McMullen v. Carson, 83-3579
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) |
| Citation | 754 F.2d 936 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-3579,83-3579 |
| Parties | Robert C. McMULLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dale CARSON, Individually and as Sheriff of the City of Jacksonville, Fla., and City of Jacksonville, Fla., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Decision Date | 08 March 1985 |
Page 936
v.
Dale CARSON, Individually and as Sheriff of the City of
Jacksonville, Fla., and City of Jacksonville,
Fla., Defendants-Appellees.
Eleventh Circuit.
Samuel S. Jacobson, Warren K. Anderson, Jr., Jacksonville, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant.
Robert G. Alexander and Michael B. Wedner, Jacksonville, Fla., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before RONEY and CLARK, Circuit Judges, and MOORE *, District Judge.
RONEY, Circuit Judge:
Robert C. McMullen brought a 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983 suit against Dale Carson, individually and in his position as Sheriff of the City of Jacksonville, Florida, and against the City of Jacksonville, Florida. McMullen, a clerical employee in the Sheriff's office, was fired after he was interviewed on a locally televised news broadcast as a
Page 937
recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan. The district court, 568 F.Supp. 937, dismissed the action after making detailed findings concerning the perceived violent nature of the Klan, and of the serious racial tension which McMullen's television appearance and employment in the Sheriff's office created between the black community and the Sheriff's office in the City of Jacksonville. Plaintiff claims his dismissal violated his fundamental First Amendment rights of speech and political expression. We affirm the judgment for defendants on the district court's finding that plaintiff's discharge was necessary to prevent a deleterious effect on the Sheriff's ability to enforce the law in the community.Most of the facts are not really in dispute so the issue on appeal is whether the Sheriff could fire plaintiff without violating his constitutional rights. Plaintiff was hired as a temporary full-time clerk in the records section of Duval County's Sheriff's Office in October 1981. His duties involved the filing of both public and confidential records. He also fingerprinted persons seeking employment and registered firearms. Plaintiff performed his duties in exemplary fashion. He was courteous, conscientious, and got along well with his fellow records section employees. He was largely unsupervised during the working day.
Plaintiff had obtained an application form to join the Invisible Empire of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in September 1981. He completed and mailed in the application about the same time he started working at the Sheriff's office. By January 1982 plaintiff had become a Klan recruiter. He recruited on his own time by distributing Klan literature in various public areas.
Shortly after vandals left a cross in the yard of a Jacksonville black woman's home, plaintiff and Bill Wilkinson, "Imperial Wizard" of the Invisible Empire, the Klan faction to which plaintiff belonged, held a news conference disclaiming Klan involvement in the vandalism. Plaintiff identified himself as a Klan recruiter and as a Sheriff's office employee. The interview was broadcast on the evening news before an estimated audience of 117,000 to 182,000 adult viewers. Both television and newspaper media followed up on plaintiff's status as a Klan recruiter in the Sheriff's office.
Instant and strongly negative reactions in the black community resulted from the initial reports of plaintiff's Klan activities. The Jacksonville Urban League reported approximately 200 telephone calls and live comments from individuals concerned about the existence of a Klansman in the Sheriff's office. Many comments reflected the notion that Jacksonville blacks should resist arrest by Sheriff's personnel for fear of their lives.
Sheriff Carson learned of plaintiff's activities from this media coverage. Fearing for his department's ability to effectively perform its duties, Carson dismissed plaintiff immediately. Carson testified he thought retaining plaintiff would lead to serious morale problems in his department and would interfere with its affirmative action plan.
Ten days after he was fired, plaintiff, his wife, Bill Wilkinson, and three others marched to the Duval County Courthouse in their hoods and robes to protest plaintiff's dismissal. Despite NAACP and local religious leaders' admonitions to stay away, a crowd of two to three hundred people attended the rally. Angry anti-Klan sentiments were shouted and some minor violence broke out, but it was quickly subdued by the police.
Based on Mr. Wilkinson's decision to exploit recent racial tensions in Miami for Klan purposes, plaintiff decided the Klan was too confrontational for him. He resigned from the Klan in late 1982 or early 1983.
This action was brought seeking plaintiff's reinstatement as a Sheriff's office employee and an award of damages from Sheriff Carson and the City. By stipulation no damages will be sought individually from Sheriff Carson. Plaintiff has moved from Jacksonville since this action was filed. There is no evidence in the record
Page 938
suggesting he plans to return to Jacksonville, and he indicated he would be unable to return to the Sheriff's office were this Court to conclude he was so entitled.The fundamental question here is whether plaintiff can be fired for his Klan beliefs and activities just because of the violent public reaction to his employment in the Sheriff's department. There seems to be little question that it was this reaction in the community, not plaintiff's activities alone, which caused his dismissal.
Although at-will Government employees may be fired with or without reason, they may not be fired for exercising their constitutional rights. Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507, 514-16, 100 S.Ct. 1287, 1292-93, 63 L.Ed.2d 574 (1980). The district court made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Angle v. Dow, Civ. A. No. 92-0344-AH-C.
...51 797 F.2d 953 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1020, 107 S.Ct. 3263, 97 L.Ed.2d 762 (1987). 52 Id. at 960. 53 McMullen v. Carson, 754 F.2d 936, 938 (11th Cir.1985) (citing Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 96 S.Ct. 1440, 47 L.Ed.2d 708 54 Busby, supra, 931 F.2d at 774. 55 Eiland v. ......
-
Franklin v. Leland Stanford Junior University
...fn. 2, 70 L.Ed.2d 811; Monsanto v. Quinn (3d Cir.1982) [172 Cal.App.3d 331] 674 F.2d 990, 996, fn. 10; McMullen v. Carson (11th Cir.1985) 754 F.2d 936, 938; Brasslett v. Cota (1st Cir.1985) 761 F.2d 827, 840.) Defendants' contention that we perform a traditional substantial evidence review ......
-
Liverman v. City of Petersburg, Civil Action No. 3:14–CV–139.
...is obviously highly relevant to the City's assessment of the incident's disruptive effects." Id. Similarly, in McMullen v. Carson, 754 F.2d 936 (11th Cir.1985), a clerical employee of the Sheriff's Office of Jacksonville filed suit against the Sheriff because he was fired after appearing on......
-
Local 491, Police Officers v. Gwinnett County, Ga, Civil Action No. 1:06-CV-0303-RWS.
...to support full consideration of the police department's asserted interests in restricting its employees' speech.'" McMullen v. Carson, 754 F.2d 936, 940 (11th Cir.1985) (quoting Waters, 684 F.2d at 839 n. Recognizing the importance of loyalty and discipline within the ranks of law enforcem......
-
Angle v. Dow, Civ. A. No. 92-0344-AH-C.
...51 797 F.2d 953 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1020, 107 S.Ct. 3263, 97 L.Ed.2d 762 (1987). 52 Id. at 960. 53 McMullen v. Carson, 754 F.2d 936, 938 (11th Cir.1985) (citing Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 96 S.Ct. 1440, 47 L.Ed.2d 708 54 Busby, supra, 931 F.2d at 774. 55 Eiland v. ......
-
Franklin v. Leland Stanford Junior University
...fn. 2, 70 L.Ed.2d 811; Monsanto v. Quinn (3d Cir.1982) [172 Cal.App.3d 331] 674 F.2d 990, 996, fn. 10; McMullen v. Carson (11th Cir.1985) 754 F.2d 936, 938; Brasslett v. Cota (1st Cir.1985) 761 F.2d 827, 840.) Defendants' contention that we perform a traditional substantial evidence review ......
-
Liverman v. City of Petersburg, Civil Action No. 3:14–CV–139.
...is obviously highly relevant to the City's assessment of the incident's disruptive effects." Id. Similarly, in McMullen v. Carson, 754 F.2d 936 (11th Cir.1985), a clerical employee of the Sheriff's Office of Jacksonville filed suit against the Sheriff because he was fired after appearing on......
-
Local 491, Police Officers v. Gwinnett County, Ga, Civil Action No. 1:06-CV-0303-RWS.
...to support full consideration of the police department's asserted interests in restricting its employees' speech.'" McMullen v. Carson, 754 F.2d 936, 940 (11th Cir.1985) (quoting Waters, 684 F.2d at 839 n. Recognizing the importance of loyalty and discipline within the ranks of law enforcem......
-
Cop- Like ("[like]"): The First Amendment, Criminal Procedure, and the Regulation of Police Social Media Speech.
...officers of different races and thus inflicts harm of a second kind on the Department's performance of its mission."); McMullen v. Carson, 754 F.2d 936, 936-37 (11th Cir. 1985) (permitting the firing of a sheriff's-office employee who worked as a Ku Klux Klan recruiter to "prevent a deleter......
-
Public Employee Speech Rights: Survey of Recent Trends
...City of New Bedford, 29 N.E. 517, 517, 155 Mass. 216, 220 (Mass. 1892).McCullen v. Coakley, 134 S.Ct. 2518 (U.S. 2014).McMullen v. Carson, 754 F.2d 936, 938 (11th Cir. 404 Review of Public Personnel Administration 40(3) Melzer v. Board of Education of City School District of City of New Yor......