Court Addresses Political Retaliation Claims in Connection With Sheriff's Election
In Briggs v. Potter
County, a federal court of appeals addressed a political
retaliation claim involving correctional officers at a county jail in
Pennsylvania after a contentious primary election that involved their boss, the chief deputy sheriff.
Hunt and Briggs—both correctional officers at the
jail—ran against Drake, the incumbent Chief Deputy Sheriff. Drake had recently
retired from the Pennsylvania State Police and was appointed as Chief Deputy
Sheriff, which was how the last three sheriffs were elected. As the primary campaign progressed, Hunt and Briggs were
publicly outspoken about this method of electing sheriffs. Hunt went a step
further and filed complaints against Drake with the District Attorney, the
Pennsylvania Attorney General, and the Potter County Commissioners for engaging
in political activity while on the job. Ultimately, Drake won the primary and
general elections.
Before Drake took office, but after he won, Briggs
received several reprimands, including sleeping during a shift. Eight days
after Drake took office, Briggs was terminated. Hunt, the union steward,
grieved for Briggs. Hunt was then fired after requesting video footage of other
officers sleeping on the job.
Briggs and Hunt filed suit against Drake and the County.
They argued that their First Amendment rights to speech and association
regarding political activities were violated. Hunt also claimed whistleblower
protections under Pennsylvania law. The district court did not find a viable
retaliation claim because of the length of time between the primary election
and the firing of both Hunt and Briggs. Further, the court found no whistleblower
protection because the correctional officers’ speech did not relate to a matter
of public concern.
On appeal, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals
disagreed with the court’s ruling on the retaliation claims. The appeals court
found that Briggs was fired a mere eight days after Drake became sheriff and
that Hunt was unlawfully retaliated against for his union activities after
grieving Briggs’ termination. The appeals court also found whistleblower
protections for Hunt because he spoke on matters of public concern when he
filed complaints against Drake, including bringing claims of alleged corruption
within the sheriff’s department and campaign violations under county, state,
and federal law.
Although the court allowed the claims against Drake and members of his staff to move forward, the court dismissed all claims brought against the County because the officers failed to show a County
policy or custom that caused “the specific deprivation of constitutional rights
at issue” of the two officers.
Post Authored by Mike Halpin & Julie Tappendorf
