No liability for termination over plaintiff's association with the mayor

The plaintiff worked for the Village of Monticello in Sullivan County. He was suspended and then fired from his position. His lawsuit claims this happened because of his political association with Mayor Gordon Jenkins. It may be that he was fired for that reason, the Court of Appeals says, but that termination is not actionable because the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

The case is Snowden v. Solomon, a summary order issued on March 10. The general rule is the government cannot fire you because of your political associations. But that right is not unlimited. The government can fire you if it can point to a vital interest in distancing itself from you over that association.   Vital interests include "considerations such as maintaining efficiency, discipline, and integrity, preventing disruption of operations, and avoiding having the judgment an professionalism of the agency brought into serious disrepute." The Second Circuit said that in Piscottano v Murphy, 511 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2007). But under qualified immunity, the plaintiff has to cite a binding case that says what happened to him has already been found to be illegal. He cannot do so. 

The Court of Appeals (Livingston, Park and Chin) says plaintiff's association with Jenkins was a real problem. They were both indicted as co-defendants from crimes undertaken in their official capacities. They were accused of planning to demolish a building that had contained asbestos without obtaining a proper abatement, which would have endangered community members. The indictment also said they agreed with contractors that, in exchange for a discounted demolition fee, they would funnel more demolition work to them in the future. Mayor Jenkins pleaded guilty to three misdemeanors arising from this indictment. 

The Court said it is not "the conventional role of the First Amendment" to allow a government employee to keep his job despite his political association with a mayor where both of them are indicted as co-conspirators for misconduct undertaken in their official roles, and the mayor pleads guilty. "Such a decision does not bear the risk of telling other public employees that they engage in protected First Amendment activity at their own peril." The Second Circuit cites Heffernan v. City of Patterson, 136 S. Ct. 1412 (2016), for that proposition. Instead, such a decision restores the public faith in the integrity of the village and its officers, the Court of Appeals says. Qualified immunity attaches because reasonable governmental decision makers could have understood there was a vital interest in firing plaintiff over his association with the mayor.