Anzaldua v. Ne. Ambulance & Fire Prot. Dist.
| Decision Date | 10 July 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 14–1850.,14–1850. |
| Citation | 793 F.3d 822 |
| Parties | Stevon ANZALDUA, Plaintiff–Appellant v. NORTHEAST AMBULANCE AND FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT; Derek Mays, in his individual capacity, Defendants–Appellees Clarence Young, in his official capacity as the Northeast Ambulance and Fire Protection District Board Member; Bridget Quinlisk–Dailey, in her official capacity as the Northeast Ambulance and Fire Protection District Board Member, Defendants Robert Lee, in his individual capacity; Quentin Randolph, in his individual and official capacity as the Northeast Ambulance and Fire Protection District Fire Chief; Kenneth Farwell, in his individual and official capacity as the Northeast Ambulance and Fire Protection District Battalion Chief, Defendants–Appellees Kate Welge, in her individual capacity, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Lynette M. Petruska, Pleban & Petruska Law, LLC, St. Louis, MO, argued (C. John Pleban, on the brief), for appellant.
Gregg M. Lemley, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., St. Louis, MO, argued (Erin E. Williams, on the brief), for appellees.
Before MURPHY and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges, and HARPOOL,1 District Judge.
Stevon Anzaldua worked for the Northeast Ambulance and Fire Protection District (“Fire District”) as a full-time paramedic and firefighter. After the Fire District suspended Anzaldua for purportedly failing to respond to a directive issued by Chief Kenneth Farwell, Anzaldua emailed a newspaper reporter expressing concerns about the Fire District and about Chief Farwell in particular. The email “shocked” and “angered” many of Anzaldua's co-workers. Two battalion chiefs noted it “fostered division between Anzaldua and his co-workers, and between the District firefighters and [Chief] Farwell.” As a result, the Fire District terminated Anzaldua.
Anzaldua brought this action in federal district court, alleging that the Fire District and the individuals involved in his termination violated his First Amendment right to free speech by retaliating against him for emailing the reporter and that Chief Farwell and Anzaldua's ex-girlfriend violated federal and state computer privacy laws by accessing his email account and obtaining his emails. The defendants moved to dismiss Anzaldua's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court denied the motion in part and granted the motion in part, allowing some of Anzaldua's First Amendment claims to proceed but dismissing all his other claims with prejudice. The district court subsequently denied Anzaldua leave to amend his computer privacy law claims. The remaining defendants then moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Anzaldua moved to defer ruling on summary judgment or to grant additional time to conduct discovery. The district court denied the motion to defer and then granted summary judgment to the defendants on Anzaldua's First Amendment claims. Anzaldua now appeals.
After careful review, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants on Anzaldua's First Amendment claims. We also affirm the denial of leave to amend Anzaldua's federal computer privacy law claims. We reverse the district court's denial of leave to amend Anzaldua's state computer privacy law claims.
Anzaldua began working for the Fire District as a part-time paramedic in 2008. In April 2011, he accepted a position as a full-time paramedic and firefighter. Following standard practice established in its collective bargaining agreement with the firefighters union (“Fire District CBA”), the Fire District subjected Anzaldua to a one-year probationary period. In April 2012, before the probationary period expired, Chief Farwell issued Anzaldua a written reprimand for neglect of equipment and neglect of property after the Fire District found a hole in the interior wall of an ambulance Anzaldua had worked in. Anzaldua signed the reprimand but denied responsibility for the hole and stated he disagreed with the disciplinary action. In conjunction with the reprimand, the Fire District extended Anzaldua's probationary period six months for “professional misconduct and general behavior.” J.A. 243. It also warned him that “[a]ny further reprimands, verbal or written, or any conduct of disciplinary action will subject you to immediate termination.” J.A. 243. The Fire District CBA permitted the Fire District to terminate probationary employees with or without cause.
On July 21, 2012, a Fire District lieutenant wrote Chief Farwell a memorandum stating that Anzaldua and his partner had responded to a call but that their report for the call was inexplicably missing from the Fire District's reporting system. The lieutenant copied Anzaldua on the memorandum. The Fire District suspended Anzaldua's partner, who was responsible for filing the report, but did not discipline Anzaldua.
On July 24, 2012, Anzaldua drafted an email on his personal Gmail account to Dr. David Tan, a university professor who provided medical oversight for the Fire District but was not employed by the Fire District or within its chain of command. The email stated, in pertinent part, J.A. 246. Anzaldua claims he saved the email as a draft but never sent it.
Nevertheless, the email was sent from Anzaldua's Gmail account to Dr. Tan on July 24, 2012. A week later, on July 31, 2012, a copy of the Dr. Tan email was forwarded from Anzaldua's Gmail account to Chief Farwell. After learning of the email, Fire Chief Quinten Randolph directed Chief Farwell to investigate Anzaldua's concerns. On July 31, 2012, Chief Farwell sent an email to Anzaldua's Gmail account stating he was “concerned and obligated to inquire and investigate your concerns,” and ordering Anzaldua to “provide for me in writing the Where, When, How, What, and Who of your concerns by the end of the day on Aug 2, 2012.” J.A. 245. Anzaldua did not provide Chief Farwell the requested information. Anzaldua maintains this is because he never received Chief Farwell's email.
On August 7, 2012, the Fire District Board of Directors ordered Anzaldua to appear at a disciplinary hearing on August 13, 2012. The Board explained:
On July 24, 2012, you forwarded an email to Dr. David K. Tan suggesting that “major issues” existed within the District's EMS Division. You went on to suggest that the District was engaging in “rule” bending for certain employees. Dr. Tan is not within your department chain of command and he does not handle interdepartmental grievances. Your public statements therefore appear to be divisive, inflammatory, and without merit. When provided an opportunity by [Chief Farwell] to elaborate on your statements, you failed to do so within the time allotted. Such failure strengthened the belief that your statements were intentionally perverse and improperly motivated. Such behavior, if deemed true, is a direct violation of the District's code of conduct. The Board is hereby providing you an opportunity to be heard on this matter before deciding whether disciplinary action is warranted.
J.A. 249–50. Though the Fire District CBA did not provide probationary employees a right to union representation at disciplinary hearings, the Board advised Anzaldua he would be allowed union representation if he desired, and Anzaldua accepted the assistance of EMS Lieutenant and Shop Steward Jennifer Barbarotto.
At the disciplinary hearing, Anzaldua explained to the Board that he did not respond to Chief Farwell's directive because he never received Chief Farwell's email. He told the Board that command staff typically issued directives through the Fire District's separate email system. He also explained the concerns he expressed in the Dr. Tan email. However, the Board told Anzaldua the disciplinary hearing would focus on his failure to respond to Chief Farwell's directive, and not on his underlying concerns. On August 20, 2012, the Board found Anzaldua “failed to respond to a directive issued by a chief officer,” a failure it deemed “unacceptable,” and unanimously voted to suspend Anzaldua for 10 days for conduct unbecoming of a Fire District employee. J.A. 253. The union agreed with the suspension. The Fire District also warned Anzaldua “that any future misconduct, without regard to the severity, will result in your immediate termination.” J.A. 254.
On August 23, 2012, Anzaldua sent an email to Elizabethe Holland, a reporter for the St. Louis Post–Dispatch. The email stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Facebook, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty.
...federal statute to keep pace with the advent of the Internet and social media platforms"]. Accord, Anzaldua v. Northeast Ambulance & Fire Prot. Dist. (8th Cir. 2015) 793 F.3d 822, 839, fn. 5 ["It is not always easy to square the decades-old SCA with the current state of email technology"]; ......
-
Hately v. Watts
...the decades-old [Stored Communications Act] with the current state of email technology," see, e.g. , Anzaldua v. Ne. Ambulance & Fire Prot. Dist. , 793 F.3d 822, 839 n.5 (8th Cir. 2015), the way modern web-based email services function is closely analogous to how Congress described the "mos......
-
Yukos Capital S.A.R.L. v. Feldman
...his gmail account information to his girlfriend so that she could log into his account and forward a resume on his behalf. 793 F.3d 822, 838–39 (8th Cir. 2015). A year later, the plaintiff's now-ex-girlfriend logged back into his account without his knowledge for the purpose of aiding an in......
-
Sprague v. Spokane Valley Fire Dep't
...and confidence are necessary—firefighters depend on one another in life-threatening situations. (See Anzaldua v. Ne. Ambulance & Fire Prot. Dist., 793 F.3d 822, 834 (8th Cir. 2015) (" ‘When lives may be at stake in a fire, an espirit de corps is essential to the success of the joint endeavo......
-
§ 8.03 Stored Communications Act (SCA)
...are no longer 'in electronic storage.'") (collecting cases). [311] See, e.g., Anzaldua v. Northeast Ambulance & Fire Protection Dist., 793 F.3d 822, 841-42 (8th Cir. 2015) (citing various critics and courts that "openly disagree with Theofel's reasoning," including, inter alia, Lazette and ......
-
How the Supreme Court's Decision in Van Buren Impacts Mobile Employees and Computer Data Theft in Florida.
...1030(e)(11). (14) Van Buren v. U.S., 141 S. Ct. at 1661-62. (15) Id. at 1661. (16) See Anzaldua v. Ne. Ambulance & Fire Prot. Dist., 793 F.3d 822, 838 (8th Cir. 2015); and Sartori v. Schrodt, 424 F. Supp. 3d 1121, 1126-27 (N.D. Fla. 2019). The SCA provides a civil cause of action agains......
-
Section 21.40 Stored Communications Act
...It retains classifications of data applicable to “non-web-based email technology,” Anzaldua v. Ne. Ambulance & Fire Prot. Dist., 793 F.3d 822, 841 (8th Cir. 2015), that are arbitrary in modern data systems. For example, in the era of cloud computing, when email accounts have virtually unlim......
-
Section 21.5 Civil Actions for Unauthorized Access
...damages from the intentional unauthorized access of a computer. 18 U.S.C. § 1030. See, e.g., Anzaldua v. Ne. Ambulance & Fire Prot. Dist., 793 F.3d 822, 837–43 (8th Cir. 2015) (discussing actions in accordance with § 569.095 and the SCA); SKF USA, Inc. v. Bjerkness, 636 F. Supp. 2d 696, 719......