Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03332/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03332-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

( 

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

WILLIAM E. GREEN, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

FILED 

Uflited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Ci!'cuit 

JAN 2 5 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 89-3332 

) 

KEITH R. HENLEY; MIKE HAYDEN, Governor, ) 

Individually and in their official ) 

capacities; THE STATE OF KANSAS; THE ) 

STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 

(D.C. No. 88-2231) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Frederick J. Patton, II of Patton & Patton, Topeka, Kansas, for 

Plaintiff-Appellant. 

John W. Lungstrum and Scott J. Bloch of Stevens, Brand, Lungstrum, 

Goden & Winter, Lawrence, Kansas, John Campbell, Deputy Attorney 

General, Topeka, Kansas, for Defendants-Appellees. 

Before MOORE, BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and SPARR,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable Daniel B. 

District Court for 

designation. 

PER CURIAM. 

Sparr, District Judge, United States 

the District of Colorado, sitting by 

Appellate Case: 89-3332 Document: 010110016374 Date Filed: 01/25/1991 Page: 1 
Plaintiff appeals from an order of the district court 

granting defendants Henley and Hayden's motions for summary 

judgmeht. We affirm. 1 

In his complaint in district court, plaintiff alleged that he 

was terminated from his position as Director of the Transportation 

Division of the defendant, Kansas Corporation Commission, because 

of his political affiliation. Plaintiff was appointed director in 

1980. He was terminated in 1987 when a new chairman of the 

Commission, defendant Henley, a Republican, was appointed by the 

governor of Kansas, defendant Hayden. 

The district court granted the State of Kansas and the 

Commission's motions to dismiss on the grounds of eleventh 

amendment immunity. Plaintiff did not appeal this order. In 

granting Henley and Hayden's motions for summary judgment, the 

court held that plaintiff had "met his burden of proving that his 

termination was the result of his association with the Democratic 

party." Doc. 91 at 4. However, the court, relying heavily on the 

position description of plaintiff's job and plaintiff's resume, 

see infra, held that party affiliation was· an appropriate 

requirement for the effective performance of plaintiff's position. 

Therefore, no constitutional violation occurred as a result of 

plaintiff's termination. In addition, the court held defendants 

were entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages. 

1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-3332 Document: 010110016374 Date Filed: 01/25/1991 Page: 2 
On appeal, plaintiff argues that party affiliation was not an 

appropriate requirement for the effective performance of his 

position, defendants' infringement of his first amendment rights 

was not carefully tailored to achieve a legitimate state 

objective, defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity, and 

injunctive relief was warranted. 

first two issues, we do not 

arguments. 

Because of our resolution of the 

address plaintiff's remaining 

We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de 

novo, applying the same legal standard used by the district court 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Applied Genetics Int'l, Inc. v. 

First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 1990), 

We first examine the record to determine if any genuine tssue of 

material fact was disputed and, if not, we then determine if the 

district court correctly applied the substantive law. Id. We 

examine the factual record and all reasonable inferences to be 

drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving 

party. Id. Plaintiff may not rest on his pleadings but must set 

forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of 

material fact as to the dispositive matters for which he will 

carry the burden of proof at trial. Id. 

The Supreme Court has held that "the need for political 

loyalty of employees ... to the end that representative 

government not be undercut by tactics obstructing the 

implementation of policies of the new administration, policies 

presumably sanctioned by the electorate," is a valid justification 

for political patronage dismissals of individuals in policymaking 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-3332 Document: 010110016374 Date Filed: 01/25/1991 Page: 3 
positions. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 367 (1976). "[T]he 

ultimate inquiry is not whether the label 'policymaker' or 

'confidential' fits a particular position; rather, the question is 

whether the hiring authority can demonstrate that party 

affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective 

performance of the public office involved." Branti v. Finkel, 445 

U.S. 507, 518 (1980). This question "can be answered best by 

analyzing the nature of the employee's duties and 

responsibilities." 

(10th Cir. 1988) 

Dickeson v. Quarberg, 844 F.2d 1435, 1442 

Plaintiff argues that a factual dispute 

extent he assisted in developing policies, 

contact with the public, his testimony before 

etc. These are not issues of material fact. 

exists as to the 

the nature of his 

the legislature, 

"Elrod and Branti require examination of the powers inherent 

in a given office, as opposed to the functions performed by a 

particular occupant of that office. Thus, if an officeholder 

performs fewer or less important functions than usually attend his 

position, he may still be exempt from the prohibition against 

political terminations if his position inherently encompasses 

tasks that render his political affiliation. an appropriate 

prerequisite for effective performance." Tomczak v. City of 

Chicago, 765 F.2d 633, 640-41 (7th Cir.)(citations omitted), cert. 

denied, 474 U.S. 946 (1985); see also Nekolny v. Painter, 653 F.2d 

1164, 1170 (7th Cir. 1981)("The test is whether the position held 

by the individual authorizes, either directly or indirectly, 

meaningful input into government decisionmaking on issues where 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-3332 Document: 010110016374 Date Filed: 01/25/1991 Page: 4 
there is room for principled disagreement on goals or their 

implementation."), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1021 (1982). 

The position description for director of the Transportation 

Division of the Commission states that the director assists the 

Commission in implementing provisions of the Kansas Motor Carrier 

Act and Railroad Act "by planning, implementing, directing, 

monitoring and evaluating policies established by the 

(Commission]." Doc. 80, Ex. B, Position Description at 1. The 

director participates in meetings involving the public, state, and 

federal government representatives, representatives of the 

railroad and motor carrier industry, and attorneys for those 

industries in which programs and policies affecting the various 

groups are discussed. The director also disseminates information 

to the general public and motor carrier applicants, testifies on 

legislative bills as a representative of the Commission, monitors 

the progress of legislative bills, researches letters of inquiry 

from legislators, and researches and analyzes transportation 

issues for the Commission. Id. 

Not solely strict party affiliation, but also political 

loyalty, is a valid justification for political patronage 

dismissals. See Williams v. City of River Rouge, 909 F.2d 151, 

153 n.4 (6th Cir. 1990)("[P]olitical affiliation" refers to 

commonality of political purpose and support, not solely political 

party membership). Here, defendant Henley admitted that he was 

looking for "someone who can perform the job adequately and 

someone that is loyal ... to the Commission ... [r]egardless 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-3332 Document: 010110016374 Date Filed: 01/25/1991 Page: 5 
of their political affiliation." Doc. 80, Deposition of Keith R. 

Henley at 11. 

The description of plaintiff's position clearly sets forth 

criteria for which termination is acceptable. The fact that the 

director met with the public and various representatives to 

discuss the Commission's policies and testified before the 

legislature as to those policies requires loyalty to the views of 

the Commission. We also note that in his resume, plaintiff 

clearly stated that he was in a policymaking position. He stated 

that he assisted in policy development by assisting the Commission 

in "drafting position papers on issues effecting (sic) the 

division," doc. 80, plaintiff's resume at 2, and by the 

"researching and writing· of a complex brief on the ~conomic 

regulation of an industry which was used as the principle focus 

for the re-regulation of a state regulated industry," id. at 3. 

Plaintiff argues that instead of termination, demotion would 

be a "less drastic" infringement on his first amendment rights. 

The Supreme Court has upheld political terminations, stating that 

a "government's interest in securing employees who will loyally 

implement its policies can be adequately served by choosing or 

dismissing certain high-level employees on the basis of their 

political views." Rutan v. Republican Party of Ill., 110 S. Ct. 

2729, 2737 (1990)(emphasis added). The Court has set no 

requirement of demotion to a nonpolicymaking position as a 

preference to termination. Further, in his complaint, plaintiff 

asked only for "[r]einstatement to his former employment under the 

6 

Appellate Case: 89-3332 Document: 010110016374 Date Filed: 01/25/1991 Page: 6 
same terms and conditions as he would have had if he had not been 

discharged," doc. 3 at 5, not demotion. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas is AFFIRMED. 

7 

Appellate Case: 89-3332 Document: 010110016374 Date Filed: 01/25/1991 Page: 7