By Mitchell Riese and Mitchel Wilson
In motions before the trial court to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, in Allred v. City of Carbon Hill, denied the motions and permitted Allred’s claims to go to trial.
The City of Carbon Hill hired Heath Allred to be its police chief in 2010, not specifying the duration of his employment. Allred completed his probationary period. Carbon Hill’s Personnel Rules and Regulations governed Allred’s employment and required notice and a hearing for any discipline over a three day suspension.
Problems began when Allred’s wife ran for mayor against his boss, Mayor Richardson, who allegedly told Allred that his job would suffer if he did not stop his wife from running. Allred supported his wife, but never while on duty or in uniform. The incumbent mayor narrowly prevailed over Allred’s wife and then fired Allred.
The Court ruled that Allred had alleged sufficient facts that, if proven at trial, would support his claim for violation of his First Amendment right of association. The Court concluded:
The pleaded facts suggest that Carbon Hill either refused to hire him on an unconstitutional basis or that he was subjected to some type of adverse treatment when he was suddenly told that he was being replaced. He has pleaded facts to suggest that the action occurred due to his marriage to his wife and his expressive association with her political campaign. Thus, Allred can survive a motion to dismiss on these claims.
The Court also ruled that Allred could bring claims against the municipality because it appeared his termination followed an official policy because the City Council met before informing Allred that they were affirming his termination. The Mayor was likewise not shielded from liability because “Allred’s claims are based on Richardson’s decision to terminate Allred and Richardson’s decision to get the city council to appoint a new police chief, not Richardson’s legislative capacity.”
The court further refused to dismiss Allred’s procedural due process claim concerning his interest in his employment. The court held that Allred had a continued interest in his employment because the City failed to set a term of employment, and the Personnel Rules required notice and a hearing prior to any discipline exceeding a three day suspension.
The Court’s decision in this case illustrates the important principle that, even though a public employee’s First Amendment rights are restricted, they are not eliminated, and so long as the employee’s speech is related to a matter of public concern and the speech was not a part of the employee’s job responsibilities, then public employees retain First Amendment rights, including the right to support a spouse’s political campaign without being retaliated against for having done so.
