Plaintiffs alleged that defendant Township violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by prohibiting them from serving on the Township Board of Trustees based on their previous support of a recall effort resulting from rezoning efforts in the Township. The recall effort was successful but resulted in the Board of Trustees only having one member. Subsequently, at an Election Committee meeting one of the defendants specifically stated that the people involved in the recall effort should not be considered for a Board position. The posting seeking candidates for the vacant Trustee positions simply stated that candidates were required to be residents of the Township and registered to vote. Despite the advertised requirements, a question on the application specifically asked whether an applicant had been involved in the recall effort. Plaintiffs applied for these positions but each was denied allegedly because of their involvement in the recall effort.
The plaintiffs alleged they were denied employment and were also verbally abused and humiliated by defendants after the recall efforts. Plaintiffs alleged they had a liberty interest in not being “stigmatized by false and untrue statements…that would seriously hinder the Plaintiff’s ability to obtain and/or keep employment with the Township.” Further, plaintiffs alleged a First Amendment violation because actions taken by defendants were done in retaliation for their involvement in the recall effort.
The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that determined plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the existence of a Township policy that promoted the alleged unconstitutional actions. Moreover, plaintiffs did not allege any conduct taken by individual defendants to support a claim against them. Additionally, the magistrate judge determined that the complaint did not contain allegations which would constitute conduct that qualified as conscience-shocking, which is required by a substantive due process claim. Procedurally, plaintiffs due process claims failed because they did not alleged a protected property or liberty interest. As to the First Amendment claims, the magistrate judge further held that plaintiffs failed to establish any of their rights have been violated. After objections to the report and recommendation, the District Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and granted summary judgment. Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
Sanchez v. Township of Kochville, 2011 WL 281053 (E.D.Mich. 1/25/11)
The opinion can be accessed here
