This post was authored by Matthew Loeser, Esq.
Paul E. Knopf, the former Director of the Planning and Development Department for the City of Evanston, sued Mayor Kent Williams pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that that the Mayor retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights. Specifically, he claimed Mayor Williams did not reappoint him to his position as City Planner because he had sent an email to the City Attorney raising concerns about impropriety relating to a City project. In federal district court, Mayor Williams moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, which the court denied.
On appeal, in reviewing whether Mayor Williams was properly denied qualified immunity, the court analyzed whether the law surrounded the retaliation claim was clearly established. Here Mr. Knopf alleged that at the time of his dismissal, it was clearly established that a public employer cannot retaliate against an employee for speaking on matters of public concern. The court found, however, that “the clearly established law must be particularized to the facts of the case.” The court further determined that in Dill v. City of Edmond, 155 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 1998), the case Knopf cited in support of his claim, the court held “that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.” Here, in contrast, Mr. Knopf expressed his concerns as a private citizen. Because Mr. Knopf has failed to carry his burden in showing the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the court held the district court erred in denying Mayor Williams qualified immunity. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on Mr. Knopf’s First Amendment retaliation claim.
Knopf v Williams, 2018 WL 1178346 (10th Cir. CA 3/5/2018)
LAW OF THE LAND 
Leave a comment