Taylor v. Bartow County, Ga.
Decision Date | 06 June 1994 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 4:93-cv-135-HLM. |
Citation | 860 F. Supp. 1526 |
Parties | Sandra N. TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. BARTOW COUNTY, GEORGIA, and Naomi Tish Johnson, individually and in her official capacity as Clerk, Bartow County Superior Court, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Debra E. Schwartz, Marcia Weil Borowski, Stanford Fagan & Giolito, Atlanta, GA, for plaintiff.
George Carey Nelson, III, Jenkins & Eells, Cartersville, GA, Kirk Randall Fjelstul, Jenkins & Eells, Atlanta, GA, for defendants.
This action for violation of First Amendment rights is again before the Court on Plaintiff's and Defendants' motions for summary judgment after certain issues were briefed by the parties. The Court will vacate its prior order in this case and enter this order, denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Court vacates its previous order and enters the present order most especially to address Plaintiff's concerns about the Court's statement of Factual Background in the previous order. The Court expands the statement of factual background to address Plaintiff's concerns. The Court expands the Statement of Summary Judgment Standards, adding material regarding specific facts versus conclusory allegations. The Court sets forth its previous discussion of procedural and substantive due process. The Court restates and expands the discussion of Terry v. Cook and why this case does not involve raw political patronage. Finally the Court addresses the Pickering test and qualified immunity.
Plaintiff began working for the Bartow County Clerk of Superior Court in 1978, and was appointed a deputy clerk in the early 1980's. She left in 1985 to attend college, but after four months returned in a part-time capacity. In 1989 Defendant Johnson's predecessor, Grady Jefferson, again appointed Plaintiff as a deputy clerk.
Defendant Johnson served as chief deputy clerk from approximately 1980 until her election as Clerk of Superior Court in 1992.
Plaintiff did not agree with certain actions taken by Mr. Jefferson and criticized his management style. In 1991 and early 1992 Plaintiff and other deputy clerks criticized Mr. Jefferson for being indecisive and unwilling to support his employees. In 1991, Plaintiff encouraged Mr. Steve Bradley to run against Mr. Jefferson the next year. In early 1992 Mr. Jefferson decided not to seek re-election; Plaintiff, however, did not encourage Mr. Bradley to run at that time or thereafter.
Mr. Steve Stewart announced his candidacy first, and Plaintiff expressed her support for him. It is disputed whether or not Plaintiff encouraged Defendant Johnson to run, or expressed support for her. Plaintiff does not remember such an expression and feels she would remember it had it occurred. Defendant thinks Plaintiff did express support for her at one time.
During the primary campaign Plaintiff actively campaigned for Mr. Stewart, including door-to-door solicitation, campaign literature distribution at a street fair, and a monetary contribution. Plaintiff used accumulated vacation time and sick leave to perform these activities. Plaintiff, however, while at work, also solicited votes for Mr. Stewart from employees and persons coming into the courthouse for business.1 At work, Plaintiff told co-workers that if Defendant were elected that it would be no improvement over Mr. Jefferson, whom Plaintiff described as wishy-washy, disorganized and lacking in leadership. Plaintiff, however, stopped short of saying that Defendant was incapable of doing a good job. Plaintiff never said anything negative or divisive directly to Defendant. Plaintiff also wrongly told people that another clerk, Sherry Graves, supported Mr. Stewart in order to gain support for Mr. Stewart.
During the campaign Mr. Stewart would come to the Clerk's office first thing in the morning, and Plaintiff would "tell him about some things" regarding the office. Also, Mr. Stewart and Plaintiff discussed "running as a team" wherein Plaintiff would become Chief Deputy. They decided against that strategy, but Mr. Stewart would have appointed Plaintiff as his Chief Deputy had he been elected. Plaintiff, however, testified that she did not think the appointment was definite.
Plaintiff stated to at least one person that she would not work for Defendant if Defendant were elected.2 Plaintiff told other employees and members of the public that Defendant would be no change from Mr. Jefferson and that Defendant had not demonstrated leadership.
Upon learning of Defendant's candidacy, Plaintiff explained to her that she could not support Defendant and expressed the hope that Plaintiff's position did not hurt Defendant's feelings. Defendant responded "well, I guess it does hurt my feelings and possibly hurt our friendship." After Defendant won the run-off, Plaintiff congratulated her and expressed the hope that they could get along. Defendant told Plaintiff that she "was not going to hold any grudges."
In a campaign radio debate, Defendant stated that she would retain the then current staff of the Clerk's office, which included Plaintiff. Defendant also told Plaintiff's husband that she intended to retain Plaintiff. However, there were rumors "around the courthouse" that Plaintiff would not be retained. Sometime in late 1992 Defendant sought advice from the Bartow County personnel director on how to terminate Plaintiff. Defendant hired two new employees prior to December 31, 1992 and told them to report on January 4, 1993. These employees, however, did not become deputy clerks.
While it cannot be determined which candidate all the other deputy clerks supported, Defendant felt that at least two, and possibly others, did not support her. Defendant discovered after the election that one, Terri Jones, actively supported Mr. Bradley.3 In fact, Sherry Graves, Jeanette McCollum, Melba Scoggins, Ruth Ross, Terri Jones, Bobbie Dover, and Carla Jefferson all supported Defendant's opponents. After the election, all the deputy clerks, except Plaintiff, approached Defendant and asked to work in the new administration and expressed a willingness to be cooperative. Defendant reappointed all employees, including those she felt opposed her in the campaign, except Plaintiff.
Plaintiff, in conclusory terms, asserts that her relationship with her fellow employees did not become strained or difficult, that she was not withdrawn or hostile, and that she satisfactorily performed her duties. Plaintiff stated that she was not aware of the other clerks' discomfort and that she herself did not feel uncomfortable. However, the undisputed "specific facts" are that the other clerks' were uncomfortable.
Carol Payne, who was appointed chief deputy clerk after the election, stated that Plaintiff "would walk around the office to avoid coming by my desk when leaving the office." Moreover, Ms. Payne states, and others agree that Another deputy clerk, Ms. Deborah Southern, stated Ms. Graves stated that after Deputy clerk, Terri Jones, averred that "Plaintiff would not have much to say to most of the other deputy clerks."
Ms. Graves stated Terri Jones averred
Both during the campaign when Plaintiff was taking vacation and sick time, and after the election her responsibility of filing the U.C.C.s became backlogged.
Plaintiff in response to summary judgment submitted the affidavit of former Clerk Mr. Jefferson. Mr. Jefferson stated that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schlarp v. Dern
...be conducted in relation to the protected activities. Deschenie v. Bd. of Educ., 473 F.3d 1271 (10th Cir.2007); Taylor v. Bartow County, 860 F.Supp. 1526, 1542 (N.D.Ga.1994). When Schlarp's protected activities are isolated from his unprotected activities, the court is left only with Schlar......
-
Kicklighter v. Mcintosh Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs
...or the personnel thereof, except the personnel subject to the jurisdiction of the county governing authority”); Taylor v. Bartow Cnty., Ga. , 860 F.Supp. 1526, 1536 (N.D.Ga.1994) (“Deputy clerks of superior court are not county employees, but the employees of the clerk of superior court.”);......
-
Calvert v. Hicks, 1:04-cv-1257-WSD.
...Georgia law, deputy clerks "are not county employees, but the employees of the clerk of the superior court." Taylor v. Bartow County, Ga., 860 F.Supp. 1526, 1536 (N.D.Ga.1994). Although O.C.G.A. § 15-6-59 nominally grants deputy clerks the same "powers and duties" as the Clerk, the record s......
-
Brett v. Jefferson County, Ga.
...statute. State law provides no other avenue for Plaintiffs to argue they have a protected property interest. See Taylor v. Bartow County, 860 F.Supp. 1526, 1537 (N.D.Ga. 1994) ("Mutual understandings cannot create a property interest contrary to state law." (citations omitted)). Accordingly......