Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 12-1747
DUANE MINNICK,
Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
COUNTY
OF
CURRITUCK;
KNOTTS
ISLAND
VOLUNTEER
FIRE
DEPARTMENT; CRAWFORD TOWNSHIP VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT,
INC.; DAVID F. SCANLON, II, named in his individual and
representative capacities; MICHAEL CARTER, named in his
individual and representative capacities; TERRY KING, named
in his individual and representative capacities; JERIT VAN
AUKER,
named
in
his
individual
and
representative
capacities; CHRIS DAILEY, named in his individual and
representative capacities,
Defendants Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City.
Terrence W.
Boyle, District Judge. (2:10-cv-00017-BO)
Argued:
Decided:
ARGUED:
Megan
Kathleen
Mechak,
WOODLEY
&
MCGILLIVARY,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
Paul H. Derrick, CRANFILL,
SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Jacqueline Terry
Hughes, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Raleigh, North
PER CURIAM:
Duane Minnick appeals from the district courts award of
summary
judgment
to
the
defendants
in
this
42
U.S.C.
1983
Minnick,
more
of
those
entities:
Daniel
Scanlon,
Michael
Carter,
Terry King, Jerit Van Auker, and Chris Dailey, sued in their
individual
and
representative
capacities. 1
Minnick
alleged,
We
I.
A.
Minnick filed this lawsuit on May 7, 2010.
His two-count
and
decisions,
including
threatening,
coercing,
firefighter
because
of
his
involvement
in
an
The Complaint
Id.
78-80.
Minnick
requests
court
Amendment
rights,
and
he
seeks
injunctive
relief
and
damages.
B.
Currituck
northeast
coastal
corner
area
communities.
the
County,
County
of
adjoining
North
the
Carolina,
incorporating
the
Atlantic
Ocean
encompasses
an
mainland
and
in
the
extensive
several
island
itself
of
both
professional
and
volunteer
the
County.
stations, invite
The
six
fire
applications
departments,
from
volunteer
commonly
called
firefighters
and
President
President,
(who
Secretary,
serves
as
Treasurer,
Board
and
Chair),
three
plus
at-large
Vice
members.
matter
contractual
of
practice,
relationship
with
each
County
enters
station.
into
Pursuant
a
to
Medical
Department).
Services
Department
(the
County
Emergency
Chief
of
the
County
Emergency
Department)
as
well
as
See, e.g,
Fire
Chiefs
of
the
various
stations
do
not
possess
made
after
district court.
discovery
proceedings
conducted
in
the
Minnicks
initial
2,
six-month
performance
review,
dated
October
2007,
Competent
(the
middle
evaluation).
There
were
space
on
the
evaluation
J.A. 803.
form
under
the
category
2.
a.
In
October
2007,
Minnick
was
transferred
from
Waterlily
J.A. 1096.
EMTs
Association
and
of
Fire
firefighters.
Fighters
County
(IAFF)
Emergency
for
the
Department
policy
prohibiting
employees
from
departing
their
positions
report
related
that
there
had
been
other
questionable
same
evening,
shortly
before
See id.
leaving
the
station,
As a
incident
report
on
February
7,
2008.
Minnick
thereafter agreed that it was wrong for him to send the email
while on duty, and he apologized to the Waterlily Chief and
other affected persons.
report
specifies
Minnick.
that
constituted
This incident
written
warning
to
Department
elected
paid
Minnick
firefighters
as
and
EMTs,
President.
During
and
its
Minnicks
President
issues
and
stations.
of
Local
unsafe
4633,
practices
he
that
spoke
he
out
concerning
observed
at
the
safety
various
on
one
of
the
fire
trucks,
malfunctioning
department
problems,
and
Minnick
asserts
that
he
was
After
his
transfer
to
Crawford
Township,
Minnick
had
in
the
areas
of
Cooperation
and
Teamwork
and
10
J.A. 811.
The
Their
confrontation
featured
profane
language
and
Chief
and
Carter,
aggressor.
emphasizing
Carter
that
brought
Pope
the
was
incident
the
to
Although no action
was
volunteer,
taken
against
Pope
because
he
was
Carter
requested that Chief Dailey address the incident with Pope and
hold him accountable for his actions.
11
Station.
They
however,
but
did
were
not
receive
transferred
their
to
first
Corolla
transfer
Station.
choice,
Minnick
did
According
not
to
want
to
Minnick,
have
this
union
was
the
officials
first
at
instance
Moyock.
of
See J.A.
In one instance,
common area at the station because the internet cable would not
otherwise reach.
J.A. 433.
On
in a prohibited area.
Island
Board,
confirmed
that
certain
volunteer
firefighters
would not come to the station when Minnick was working due to
personality conflicts with him.
them.
Minnicks
behavior
at
Knotts
Island
nonetheless
February
personnel
report
20,
incident
related
2009,
report
that
Minnick
completed
Minnick
had
was
by
the
Captain
violated
subject
of
Miller.
County
a
The
Emergency
See id.
written warning.
Id. at 381.
13
to
disrespected
Knotts
the
Island,
stations
he
had
members.
ignored
King
the
also
rules
described
and
an
that
[t]his
behavior
is
typical
Kings letter
of
[Minnicks]
had
firefighters,
been
and
that
J.A. 410.
confrontational
certain
with
members
the
would
not
volunteer
go
to
the
J.A. 383.
Minnick had served at every station in the County save one, and
that,
in
requested
most
that
instances,
he
be
the
transferred.
14
volunteer
The
firefighters
report,
completed
had
by
County
Emergency
Department
Chief
Carter,
recommended
that
thereafter
filed
grievance
contesting
his
J.A.
admissions,
these
prior
Minnick
had
disciplinary
acknowledge[d]
actions
and
Id.
and
recognize[d]
accept[ed]
full
Id.
As Scanlon explained,
15
D.
On
May
14,
2012,
the
district
court
filed
its
Opinion
that, because Knotts Island and Crawford Township did not have
supervisory control over Minnick, who was a County employee, and
because neither station had policymaking authority with respect
to
Minnicks
union
activities
or
speech,
Knotts
Island
and
respect
to
the
County
defendants
County
Manager
instead,
according
to
the
court,
That authority
solely
with
the
Inasmuch as
had
neither
participated
in
nor
condoned
any
of
the
the
necessary
involvement
by
the
relevant
16
final
Id.
at 8. 5
the
individual
defendants
King,
Van
timely
noticed
this
appeal,
and
Auker,
and
Dailey
See id. at 8.
we
possess
Minnick
jurisdiction
II.
We review de novo an award of summary judgment, applying
the same legal standards as the district court.
Peters, 577 F.3d 558, 563 (4th Cir. 2009).
novo
the
individual
district
courts
exercises
particular area.
final
We also review de
determination
policymaking
Pueschel v.
of
whether
authority
in
an
a
apparent
from
the
record.
CFA
Inst.
v.
Inst.
of
17
Chartered Fin. Analysts of India, 551 F.3d 285, 292 (4th Cir.
2009).
III.
Section
1983
of
Title
42
provides
judicial
redress
for
The
by
the
parties,
the
plaintiff
brought
1983
action,
Minnicks
volunteer
case,
firefighter
however,
an
defendants
assessment
were
acting
of
whether
under
color
the
of
constitutional
rights.
18
By
way
of
explanation,
we
first discuss Minnicks free speech claim, and then his free
association claim.
A.
The
First
Amendment
provides,
in
pertinent
part,
that
whether
an
employment
action
violated
To
public
matter
of
public
concern;
(2)
whether
the
employees
and
(3)
whether
there
was
sufficient
causal
nexus
1998). 6
Here, viewing
20
J.A. 803.
Township
that
between
period,
late
Minnick
October
addressed
2007
and
with
both
June
his
2008.
county
air
pack,
malfunctioning
seatbelts,
and
balding
tires. 7
personnel
incident
established policies.
punished
more
harshly
reports,
documenting
violations
of
necessary
as
result,
his
only
you
transferred
over
to
21
specific
assertions
of
retaliatory
or
discriminatory
adverse
Minnick maintains
that
proposition.
after
Pope
altercation,
Moyock
the
Station,
which
was
Rather,
Minnick
denied
by
the
evidence
requested
Chief
is
that,
transfer
Carter.
He
to
was
was not his first choice for a transfer, and that he felt that
he was being punished and discriminated against by Carter.
See
J.A.
was
1199.
Minnick
also
asserted,
however,
that
he
excited about the Corolla transfer and felt that the move to
Corolla was for the best.
Id.
The termination
County policy.
with
evidence
to
his
his
free
speech
expressions
claim
on
are
safety
not
linked
concerns
by
any
beyond
the
to
satisfy
the
third
McVey
As we explained in
prong,
the
protected
marks
omitted).
Minnick
has
not
pointed
to
any
Station
or
his
termination
from
employment
by
the
claim
is
County.
B.
Our
disposition
of
Minnicks
free
association
Both
guaranteed
by
the
First
Amendment
protects
Thompson v. Ashe,
Cromer v. Brown,
speech
causation
evidence
claim,
with
however,
respect
demonstrates
to
his
that
Minnick
free
there
is
also
unable
association
was
As with his
tension
to
show
claim.
The
between
paid
as
plausibly
being
the
motivation
for
Minnicks
24
not
aware
of
any
county
policies
and
analysis
conclusion
that
of
the
evidence
Minnicks
leads
discipline
were
none
there
to
and
the
inescapable
termination
from
The only
Seal
Co.
v.
NLRB,
605
F.2d
703,
709
(3d
Cir.
See
1979)
conduct
and
persistent
demands,
not
his
union
activism, and explaining that [t]he fact that one has been a
union activist does not grant him immunity for that type of
insubordination
Without
more,
which
would
Minnicks
not
be
tolerated
conjecture
that
from
adverse
others).
employment
Wilmington,
640
550,
560
(4th
Cir.
2011)
25
reasons
for
an
adverse
employment
action
IV.
Put succinctly, Minnick is unable to demonstrate causation
with respect to either of his First Amendment claims, and the
district court did not err.
26