NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 08a0201n .06 Fi led : A pr il 16, 2 008 07- 5681 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT KAREN CAMERON, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lee , v. GRAIN GERCOU NTY , TEN NE SSEE and RHONDA REAGAN, individually and in her of f icial ca pacity a s Circuit Court Clerk o f G ra in ge r C o u n t y, Defend ant s-Appe llants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE UN ITED ST AT ES DIST RICT COURT F O R THE EASTER N DI STRIC T OF TENN ESSEE

Before: KEI T H, DAUGHTREY, and GIBBO NS, Circuit Judges.
PERC UR IAM

. Pl ain ti ff Karen C amero n fil ed th is civ il rig hts acti on purs uant to 42 U.S.C. § 19 8 3 , c la iming thatshe w as term inate d f rom h er position as dep uty court clerk becau se sh e m a rried int o a famil y thatw as pol it ic all y

oppos ed to the re -e lecti on of the Ci rc uitC our

t C ler k, defendant R honda R eag an. The di str ict c our t found t hat t he ter minat ion cons ti tuted re tal iat ion ag ain st the p lai nti ff ’s ex erci se of her Fi rs t Amend ment rig hts to political and intima te asso ciation a nd d enie d the defend ant ’s motio n for sum ma ry jud g ment bas ed on q ual ified i mmunity

. The defe n d a n t n ow appeal s t he deni al of her moti on for summar

y judg ment. Bec ause w e c oncl ude t hat a reason abl e j ur y co uld find t hat Cam eron ’s marriage w as a sub stan tial mo tiv ating facto r in R eagan ’s decision to f ire07-5681

Cam e ro n v . Gra ing

e r Co un ty

- 2 - Cam eron , and beca use th at act ion w ould constitu te a con stitutio nal vi olatio n of the clearly est abl is hed r ig ht t o i nti mate as soc iat ion under the Fi rs t Amendment, w e af firm the de ci si on of the di str ict c our

t den y ing q ual ified i mmunity to the d efendant.
FACTUA L A ND PROCEDUR A L BACKGROUND
In 19 96, Came ron be gan w orking at the Grainger Coun ty Circuit Court Clerk’ s of f ice
a s a d e p u t y

c l e r ku n d e r

t h e s u p e r

v i s i o n o f t h e c l e r ko f

c o u rt , d e fe n d a n tR e a g a n . On J uly 15, 2 004, Cameron’ s t hen boyfrie nd ( lat er her hus ban d ), M ichael C amero n, as saul ted Cameron after

fals ely ac cus ing her

o f d ati ng so meone el se and, dur ing the ass aul t, threatened C amero n a n d oth er co urt personne l w it h har m if a w ar ra nt w ere tak en out ag ain st him. Des pit e the threat, Cameron g av e a s tatementto pol ic e the next day and on Jul y 17, 20 0 4 , a wa rrantw as is sued and s er v ed on Mi chael C amero n for ag g ra v ated
as s au l t. R ea g an w as w i th C am eron w he n s he g av e th e s ta te me nt an d, th erefo re, b ec am e aw are of the threat a g ain st cour t personne l.
Acc ordin g to Cameron, a lt houg h the as saul t and the threat w ere c ommon know led g e i n the off ic e, i t di d notca use any u n d u e d isr upti on and she w as not t re ated adv ersel y

by her co -wor kers o r by

R eag an. The onl y chang e in the off ic e routi ne w as that a deputy sh er iff patroll ed the area of the cour thous e w here the cl er k’ s o ff ic e w as loc ated on foot for a few

w eeks after

the inc ide nt, but no f urther threats w ere made a nd th e pat ro l
ceas ed.07-5681

Cam e ro n v . Gra ing

e r Co un ty

- 3 - Beca use the c ri minal co mplai nt w as filed i n Grain g er C ounty , the g ra nd j ur

y ’s rev iew of the c ase and t he rela ted p aper w or k w ere handl ed i n the cler k’ s o ff ic e w here C amero n
w or ked. Al thoug h R eag an as ked Cameron n o t to handle a ny of thi s p aper

w or k, and Cameron full y

co mpli ed, C amero n contends that at no ti me before her mar ri ag e to Mi chael Cam eron on Au gust 16, 20 04, di d R e a ga n m e ntion anything abou t a conf lict of interest
nece ssitating Came ron’s ta k in g a l eave of abse nce d uring the pe nde ncy of the case ag ain st Mi chael C amero n.
At s ome poi nt after

R eag an bec ame aw are of Camero n’s m ar ri ag e, Reag an as ked Cameron to tak e a lea v e of ab senc e. Cameron ex pla ine d i n her depos it ion thatR eag an f irst told her the leave w as ne cessary to av oid th e “co n f lict of interest” tha t w ould arise if Cameron c onti nued t o w or k i n the cl er k’ s o ff ic e w h ile h e r husb and’ s c ri minal ca se w as bein g han dled there. Later R eagan told Camero n tha t regardless of how the criminal case
w as resolved, she did not w antCame ron to retu rn to w ork until after the upco min g August 2006 el ect ion , s ome tw o y ears a w ay . Acc ordin g to the p lai nti ff , Mi chael Cameron and his father , Ea rl C amero n, w ere bot h active political opp one nts of Reagan, ha v ing supp orted her oppon ent s in electio ns for clerk of cour t s inc e the 1994 ele cti on. Ear l Cameron w as a former Grain g er

C ounty Sher iff and, at t he tim e o f the ev ents i n thi s c ase, a c ounty co mmiss ion er . Rea g an admi tted in her depos it ion thatsh e w as aw are of the Camerons’ oppos it ion to her re- ele cti on, a t l eastw it h regard to the mostrecent election in 200 2. How ever, the plaint if f had not w orked against07-5681

Cam e ro n v . Gra ing

e r Co un ty

- 4 - Rea g an in any ele cti on pr ior to he r ter minat ion

. Cameron te sti fied i n her depos it ion that she initia lly

agreed to a leave of abse nce, but w hen Reagan told her it w ould contin ue u ntil after the 2 006 el ect ion , she refused to tak e the l eav e, s ay ing thatsh e w oul d l ose her ins urance cov erag e i f it w ere for that lon g . As a resul t, Reag an offici all y ter minat ed Cameron on Janua ry

13, 2005. One w eek lat er , on Janua ry 20, 2005, Mi chael C amero n
w as ind icted b y

the Grain g er

County grand jur

y . H e ev entual ly

pl eaded g uil ty

to a reduce d charg e of ass aul t, ser

v ed 30 day s in jai l, and w as pla ced on probati on for the remaind er of his se ntenc e of 11 mont hs and 29 day s.
In he r de positio n, Reagan testif ied tha t she consid ered Ca me ron to h ave a conf lict of inte re st sta rt ing from t he ti me of the ass aul t and denied that C amero n’s mar ri ag e had anythi ng to do w it h the dec is ion to dis charg e her . Reag an al so desc ri bed t he c onfli ct as ongoi ng , i nsi sti ng thata l eav e of abse nce w oul d hav e been neces sar y unti l the l it ig ati on in M ic hael Camero n’s case w as compl eted, incl udi ng the appeal thatw as sti ll pendi ng at the tim e of

R eag an’ s d eposi ti on i n October 2006. Pu shed for det ail s a bout the a ll eg ed confli ct of inte re st, R eag an te sti fied onl y that“ itw oul d be a c onfli ct for h er to handl e the paper w or k, to s end outj ur

y noti ces , t alk

to the p eopl e, t alk to the jurors” bec ause she w as a w it ness in the cas e ag ain st her husba nd. She w as forced to admit , how ev er , t hat d ur ing the si x -mont h per iod betw een Mi chael Cameron’ s ind ictment and t he pl ain ti ff ’s l astw eek of w or k, there w as no appa re nt di sr upti on of w or k i n the cl erk’ s o ff ic e att ri butabl e to the all eg ed c onfli ct of inte re st on th e pl ain ti ff ’s par t.07-5681

Cam e ro n v . Gra ing

e r Co un ty

- 5 - In he r moti on for summar y j udg ment, Rea g an c lai med th a t n o c o n sti tuti onal v iol ati on occ ur re d i n c onnec tio n wit h h e r d is charg e of Ca meron , butthat– i f it did – t he const itution al rig ht involv ed was not clearly esta blished at the t im e o f t h e plain tif

f ’s ter mina t i o n . S h e n o w a p p e a l s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt ’ s r u l i n g t h a t s h e w a s n o t e n t i t l e d to qualif ied imm unity on tha t basis.
DI SC US SION
W e re vie w de nov

o a di str ict c our

t’ s d e cision on s ummary j udg ment den y ing q ual ified i mmunity , t aki ng al l inferences to be draw n f ro m the under ly ing facts i n the l ig ht most fav orabl e to the n on- mov ing par ty

. See Sowar

ds v. Loudon Cou nty, 203 F .3d 4 26, 438 ( 6th C ir . 200 0)

. Summary j udg ment i s p ro per

onl y if there is no g enui ne is sue as to any mater ial fact, and t he mov ing par ty i s e nti tl ed to j udg ment as a matter of l aw . See id. at 431; Fed. R. Civ . P. 56(c ). Moreov er , w e apply a “ tw o- ste p tes t for deter mini ng w hether a gov er n m e n tof

f icial is ent itled to q ualif ied imm unity.” Sowar ds , 203 F .3d a t 438

. The pla int iff must est abl is h, firs t, that a s tate off ic ial v iol ated a c onst it uti onal ly -p ro tec ted r ig ht and, sec ond, that the r ig ht w as cl ear ly es tabl is hed at the t ime of the v iol ati on s uch that the defendant offici al shoul d reason abl y hav e k now n t h a t the c onduc t i n q uest ion w as uncon sti tuti onal

. See id.
Al thoug h the pl ain ti ff ple aded her cl aim as a v iol ati on of her F irst Amendment ri g hts to both int imate as so ciation and political associa tion, beca use Cam eron did notshare07-5681

Cam e ro n v . Gra ing

e r Co un ty

- 6 - Mi chael C amero n’s pol it ic al oppos it ion to Rea gan p rior to her ter minat ion , i t i s u ncl ear
w hether the ri g ht to poli ti cal assoc iat ion w as pro per ly inv oked. The cas e law cite d bythe pla int iff and reli ed upon by di str ict c our

t ei ther focuse s e x cl usi v ely

on t he r ig ht of i nti mate
ass oci ati on or

deal s w it h an int ertw ini ng of the tw o r ig hts , i. e., w hen the p lai nti ff sh ares or s u p p o rt s t h e p o li t ic a l vie ws o f h e r s p o u s e , a n d t h u s d o e s n o ta d d re s s t h is is s u e d ir e c t ly. Ho we ve r, b e c a u s e Ca m e ro n ’s ri gh tt o in t im a t e a s s o c ia t io n is c le a rl y im p li c a t e d h e re , we need no t deci de w hether her r ig ht t o pol it ic al ass oci ati on i s a ls o at is sue. See Adkin s v. Bd. of Educ. of Ma goffi n C ounty, 9 8 2 F

. 2 d 9 5 2 , 9 5 6 ( 6 t h C i r . 1 9 9 3 ) ( G i v e n t h a tp l a i n t i ff tes ti fied th at s he ag re ed w it h the p oli ti cal v iew of her hus band t hat w as the s ource of her super v isor ’s ire, “ thi s may

be t he c ase w here bot h [po li ti cal and int imat e] fre edom of
ass oci ati on are impl ic ated. It is not neces sar y to deci de w hether both forms are i mpli cat ed, how ev er ; w e hav e no doubt that [i nti mate as soc iat ion ] i s i mpli cat ed.” ).
In ou r en banc

dec is ion i n Thaddeus-

X v . Bl atter , 175 F.3d 37 8, 39 4 (6th Cir. 199 9),
w e cry stalized the ba sis fo r Fi rst Ame ndm entretaliation claims in to a th ree-pa rt analysis. To est abl is h an aff ir mati v e c ase, the pla int iff mus t show (1 ) that she eng ag ed i n protec ted condu ct; ( 2) thatthere w as an adv erse act ion tak en ag ain st her “ that w oul d det er

a pe rs on of ordinary firmn ess f rom c ont inuing to en gage i n the cond uct”; an d (3) that “the re is a
caus al conne cti o n b e tw een el ements one and tw o- thati s, the a dv erse act ion w as mo tiv ate d at lea st in part b y t h e p laintif f ’s protecte d con duct .” Id. I n the l astst ep, “ the subje ctiv e mo tiv ation o f t he def end ant s is at issue .” Id. at 39 9. Onc e the pl ain ti ff fini shes her aff ir mati v e cas e by show ing “ that [her ] protec ted c onduc t w as a moti v ati ng factor behi nd07-5681

Cam e ro n v . Gra ing

e r Co un ty

- 7 - any harm, ” unde r the bu rden -shif ting f rame w ork e stab lished by the Supre me Court in Mount Health y City School District Board of Ed ucat ion v. Doyle , 429 U .S. 274 ( 1977) , t he defendant i s s ti ll enti tl ed to prev ail on summar y judg ment “[i ]f the defendant c an s how that he w oul d hav e tak en th e s a m e a ct ion i n the abs ence of the protec ted a cti v ity .” Thad deu s-X

, 175 F .3d a t 399

. W e hav e s inc e appl ied the Thad deu s-X rub ric to a First Am end me nt reta liation ca se sim il ar to the c ase at ha nd. In Sowar ds v. Loudon Cou nty, 203 F.3d 42 6, 42 9 (6th Cir. 2000) , t he pl ain ti ff , a jai ler w or ki ng under

the county

sh er iff, cl aimed that alt houg h s he w as ost ensi bly

fired for a mi sta ke in one of her j ob dut ies , s peci fical ly fail ing to find an outs tandi ng w ar ra nt resul ti ng i n a ind iv idu al bei ng let out of cust ody w it hout bei ng se rv ed, the s her iff’s re a l moti v ati on for ter minat ing her w as her su ppor t of her hus band as the oppos ing ca ndi date ag ain st the i ncumbentsh er iff in a re centel ect ion . W e r e v ersed the dis tr ict c our

t’ s g ra nt of summary

judg ment to the defendant sher iff on the pl ain ti ff ’s § 19 83 cl aim fo r v iol ati on of her r ig hts of pol it ic al and i nti mate as soc iat ion , poi nti ng out that the Thad deu s-X

anal y si s “ focuses on w hether the adv erse employ ment act ion w as moti v ated in subst ant ial p art by the plaintif f ’s constitu tiona lly

protect ed a ctiv ity .” Sowar ds , 203 F .3d at 43 1, 43 5. W e hel d that the plai nti ff had suffici entl y

show n that “ she w as eng ag ed i n the protec ted c onduc t of i nti mate as soc iat ion under the Fi rs t Amendment,” that her t er minat ion “q ual ifi[ ed] a s an adv erse employ ment acti on for purpos es of a retal iat ion clai m,” and that she had present ed “ suffici ent e v ide nce upon w hic h a re asona ble j uror co uld co ncl ude t hat [the] dec is ion to ter minat e her empl oy ment w as subs tanti ally m o ti v ated by her protec ted07-5681

Cam e ro n v . Gra ing

e r Co un ty

- 8 - First Amen dm entassociat iona l ri ghts.” Id. at 433- 34. To show su bst anti al moti v ati on, t he pla int iff had prov ide d di re ct ev ide nce – the sher iff’s eq uiv ocat ion at de posi ti on th at he “ mig ht hav e treated her

ter minat ion ca se differentl y i f she had been one of hi s p oli ti cal su ppor ters.” Id. at 434 . She had also provided ci rcumst ant ial evidence – a negative chan ge in her w ork
env ironment a fter her husb and announced his candi dacy , coupl ed w it h the facts thatas ide from the w ar ra nt mi sta ke, sh e oth er w is e had an unbl emis hed per formance re cord and that other empl oyee s h a d made s imi lar ( alt houg h l ess se ri ous) mis tak es and notbeen dis ci pli ned. See id. at 434. W e al so found that the s h e riff had not present ed s uff ic ien t evidence to estab lish thathe w ould ha ve f ir e d h er on th e ba sis of the single mista ke inv olv ing the unser

v ed w ar ra nt ab senther as soc iat ion w it h h er

hus band, g iv en th at s he other w is e had a g ood per

formance re cord and g iv en th e s her iff’s a dmis si on th a t he had
so m e u n dersta ndi ng thatthe pla int iff w oul d s uppor t her hus band rather

than hi m in the upcomi ng el ect ion

. See id. at 435.
It is cl ear thatthe dis tr ict cou rti n thi s c ase cor re ctl y deni ed s ummary

j udg ment on the q ualif ied imm unity claim. Reagan con cede s thatCame ron wa s “ e ngaged in
cons ti tuti onal ly

protec ted c onduct in m a rr y ing M ic hael C amero n and that her ter minat ion
cons ti tutes an a dv erse employ ment acti on,” sa ti sfy ing the firs t tw o s teps i n the retal iat ion anal y si s. See Thad deu s-X , 175 F .3d a t 394

. The de f e n d a nt c ontends , how ev er , t hat Came ro n c a n n o t p ro v e a c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n , a rg u i n g t h a t “ s h e c a n n o t e s t a b l i s h that her term inatio n w as mo tiv ate d in subst ant ial p art by he r m arriage to Micha el Came ron.” See id. at 394 . Reagan asse rts that “Plain tif f adm itted in h er d epo sition tha t her ref usal to ta ke07-5681

Cam e ro n v . Gra ing

e r Co un ty

- 9 - a l eav e of abse nce (a fter ori g ina ll y agreei ng to do so) and re sul ti ng ter minat ion had nothi ng to do w it h her

mar ri ag e to Mi chael C amero n. The depos it ion pas sag e c it ed, h ow ev er , doe s not s uppor

t t his proposi ti on w hen i t i s v iew ed i n the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the p lai nti ff

. In t he rele v ant p orti on of the depos it ion , Cameron ex pla ine d tha t s he i nit ial ly ag re ed to t ake a l eav e of abse nce based on t he s uppos ed c onfli ct o f i n terestca used by

her
marr iag e, bu t w hen R eag an i nformed her tha t th e leav e w oul d be unti l after the e lecti on, she ch anged her mind beca use sh e realized she cou ld notaf ford to b e ou t of

w ork for such a l ong per iod of t ime. Cameron poi nts out that any “c onfli ct” re sul ted a s s oon as sh e fil ed the c omplai nt ag ain st Mi chael C amero n and the paper w or k beg an fil ter ing i nto t he office,
a con ten tion th at Rea gan herself adm itt e d in her de positio n, an d tha t it w as suf f iciently tak e n care of becaus e s he di d notw or k d irect ly on t he c ase. Then, itw as onl y after her
ma rriag e to R eagan ’s political oppo nen t tha t Reagan becam e conce rned abo ut th e con f lict to such thatan e xt e n tt h a t a prolon ged leave of abse nce was deem ed n ecessa ry . More impor tantl y , bec ause the 2 006 elec ti on had no l og ic al re lat ion to the c onfli ct or the neces si ty of anyl eav e of abse nce, R eag an’ s referenc e to the ele cti on tends to est abl is h tha t t he real
re a s o n fo r C a m e ro n ’s t e rm in a t io n w a s h e r m a rr ia ge in t o a p o li t ic a ll y a d ve rs e fa m il y. Beca use a re asona ble jur y coul d s o c oncl ude, w e hol d tha t t he pl ain ti ff has met h er

burden.
Turni ng to the b urden- shi fting par t of the re tal iat ion anal y si s, w e further conc lud e tha t the d efendant has not prov ed th at, v iew ing the ev ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the p la in t if f , sh e wo u ld h a ve t e rm in a t e d Ca m e ro n e ve n in t h e a b s e n c e o f t h e p ro t e c t e d a c t ivi t y,07-5681

Cam e ro n v . Gra ing

e r Co un ty

- 10 - i. e. , her marr iag e int o the Cameron family

. See Thad deu s-X , 175 F .3d a t 399 ; Sowar ds , 203 F.3d at 435. Rea g an has of fered some pol icy

rati onal e for her

ac ti on, i. e. , tha t the re
w as a c onfli ct o f

interestthatnec ess it ated an extended lea v e of abse nce (t hat, w hen
re fused, req uired te rmi nati on)

. It is , how ev er , not a co nv inc ing one, g iv en th at t here appea r to be l ess drast ic w ay s of t aki ng care of any co nflict and , moreov er , t hat t he 2006 el ect ion apparentl y had nothi ng to do w it h any percei v ed c onfli ct of inte re st and y et w as broug ht i nto the e q uati on by

R eag an. Cer

tai nly the defendant has not poi nted to any ev ide nce, su ch as a w ri tten or g enerall y

kn ow n pol icy

reg ardin g co nflicts of inte re st that neces si tate extended lea v es, thatw oul d s how thatshe w as req uired to take the same act ion w it hout re g ard to the ele cti on.
The defendant als o arg ues that “e v en as sumi ng thatPl ain ti ff ’s co nst it uti onal r ig hts
w ere v iol ated, Pl ain ti ff ca nnot show

thatsu ch ri g hts w ere c lea rl y es tabl is hed.” The defenda n t i s c or re ct that “[ t]he re lev ant, dis posi ti v e i nq uir y i n det er mini ng w hether a r ig ht is clearly e s t a blished is w het her it w ould be clear to a reason able of f icer that h is condu ct
w as un lawf ul in the situ ation he con f ronte d,” Mi ller v. Adm in. Office of t

he C our ts , 448 F .3d 887 , 896 (6th Cir. 200 6) (interna l q uot ation s and citation omitt ed), an d tha t the court “do[e s] not a ss ess the ri g ht v iol ated at a hig h l ev el of ge nerali ty , but , i nst ead,

. . . must deter mine
w het her the rig ht w as ‘clearly estab lished’ in a m ore pa rticularliz ed, and hen ce mo re relevant, sen se. . . .” My er s v . Po tter , 422 F .3d 3 47, 3 56 ( 6th C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ). How ev er , t he opi nio n i n Sowar

ds and our ear li er dec is ion i n Adki

ns meet thes e s tandards. Bo th c ases have facts sub sta n t ia ll y s im ilar to the case at han d an d the refore esta blished w ell before07-5681

Cam e ro n v . Gra ing

e r Co un ty

- 11 - Rea g an’ s a cti v ity

i n thi s c ase that re tal iat ion for t he ex erci se of a pla int iff’s Fi rs t Amend ment ri g ht t o i nti mate as soc iat ion i s a co n st it uti onal v iol ati on. Any factual di sti nct ion s b etw een thos e c ases and thi s one are si mply not subs tanti al enoug h to be g er mane to the is sue of
w hether the ri g ht w as cl ear ly

es tabl is hed atthe ti me that the ev ents i n thi s c ase took pl ace.
I n s uppor

t of the cont enti on th at no “ cl ear ly es tabl is hed” r ig ht w as v iol ated, the d e f e ndant stress es that Cameron w as an empl oy ee atw il l and t hat s he w as “t er minat ed after her refusal to t ake a l eav e of abse nce to prev ent t he appe arance of cor ru pti on.” How ev er , i n Adki

ns , the plai nti ff , too, w as an at-w il l employ ee, and the courtex pla ine d tha t alt houg h the pl ain ti ff

“ had no proper

ty r ig ht t o c onti nued empl oy ment[, ] s he had a l ibe rty int eresti n notbei ng deni ed empl oy ment for exe rcisi ng her F irst Amendment ri g ht t o f reed om of

associat ion.” Adki

ns , 982 F .2d a t 955 ; see also Thad deu s-X , 175 F .3d a t 394 (“[R]etaliatio n for the ex ercise of const itution al rig hts is itself a v iolation of

the Con stitutio n.”); Cr awfor d- El v. Br itton , 523 U. S. 574, 589, n.10 (1 998) (“ The re ason w hy su ch ret a liati on of fend s the C onst itution is that it threa ten s to inhibit e x ercise of the pro tecte d rig ht.”). Likewise, here it is the plaint if f ’s ri ght not to suf

fer retaliatio n for the e x ercise of her First Amendment ri g ht t o assoc iat ion that is at iss ue. The defendant’ s c ontent ion thatsh e had
no retal iat or

y moti v e bec ause she ter minat ed C amero n noton the b a si s o f her marr iag e, but rather

to prev ent t he appe arance of cor ru pti on, req uires us to v iew the facts in the l ig ht most fav orabl e to the d efendant rather than , as w e must , i n the pl ain ti ff ’s fav or .07-5681

Cam e ro n v . Gra ing

e r Co un ty

- 12 - Finally , the defend antargues thatshe is entitle d to qualif ied imm unity becau se “P lai nti ff has offered no ev ide nce to s howt h a t Ms. Reag an’ s t er minat ion of Pl ain ti ff w as ‘o bje ct ivel y un re a so n a b le ,’ ” cit in g Esta te of Carter v. City of Detroit , 408 F. 3d 305, 310- 11 n.2 (6th Cir. 2005 ). T his argume nt i s prem ised on the d efend ant ’s conte ntion thata “conf lict of interest” m otivated th e term inatio n, bu t as the d istrict court held a nd a s the reco rd esta blishes, w hen v iew ed in th e lig ht m ost favora ble to the pla intif f , the facts sho w

thatit
w as Cameron’ s mar ri ag e i nto a pol it ic all y adv erse family , not a confli ct of inte re st, thatw as behi nd R eag an’ s a cti on. Mo re ov er , Adki ns and Sowar

ds supp ort the co nclusion t hatsuch a term inatio n w ould be “obje ctiv ely unre aso n able .” Cf

. Cr awfor d- El , 523 U .S. at 59 3- 94 (rejecting Justice Scalia’s “unp reced ent ed p ropo sal” in his dissent “to imm unize all of f icials
w hose cond uct is ‘objectively v alid’ regardless of

improp er inten t”).
Rel y ing on Sowar

ds and Adki

ns in r u lin g that th e defendant w as not e nti tl ed to q ual ified i mmunity

i n thi s c ase, the dis tr ict c our t hel d that “c onsi der ing the e v ide nce in the li g ht most fav orabl e to the pla int iff, a re asona ble jur y coul d conc lud e that a s ubst anti al factor in Ms. Re a gan ’s de cis io n to te rm in a te th e p la in ti f f ’s em p lo yme n t was th e pl a in ti f f ’s m a rria ge to M r. C amero n, a member of a family w hic h w as compr is ed of her pol it ic al opponent s” and conclu ded thatthe allegatio n, if proved, w ould “state a con stitutio nal First Ame ndm entclaim
u p o n w h i c h re l i e f c o u l d b e g ra n t e d

. ” W e a g re e . T h e d e fe n d a n t ’ s a rg u me n tth a tth e p l a i n t i ff
w as ter minat ed notbec ause of her m a rriag e to a pol it ic al opponentbut becau se she
re fu s e d t o t a k e a l e a v e o f a b s e n c e i s u n p e rs u a s i v e , g i v e n t h e fa c t t h a t t h e t e r m of the
re q u i re d l e a v e w a s t o a n i n d e fi n i t e date b e yo n d the next l

ocal elect ion some tw o y ears07-5681

Cam e ro n v . Gra ing

e r Co un ty

- 13 - aw ay . That demand bore no obj ect iv ely reason abl e rela ti on to the pur por ted c onfli ct of int erestar is ing from t he pen d in g c riminal ca se but w as cl ear ly co nnect ed to a cons ti tuti onal ly

i mprop er

purp o se. M oreov er , t he pl ain ti ff had manag ed to remain in the clerk’s of

f ice during the six mo nth s betwe en th e assa ult by M ichae l Camero n an d his ind ictment w it hout any

apparent c onfli ct – of i nterest or other w is e. Fi nal ly , becau se of the
ex is tenc e of the Soward opinio n, as well as Adkins , t he defendant canno t c lai m thatthe F i rs t Am en dm en t r i g hto n w hi c h th e pl ai nt i ff rel i es w as n otc learlye s ta bl i s he d att he t i me she w as dis charg ed i n J anuar y 2005.
For th e re a s o n s s e t o u t a b o v e , w e A F F I R M t h e j u d g me n t o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o urt and REMAND this case for f urthe r proceed ings.