1464, 1468 (E.D.Ark.1983), aff'd per curiam, 734 F.2d 1321 (8th Cir.1984); then, the interest of the employee in so speaking must be balanced against "the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting ......
-
Cromer v. Brown
...it expressed the complaints of numerous officers about the behavior of a major), aff'd on the reasoning of the district court, 734 F.2d 1321 (8th Cir.1984). In sum, we hold that in 1991 it was clearly established that the Association's letter, which Cromer adopted as his own speech, involve......
-
Lewis v. Harrison School Dist. No. 1
...461 U.S. at 143, 146, 103 S.Ct. at 1688, 1689; see Collins v. Robinson, 568 F.Supp. 1464, 1468 (E.D.Ark.1983), aff'd per curiam, 734 F.2d 1321 (8th Cir. 1984). If the speech involves a "matter of public concern," the interest of the employee in so speaking must be balanced against "the inte......
-
Piver v. Pender County Bd. of Educ.
...to his sheriff that criticized the behavior of the policeman's immediate superior held to have raised a public concern), aff'd, 734 F.2d 1321 (8th Cir.1984); Developments in the Law--Public Employment, 97 Harv.L.Rev. 1611, 1769 This court has elaborated on Connick's "public concern" test: P......