Appellate Law

CA1: deputies sue sheriff under 1983 and win

By S. COTUS

Davignon v. Hodgson, No. 06-1191.  This is a 1983 action ? by union corrections officers claiming that the First Amendment rights were violated ? against the sheriff.  At trial, the officers won a small victory.  The sheriff appealed. 

The most interesting issue if how the First deals with an inconsistent verdict claim, as the 1983 verdict seems to have conflicted with the state law claims.  The First analyzes it and says that yes, the jury could find such a ?strained? set of facts.

Strangely, the sheriff seems to have overdone the rhetoric against his officers by referring to Supreme Court cases.  But the First explains that most union speech actually is protected under the First Amendment and is, in fact, a matter of public concern.  (The First rejects the invitation to summarily accept this, and instead goes on a very long analysis concluding the same thing.)  Then it engages in a balancing of the interests at stake, and affirms the jury?s verdict.  Likewise, the First there was a ?causation? case made out ? in that the deputies discipline was caused by the protected activities.  Pretty much the same result is reached with regard to the ?freedom of assocation? claim.

Evidentiary claims about admission of an administrative decision (used to show identity), and a reopening to present evidence of lost wages are affirmed. 

Finally, the First rejects some really strongly pro-defendant jury instructions, i.e. ?Judicial review of prison officials' actions is very limited.?

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on April 24, 2008 (boomark / email).