# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 29 48

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Je an et te McKee

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

Su sa n Hi ck m an

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff

Sh aro n R eb ecca Hick m an

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Mi ch ael Reu te r, in hi s in di vi du al capac ity ; Ch ri sty Sc ri vne r, in he r ind iv id ua l cap aci ty

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el la nt

s

Teres a Cu si ck

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Defe nd an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 26 , 20 18 Fi le d: Jan ua ry

8, 2 01 9 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __Befo re HARTZ, BALDOCK, and HOLMES, Circ ui t J ud ge s. *

__ __ __ __ __ __ HOLMES, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Je an et te McKe e a n d Sh aro n Reb ecca Hick m an br ou gh t Fi rs t Am en dm en t
p ol it ic al pa tro na ge cl ai m s un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 ag ai ns t Mi ch ael Reu te r, t h e Rep ub li can el ect ed cl erk of th e Ci rcu it Co ur t of Je ffer so n Co un ty, Mi ss ou ri, an d hi s

su bo rd in at e, Ch ris ty Scri vn er. Afte r di sm is si ng so m e cl ai m s, th e di st ric t co ur t 1
de ni ed Mr. Reu te r an d Ms

. Scri vn er su m m ary jud gm en t ba se d on qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. The y ap p e a l e d
, an d ex erci si ng juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91
, we affi rm th e de ni al of q ua li fie d i m

m un it y

.

I A. Jean et te McKee Ms

. McKe e be ga n wor ki ng fo r th e Ci rcu it Co ur t of Je ffer so n Co un ty, Mi ss ou ri in 19 89

. In 19 98
, sh e be cam e th e ch ie f de pu ty cl erk

. In 20 14
, sh e was bo th th e hi gh es t ra nk in g a nd th e h ig he st pa id de pu ty clerk , and sh e was no m in at ed to run as th e Dem oc rat ic can di da te to rep la ce th e ou tg oi ng cl erk of co ur t. Her op po ne nt in th e ge ne ral el ect io n was Mr. Reu te r, th e Rep ub li can can di da te

. Dur in g th e co ur se of th e

cam pa ig n, Ms

. McKe e pu bl ic ly co m m en te d th at Mr. Reu te r ha d be en accu se d of do m es ti c vi ol en ce. A l t h o u gh he la te r ack no wled ge d he was arre st ed fo r do m es ti c vi ol en ce an d hi s wife ob ta in ed a te m po rary pr ot ect iv e or de r ag ai ns t hi m , he in di cat ed th at no ch arg es were ev er fil ed

. Mr. Reu te r won th e el ect io n a n d t o o k o f fic e on Ja nu ary 2, 2 01 5.

* Th e H o n or ab le Harri s L. Hart z, th e Hon or ab le Bo bb y R. Bal do ck
, an d th e Hon or ab le Je ro m e A. Hol m es , Uni te d St at es Co ur t of App eal s fo r th e Ten th Ci rcu it
, si tt in g b y in te rci rcu it de si gn at io n.
The Hon or ab le Cat he rin e D. Perr y , Uni t e d S ta te s Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-On M r

. R e u t e r ’s fir st da y on th e job
, he an d hi s wife
, Ren ee Reu te r, were

pr es en t whe n Ms

. McKe e arri ve d at wor k. Befo re Ms

. McKe e rem ov ed he r co at , Mr. Reu te r in st ru ct ed he r to rel oc at e he r wor k st at io n from he r se m i-p riv at e de sk to

a cu bi cl e im m ed ia te ly ou ts id e hi s of fic e. Mr. Reu te r as su red he r th at he r du ti es

wou ld rem ai n th e sa m e, m ea ni ng sh e wou ld st il l be th e ch ie f de pu ty cl erk

. Bu t th e

ne xt da y , he di rect ed Ms

. McKe e t o t en d th e fro nt co un te r an d an swe r te le ph on es whi le he co nv en ed a m eet in g of a l l th e de pu ty cl erk s, of who m th ere were
ap pr ox im at el y 53

. At th e m eet in g, Mr. Reu te r an no un ced th at Ms

. Scri vn er, who ha d

no rel ev an t ex pe rie nc e, wou ld be th e ch ie f de pu ty cl erk
, no t Ms

. McKe e. Mr. Reu te r he ld an ot he r m eet in g of su pe rv is or s im m ed ia te ly aft erwar ds an d ag ai n ex cl ud ed
Ms

. McKe e. On Mr. Reu te r’s th ird da y as cl erk
, he di rect ed Ms

. McKe e to su rren de r he r of fic e ke y s an d pa rk in g pa ss be cau se sh e was no lo ng er th e ch ie f de pu ty c le rk

. At so m e po in t, he al so in st al le d two se cu r i t y cam eras in th e of fic e. By th e en d of
Mr. Re ut er’s s eco nd week in off ic e, Ms . McKee was o n m ed ic al lea ve

.

Ms

. McKe e ret ur ne d fro m med i c a l le av e in earl y Feb ru ary 20 15

. W he n sh e
ret ur ne d, Mr. Reu te r is su ed he r a no ti ce of co rrec ti ve act io n “ fo r (1 ) fai lu re or refu sa l

to co m pl y wit h a la wfu l or de r an d to acce pt a rea s o n a b l e an d pr op er as si gn m en t fro m an au th or iz ed su pe rv is or ; (2 ) do cu m en te d i n e ffi ci en cy , in co m pe te nc e,

ne gl ig en ce [.

. .] in th e pe rfo rm an ce of du ti es ; an d (3 ) be ha vi or th at ad ve rs el y affe ct s th e co ur t or th e em

pl oyees’ ab il it y to pe rfo rm as si gn ed du ti es .” Apl t. App

. a t 25 7. The no ti ce in di cat ed th at Mr. Reu te r rece iv ed a co m pl ai nt fro m Ms

. S c r i v n e r , who cl ai m ed th at Ms

. McKe e refu se d to he lp up da te f o r ms an d no ti fy at to rn ey s ab ou t ti m e-s en si ti ve m at eri al s. The no ti ce st at ed th at Ms . M cKee’s a t t i t u d e was crea ti ng

“ a ho st il e wor k en vi ro nm en t,” id

. , an d th at if sh e was “ un ab le to ob ey [Mr

. Reu te r’s]

or de rs or pe rfo rm [h er] job du ti es ,” sh e wo u l d be su bjec t to di sc ip li na ry act io n, in cl ud in g di sm is sa l, id

. at 25 8. The no ti ce al so in fo rm ed Ms

. McKe e th at sh e wou ld be m eet in g wit h Mr. Reu te r m on th ly “ to as se ss [ h e r ] p r og res s in res ol vi ng th es e is su es .” Id

.

-3

-M s

. McKe e co nt es te d th e no ti ce of co rrec ti ve act io n by fil in g a fo rm al

gr ie va nc e wit h Mr. Reu te r. Sh e de ni ed th e al le ga ti on s an d as se rte d th e “ co rrec ti ve
act io n was po li ti cal ly m ot iv at ed .” Id

. at 26 1. Sh e req ue st ed th at it be wit hd rawn in it s en ti ret y , st at in g th at sh e ha d ne ve r ha d co rrec ti ve act io n ta ke n ag ai ns t he r an d th at Mr. Re ut er an d M s. Sc riv ne r were i nt en ti on al ly im pe di ng he r ab il it y

to do he r job :

You an d [Ms

. Scri vn er] ha ve pr ev en te d m e fro m do in g my job

res po ns ib il it ie s on a da il y ba si s by ex cl ud in g m e fro m m eet i n g s an d

e mai l no ti ces th at ALL ot he r em pl oyees rece iv ed

. You ha ve di s a b l e d

s ev eral co m

pu te r pr og ram fu nc ti on s

. . . wit ho ut in fo rm in g m e as t o why; or t ha t a c ha ng e was be in g m ad e to m y da il y job res po ns ib il it ie s. You ha ve hu m il ia te d m e an d si ng le d m e ou t by no t in cl ud in g m e in st aff

m eet in gs wher e al l s ta ff were in vi te d, bu t to ld m e, “ I was no t need ed ”, [s ic ] whi le ot he r su bo rd in at e em pl oyees l is te ne d an d wit ne ss ed as y ou in fo rm ed m e lo ud ly as em pl oyees were walk in g by. You ha ve ta ke n m e
ou t o f an y

su pe rv is or y

or m an ag eri al po si ti on wit hi n t he off ic e.

Id

. at 26 0. Add it io na ll y , Ms

. McKe e as se rte d th a t M s

. Scri vn er was pu rp os efu ll y

m ak in g h er wo rk in g c on di ti on s i nt ol erab le :

The ho st il e wor k en vi ro nm en t is crea te d by Ch ris ty Scr iv ne r. Sh e ha s refu se d t o t a l k to m e or as k m e an y qu es ti on s. Sh e ha s to ld ot he r
em pl oyees th at it is un co m fo rta bl e fo r m e, whi ch I’ve n ev er s ai d. Sh e
s to od at th e fro nt co un te r an d read th e [n ews ]pap er art ic le in v o l v i n g a pe rs on al m at te r be twee n he r an d m y hu sb an d on Thu rs da y , Ja nu ary 29 th whe re sh e al so m ad e th reat en in g co m m en ts

. Ch ris ty st at ed
, “ It’s real ly ha rd f or he r to ke ep he r m ou th sh ut sh e wou ld rat he r ki ck so m e as s”

. [s ic ]. Sh e th en m ad e refe ren ce to he r fat he r be in g a go od sh ot as sh e wit ne ss ed hi m sh oo t he r d o g be twee n th e ey es

. . . . Thi s be ha vi or sh ou ld no t be to le rat ed an d cau se s st res s, ha ras sm en t an d a ho st il e wor k

en vi ro nm en t.

Id

. at 2 59

.

-4

-Mr. Reu te r refe rred th e gr ie va nc e to an ou ts id e fact -fi nd er, Pau l Mad do ck
, an

at to rn ey who pr ev io us ly wor ke d wit h Mrs

. Reu te r. W hi le Mr. Mad do ck in ve st ig at ed th e gr ie va nc e, Mr. Reu te r reas si gn ed Ms

. McKe e to an e n t i r e l y ne w po si ti on in an i s o l a t ed
, win do wles s of fic e do in g m ic ro fil m ta sk s. On Feb ru ary 24
, 20 1 5 , Mr. Mad do ck is su ed hi s rep or t in whi ch he “ r e l u c t a n t l y reco m m en d[ ed ]” th at th e

no ti ce of co rrec ti ve act io n be wit hd rawn

. Id

. at 27 2. Mr. Reu te r a c c e pt ed
Mr. Mad do ck ’s r eco m

m en da ti on , wit hd rew th e no ti ce of co rrec ti ve act io n, an d

ev en tu al ly allo wed Ms . McKee to ret ur n t o h er d es k.

The n on Apr il 2, 20 15
, Ms

. McKe e was in vo lv ed in an arg um en t wit h se ve ral

ot he r em pl oyees ab ou t of

fic e go ss ip

. As a res ul t, Mr. Reu te r no ti fie d Ms

. McKe e th at he in te nd ed to te rm in at e he r em pl oym en t fo r si x se pa rat e in ci de nt s, al l o f w h ic h

tra ns pi red du rin g th e si ng le arg um en t. He ha d he r es co rte d fro m th e co ur th ou se , an d
Ms

. Scr i v ne r wro te th e wor d “ ka rm a” on a bu ll et in bo ard ou ts id e he r of fic e, id

. at 19 9- 20 0. Ms

. McKe e co nt es te d he r te rm in at io n wit h Mr. Reu te r, bu t aft er a he ari ng he up he ld th e di sm is sa l. Sh e ap pe al ed to th e co ur t’s pr e s i d i n g ju dg e, who refe rred th e m at te r to a st at e-wi de bu dg et co m m it te e, whi ch
, in tu rn , ap po in te d a th ree- jud ge
pa ne l fro m ou ts id e c o u n t i e s. Afte r a le ng th y he ari ng , th e pa ne l ov ert ur ne d
Mr. Re ut er’s d eci si on an d re in st at ed Ms . McKee wit h b ack pa y

.

Ms

. McKe e ret ur ne d to wor k in Ju ne 20 15 an d was as si gn ed to t h e t r affi c di vi si on

. Her po si ti on req ui red th at sh e pe rfo rm ta sk s co ns id era b l y b e l o w he r
qu a l i f ic at io ns

. Mr. Reu te r al so in st ru ct ed Ms

. McKe e’s ne w su pe rv is or , Teres a Cu si ck
, th at Ms

. McKe e sh ou ld no t en te r th e s eco nd flo or , whe re th e m ai n cl erk ’s of fic e was lo cat ed

. Giv en th es e ci rcu m st an ces an d he r pa st ex pe rie nc es , Ms

. McKe e

res ig ne d.

B. Sh ar on Rebe cca Hick man Ms

. Hick m an was a de pu ty cl erk an d a Dem oc rat who su pp or te d Ms. McKee du rin g th e 20 14 cam

pa ig n. W he n Mr. R e u t e r t o o k of fic e, Ms

. Hick m an ha d be en

-5

-e mp l o ye d in th e cl erk ’s of fic e su pp or t di vi si on fo r fo ur y ears an d ha d no ne ga ti v e
pe rfo rm an ce ev al ua ti on s

. In Ju ly 20 15
, Mr. Reu te r tra ns ferr ed he r to th e tra ffi c di vi si on , wh ere sh e was su pe rv is ed by Ms . C us ic k. Ms . Hi ck m an was an ti c i p a ti ng

su rg ery an d rep eat ed ly as ke d Mr. Reu te r to tra ns fer he r ba ck ou t of th e tra ffi c di vi si on be cau se sh e was in pa in , bu t h e ref us ed

.

Dur in g he r te nu re in th e tra ffi c di vi si on , Ms

. Cu si ck warn ed Ms

. Hick m an th at sh e wou ld pr ob ab ly lo se he r job

. Ms

. Cu si ck to ld Ms

. Hick m an th at sh e was

“ st up id ,” th at sh e ha d a “ m en ta l ha nd ic ap ,” an d th at sh e “ wou ld ne ve r le arn th e job .” Apl t. App

. at 21 7. Ms

. Cu si ck wou ld al so as k Ms

. Hick m an , “ [D]o y ou ha ve to st an d

so cl os e to m e? ” an d “ Do y ou ha ve to be in m y [] area ? ” Id

. at 21 4. A c c o r d i n g to Ms

. Hick m an , sh e was no t “ tra in ed co ns is te nt ly” an d “ was ne ve r ta ki ng cl as se s, li ke

ot he r pe op le go t ch an ces to ,” bu t in st ead
, sh e was “ th ro wn in to a de pa rtment an d

. . .
sa t wit h so m e o n e f

o r a b ou t a week .” Id

. at 21 3. Ms

. Hick m an ex pl ai ne d th at he r
tra in in g was de fic ie nt be cau s e sh e ha d be en tra in ed by so m eo ne who ha d be en

em pl oyed in th e tra ffi c di vi si on fo r m an y y ears , bu t it wou ld ha ve be en m or e he lp fu l if sh e ha d be en tra in ed by a di ffer en t em pl oyee who ha d m or e rece nt ly go ne th ro ug h th e pr oc es s. Ms

. Hick m an be li ev ed th at Ms

. Cu si ck ad de d to th e co nf us io n by gi vi ng he r co nf li ct in g in st ru ct io ns , so m et im es te ll in g he r to an swe r th e ph on e an d go to th e win do w an d ot he r ti m es te ll in g he r no t to an swe r th e ph o n e a n d no t to go to th e win do w. Ms . Hi ck m an co m pl ai ne d t o M r

. R e ut er th at Ms . C us ic k was m is tre at in g he r an d in ad eq ua te ly tra in in g he r—wh il e Ms

. Scri vn er was pr es en t— bu t Mr. Reu te r di d no t act

. In st ead
, he to ld he r to “ go ho m e, rel ax , [an d] ha ve a go o d w e e ke nd .” Id

. at 21 7. Not w i t h s t an di ng th es e co m m en ts , he in st it ut ed m on th ly pe rfo rm an ce

rev ie ws by whi c h Ms

. Cu si ck rep eat ed ly do cu m en te d ne ga ti ve ap pr ai sa ls of
Ms

. Hick m an ’s wor k. Ms

. Cu si ck ev e n t ua ll y reco m m en de d th at Ms

. Hick m an be

te rm in at ed or tra ns ferr ed to an ot he r de pa rtment. Mr. Reu te r te rm in at ed Ms

. Hick m an

on Octo be r 13 , 20 15

.

-6

-As Ms

. McKe e ha d do ne , Ms

. Hick m an co nt es te d he r t e r mi n a ti on wit h

Mr. Reu te r. He up he ld hi s de ci si on , so s h e ap pe al ed to th e pr es id in g jud ge , who refe rred th e m at te r to th e bu dg et co m m it te e, whi ch ap po in te d an ou ts id e th ree- jud ge
pa ne l. Afte r a he ari ng , th e pa ne l ov erru l e d Mr. Reu te r’s de ci si on an d rei ns ta te d
Ms

. Hick m an wit h ba ck

pa y

. Mr. Reu te r su bs eq ue nt ly in it ia te d a la wsu it ch al le ng in g th e p a n e l ’s de ci si on

. Alt ho ug h he in it ia ll y pr ev ai le d in th at su it
, Ms

. Hick m an
ap pe al ed to th e Mi ss ou ri Co ur t App eal s, whi ch rev ers ed an d up he ld th e lo wer pa ne l’s de ci si on to rei ns ta te he r wit h ba ck pa y

. Se e Reu te r v. Hick

man , No. W D81 63 2, 20 18
W L 59 13 10 7, at *5 (Mo . Ct. Ap p. No v. 1 3, 2 01 8)

.

Me anwhi le
, Ms

. Hick m an ret ur ne d to wor k, un de rwen t su rg ery, an d af te rw ar ds

no ti fie d Mr. Reu te r, Ms . C us ic k, an d Ms . S cri vn er th at sh e was in a lo t of pa in an d th at sh e was ta ki ng pa in m ed ic at io n. Sh e r e q ue st ed to be res tri ct ed to li gh t du ty, bu t Ms

. Cu si ck to ld he r “s h e d id n’t ne ed to kn ow ab ou t [h er] m ed ic al hi st or y .” Id

. at 23 8. Ms

. Scri vn er ask ed whe th er sh e “ was ha vi ng pr ob le m s do in g [h er] job ,” id

. , whi le Mr. Reu te r di d no t res po nd at al l. Ms

. Hick m an su ffe r e d a n erv ou s br eak do wn an d wen t on m ed ic al le av e. Dur in g he r ab se nc e, Mr. Reu te r in fo rm ed he r th at an en ba nc pa ne l of jud ge s au th or iz ed he r to ta ke un pa id ex te n d e d le av e if sh e fax ed in a writ te n req ue st

. Ms

. Hick m an fax ed he r req ue s t , a n d Ms

. Scri vn er

co nf irmed th at sh e rece iv ed it

. Bu t on Octo b e r 5 , 20 16
, Ms

. Scri vn er to ld
Ms

. Hick m an th at he r req ue st was no t da te d, so sh e ne ed ed to ret ur n to wor k th e ne xt da y or s he wou ld lo se he r job . Ms. Hi ck m an res ig ne d.

II Bas ed on th es e ev en ts , Ms

. McKe e an d Ms

. Hick m an fil ed an a mend ed

co m pl ai nt un de r 42 U.S

. C. § 19 83
, na m in g as de fen da nt s Mr. Reu te r, Mrs

. Reu te r, Ms

. Scri vn er, Ms

. Cu si ck
, an d Je ffer so n Co un ty, Mi ss ou ri. Ms

. McKe e an d 2
M s

. Hick m an cl ai m ed de fen da nt s vi ol at ed th ei r Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht s by ta ki n g

A th ird de pu ty cl erk
, Su sa n Hick m an , was a pl ai nt iff
, bu t th e di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d 2

so m e o f he r cl ai m s an d g ran te d s um m ary jud gm en t o n t he res t.

-7

-ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t act io n ag ai ns t th em on acco un t of th ei r po li ti cal affi li at io ns an d

act iv it ie s du rin g th e 2 0 1 4 c a mp ai gn

. The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d se ve ral cl ai m s

un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 12 (b )(6 )
, le av in g Ms

. McKe e’s cl ai m s ag ai ns t Mr. Reu te r an d Ms

. Scri vn er, an d al so le av in g M s

. H i c k m an ’s cl ai m s ag ai ns t Mr. Reu te r, Ms

. Scri vn er, an d Ms

. Cu si ck

. Fo ll owi ng di sc ov ery, th es e de fe n da nt s

m ov ed for su m

m ary jud gm en t b as ed on qu al ifi ed im m un it y

.

The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d qu al ifi ed im m un it y on Ms

. Hick m an ’s cl ai m ag ai ns t Ms

. Cu si ck
, ru li ng th ere w a s n o ev id en ce sh e in te nd ed to te rm in at e Ms

. Hick m an b a s e d on he r po li ti cal affi li at io n. Rat he r, th e co ur t ob se rv ed
, Ms

. Cu si ck ’s

reco m m en da ti on to tra ns fer or te rm in at e Ms

. Hick m an was ba se d on he r al le ge d po or job pe rfo rm an ce. The co ur t ci te d Ms

. Cu si ck ’s affi da vi t in di cat in g th at Ms

. Hick m an is su ed arre st warra nt s fo r th e wro ng pe op l e , fai le d to is su e warra nt s in a ti m el y fas hi on an d as di rect ed
, fai le d to ch eck he r of fic e m ai l fo r on e m on th
, an d ot he rwis e di sp la y ed ne gl ect , in co m

pe te nc e, an d po or pe rfo rm an ce. The co ur t po in te d ou t th at Ms

. Hick m an di d no t dispu te th es e ne ga ti ve av erm en ts reg ard in g he r pe rfo rm an ce bu t

mer e ly de ni ed rem em

be rin g th em an d ack no wled ge d th at sh e m ad e so m e m is t a k e s du e to po or tra in in g.

The co ur t fu rth er co nc lu de d th a t M s. Hick m an ’s on ly ev id en ce ag ai ns t Ms

. Scri vn er was (1 ) sh e was pr es en t whe n M s

. Hick m an co m pl ai ne d ab ou t Ms

. Cu si ck ’s mi st reat m en t to Mr. Reu te r an d (2 ) Ms

. Scri vn er fal se ly to ld
Ms

. Hick m an th at he r req ue st fo r ex te nd ed m ed ic al le av e was co m pl et e whe n it was

no t. The co ur t d e t e r mi ne d th es e ci rcu m st an ces fai le d to es ta bl is h a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n.

The c ou rt de ni ed qu al ifi ed im m un it y , ho wev er, on Ms

. Hick m an ’s cl ai m ag ai ns t Mr. Reu te r, as w e l l a s Ms

. McKe e’s cl ai m s ag ai ns t Mr. Reu te r an d
Ms

. Scri vn er. The co ur t de te rm in ed th e la w go ve rn in g th es e cl ai m s was cl earl y

es ta bl is he d an d th e fact s, ac c e p t e d i n th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Ms

. McKe e an d

-8

-Ms

. Hick m an , w e r e s u f f i ci en t to sh ow a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n. Mr. Reu te r an d 3
Ms

. Scri vn er sub se qu en tl y br ou gh t th is in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al to ch al le ng e th e d en ia l of qu al ifi ed im m

un it y

.

III

“ W e rev ie w a de ni al of su m m ary jud gm en t on th e gr ou nd s o f qu al ifi ed im m un it y de no vo .” No rd v. W al sh Ct y. , 75 7 F.3 d 73 4, 73 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 )

. W e ha ve juri sd ic ti on ov er th e de ni al of su m m ary jud gm en t ba se d on qu al ifi ed im m un it y whe n th e “ in te rlo c u t o r y a p pe al [] reac he s on ly to is su es of la w.” Ferg us on v. Sh or t , 84 0 F.3 d 50 8, 51 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 )

. In ev al ua ti ng th e de ni al of qu al ifi ed im m un it y , we as k

“ (1 ) whe th er th e fact s ta ke n in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to [th e pl ai nt iff s] m ak e ou t a vi ol at io n of a co ns ti tu ti on al or st at ut or y rig ht ; an d (2 ) whe th er th at rig ht was cl earl y

es ta bl is he d at th e ti m e of th e al le ge d vi ol at io n.” Th omp so n v. Ci ty of Mon ti cel lo
, 89 4 F.3 d 99 3, 99 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 )

. “ Our rev ie w is th us li m it ed to de te rm in in g whe th er al l of th e c o n d u ct th at th e di st ric t co ur t de em ed su ffi ci en tl y su pp or te d fo r pu rp os es of

su mm a r y ju dg m en t vi ol at ed th e pl ai nt iff [s ’] cl earl y es ta bl is he d fed eral rig ht s.” Id

. at 99 7- 98 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

It is cl earl y es ta bl is he d th at th e pr act ic e of po li ti cal pa tro na ge , in whi ch “ pu bl ic

e m pl oyees ho ld th ei r job s on th e co nd it io n th at th ey pr ov id e, in so m e acce pt ab l e

m an ne r, su pp or t fo r th e fav or ed po li ti cal pa rty,” “ un qu es ti on ab ly in hi bi ts pro te ct ed be li ef an d as so ci at io n.” Elr od v. Bur ns , 42 7 U.S. 34 7, 35 9 ( 1 9 7 6 )

. Po li ti cal
pa tro na ge di sm is sa ls un co ns ti tu tio na lly inf ri nge on Fi rst Am en dm en t rig ht s of sp eech

an d as so ci at io n “ un le ss ‘the hi rin g au th or it y can de m on st rat e th at pa rty affi li at io n is

an ap pr op ria te req ui rem e n t fo r th e effe ct iv e pe rfo rm an ce of th e pu bl ic of fic e in vo lv ed .’ ” La ng le

y v. Hot Sp ri ng Ct

y. , 39 3 F.3 d 81 4, 81 7 (8t h Cir. 20 05 ) (q uo ti ng Bra nt i v. Fin kel
, 44 5 U.S. 50 7, 51 8 (1 98 0) ). Su ch po si ti on s us ua ll y in vo lv e “ po li cy

m ak in g or a co nf

id en ti al rel at io ns hi p wit h an el ect ed of fic ia l.” Id

. ; se e Bar ne s v.

The co ur t al so de ni ed su m m ary jud gm en t on th e m eri ts o f th es e cl ai m s, bu t th os e 3 is su es are n ot be fo re u s.

-9

-Bos le

y , 74 5 F.2 d 5 0 1
, 5 0 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 84 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at un de r Elr od
, “ th e go ve r n ment al in te res t in effe ct iv en es s an d effi ci en cy is on ly se rio us ly th reat en ed whe n an em

pl oyee wit h an op po si ti on pa rty vi ewp oi nt is i n a p o l i c ym ak in g an d

co nf id en ti al po si ti on ”).

An em pl oyee’s po li ti cal affi li at io n ne ed no t be “ th e so le m ot iv at i n g f a ct or b eh in d th e

. . . di sm is sa l[].” Bar ne s , 74 5 F.2 d at 50 7

. “ In ‘m ix ed -mo t i v e ’ c a s e s , whe re th e ev id en ce de m on st rat es th at bo th le gi ti m at e an d il le gi ti m at e m ot iv es may ha ve pr om

pt ed act io n ag ai ns t a pu bl ic em pl oyee who en ga ge d in pr ot ect ed co nd uc t, th e al lo cat io n of the bu rd en of pro of is di ct at ed by Mt. Heal th y Ci ty Sc ho ol Dis tr ic t Boa rd of Edu ca ti on v. Doy al
, 42 9 U.S. 27 4 (1 97 7) .” Bar ne s , 74 5 F.2 d at 50 7 ; ac co rd Mah n v. Jef

fe rs on Ct y. , 89 1 F.3 d 10 93
, 10 97 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ) (rec og ni zi ng inc ons is te nt Ei g ht h Ci rcu it au th or it y on whe th er Mt. Hea lt hy or McDo nn el l Dou gl as Co rp

. v. Gre en , 41 1 U.S. 79 2 (1 97 3)
, go ve rn s, bu t fo ll owi ng Mt. H e a l th y ). Und er th at

an al y si s , t h e pl ai nt iff m

us t pr od uc e “ su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fro m whi ch th e fact fin de r

reas on ab ly can in fer t h at th e pl ai nt iff ’s pr ot ect ed co nd uc t was a ‘sub st an ti al ’ or ‘m ot iv at in g’ fact or be hi nd he r di sm is sa l.” W ag ne r v. Jo ne s , 66 4 F.3 d 25 9, 27 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o mi t t e d ). “ If th e pl ai nt iff m eet s th is bu rd en ,
su m m ary jud gm en t m

us t be de ni ed un le ss th e de fen da nt es ta bl is he s ei t h er th at th e
po li ti cal m ot iv e is an ap pr op ria te req ui rem en t fo r th e job
, or th at th e di sm is sa l was

m ad e fo r m ix ed m ot iv es an d th e pl ai nt iff wou ld ha ve be en di sc ha rg ed in an y ev en t.”
M a h n , 89 1 F.3 d at 10 96 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ; se e al so W ag ne r , 66 4 F.3 d at 27 0- 73 (ap pl y in g Mt. Hea lt hy in th e co nt ex t of qu al ifi ed im m un it y an al y si s)

.

A. McKee v. Reu te r Ms

. McKe e ha s m ars ha ll ed en ou gh ev id en ce fo r a jury to reas on ab ly in fer th at he r po li ti cal af

f i l i a t io n an d act iv it ie s du rin g th e 20 14 cam pa ig n were su bs ta nt ia l fact or s, b ot h in th e way

Mr. Reu te r tr eat ed he r aft er t he ele ct io n a nd in hi s d eci si on
to di sm is s he r. The y ran as op po si ng po li ti cal can di da te s in a pa rti sa n cam pa ig n. On hi s fir st da y in of

fic e, wit h hi s wife pr es en t, he di rect ed Ms

. M c K e e t o rel oc at e he r

-1 0-w o r k s ta ti on fro m a se m i-p riv at e de sk to a cu bi cl e im m ed ia te ly ou ts id e hi s of fic e , whe re he in st al le d two se cu rit y cam er a s

. The ne xt da y , he rep la ced he r wit h
Ms

. Scri vn er, w h o h ad no rel ev an t qu al ifi cat io ns

. He an no un ced th is pe rs on ne l ch an ge at a m eet in g in whi ch Ms

. McKe e was th e on ly de pu ty cl erk ex cl ud ed
, de sp it e he r st at us as th e hi gh es t ran ki ng , hi gh es t pa id de pu ty cl erk
, an d de sp it e hi s as su ran ce sh e wou ld rem ai n t he ch ie f de pu ty clerk

.

Mr. Reu t e r a l s o de m an de d Ms

. McKe e’s of fic e ke y s an d pa rk in g pa ss , an d whe n sh e ret ur ne d fro m m ed i c a l le av e, he is su ed a no ti ce of co rrec ti ve act io n,

os te ns ib ly ba se d so le ly on Ms

. Scri vn er’s co m pl ai nt , al th ou gh Ms

. McKe e di sp ut ed it as po li ti cal ly m ot iv at ed

. In th e no ti ce, Mr. Reu te r fau lt ed Ms

. McKe e fo r crea ti ng

a ho st il e wor k en vi ro nm en t, th reat en ed he r wit h sa nc ti on s, an d pl aced h e r on a

m on th ly ev al ua ti on sc he du le
, al l wit ho ut so li ci ti ng an y in pu t fro m he r. W hi le th es e jus ti fic at io ns were ev al ua te d by Mr. Mad do ck
, who was a p r io r as so ci at e of
Mrs . R eu te r, Mr. Reu te r a s s i g n e d M s . M cKee to m en ia l wor k in an is ol at ed of fic e. He wit hd rew th e no ti ce on ly aft er Mr. Mad do ck ad vi se d hi m to do so

. And aft er th e go ss ip arg um en t, he te rm in at ed he r an d ha d he r es co rte d from th e co ur th ou se

. Thi s

ev id en ce is su ffi ci en t fo r a rat io na l fact fin de r to in fer th at Mr. Reu te r m is tre at ed an d

te rm in at ed Ms

. McKe e on acco un t of he r po li ti cal affi li at io n an d act iv it ie s du rin g th e 20 14 cam pa ig n.

Defen da nt s of

fer two pr in ci pa l jus ti fic at io ns —o ne le ga l an d on e fact ua l— fo r Mr. Reu te r’s act io ns

. The le ga l arg um en t rel ie s on Ca rv er v. Den ni s , 10 4 F.3 d 84 7, 84 8 (6 th Ci r. 19 97 )
, whe re a de pu ty co un ty cl erk was te rm in at ed by he r bo ss , who

was th e co un ty cl erk
, a da y aft er th e de pu ty cl erk an no un ced sh e was ch al le ng in g he r bo ss in th e ne xt el ect io n. The Si xt h Ci rcu it
, no ti ng th ere was no ev id en ce th e de pu ty cl erk was di sm is se d fo r he r po li ti cal be li efs
, ob se rv ed th at th e rec o r d i n st ead in di cat ed th at th e de pu ty cl erk was fir ed fo r he r ca nd id ac y

. Id

. at 85 0

. Acco rd in gl y , th e co ur t di st in gu is he d th e El r o d / Br a n t i li ne of cas es an d he ld th ere was no Fi rs t Am en dm en t “ rig ht to ex pr es s o n e ’s po li ti cal vi ews th ro ug h can di da cy .” Id

. at

-1 1-85 0 -5 1. The co ur t reas on ed th at to fin d a Fi rs t Am en dm en t vi ol at io n un de r th e fact s

of th at cas e “ wou ld be to read ou t of th e en ti re li ne of re le va nt Su pr em e Co ur t
pr eced en t th e fact ua l req ui rem en ts of po li ti cal be li ef, ex pr es si on an d affi l i at io n,
pa rti sa n po li ti cal act iv it y , or ex pr es si on of op in io n, an d to read in to th at pr eced en t a fu nd am en ta l ri gh t t o c an di da cy .” Id

. at 85 3 . Bas ed on Ca rv er , def en da nt s co nt en d th at Ms

. McKe e ha d no Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht to ru n fo r cl erk of co ur t an d th en , aft er lo si ng th e el ect io n, re ta in he r po si ti on

.

W e do no t di sp u t e th at th ere is no cl earl y es ta bl is he d Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht

to ru n fo r of

fic e. As de fen da nt s co rrec tl y po in t ou t, Ca rv er m ak es cl ear th ere is no t. Co ns eq ue nt ly, to th e ex te nt an y of Ms

. McKe e’s cl ai m s are pr e di cat ed so le ly up on he r can di da cy , de fen da nt s were en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. Bu t as we un de rs ta nd
Ms

. McKe e’s cl ai m s, th ey are no t pr ed ic at ed up on he r can di da cy ; th ey are pr ed ic at ed
up on he r affi li at io n wit h th e Dem oc rat ic pa rty, th e ex pr es si on of he r po li ti cal vi ews ,
an d th e act iv it ie s sh e un de rto ok as a Dem oc rat du rin g a pa rti sa n cam pa ig n, whi ch fal l
sq ua rel y wit hi n t he pro te ct io ns of t he Fir st Am en dm en t. Se e id

.

Defen da nt s in si st th at “ vi rtu al ly al l of th e ap pl ic ab le cas e la w” ho ld s th at th ere is no Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht to rem ai n on th e st aff of a pr ev ai li ng po li ti cal op po ne nt

. Rep ly Br. at 10 (ci ti ng Bar t v. Tel fo rd
, 67 7 F.2 d 62 2, 62 4 (7t h Cir. 19 82 ) ). Bu t th at is an ov erb ro ad ch arac te riz at io n of th e le ga l is su e we co nf ro nt he re. Our ta sk is to de te rm in e whe th er, ab se nt po li ti cal affi li at io n bei ng an ap pr op ria te req ui rem en t fo r th e job
, th ere is a Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht no t to be rem ov ed fro m a p r e v ai li ng
op po ne nt ’s st aff b ecau se of o ne ’s po li ti cal affi li at io n. Th ere i s i nd eed su ch a ri gh t. Se e Rut an v. Rep ub li ca n Par ty of Ill

. , 4 9 7 U.S. 62
, 64 (1 99 0) (“ [T]he Fi rs t Am en dm en t fo rb id s go ve rn m en t of fic ia ls to di sc ha rg e or th reat en to di sc ha rg e pu bl ic

em pl o ye e s s o l e ly fo r no t be in g su pp or te rs of th e po li ti cal pa rty in po wer, un le ss
po li ti cal affi li at io n i s an ap pr op ria te req ui rem en t fo r th e p os it io n in vo lv ed .”). Bar t do es no t su gg es t ot he rwis e. In th at cas e, a su bo rd in at e of th e m ay or an no un ced th at sh e in te nd ed to ru n fo r m ay or

. 67 7 F.2 d at 62 3- 24

. Th e m ay or req ui red th at th e

-1 2-em

pl oyee ta ke a le av e of ab se nc e, an d whe n sh e ret ur ne d to wor k aft er ha vi ng lo st th e

race , sh e al le ge d th e m ay or su bjec te d he r to ha ras sm en t fo r ha vi ng ru n fo r of fic e. Id

. at 62 4

. The Sev en th Ci rcu it affi rm ed di sm is sa l of th e co m pl ai nt to th e e x t e n t it al le ge d th e co m

pe ll ed le av e o f a b s e nc e vi ol at ed th e em pl oyee’s Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht s, ho ld in g th at th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t do es no t co nf er a rig ht to ru n fo r of

fic e. Id

. Bu t to th e ex te nt th e co m pl ai nt al le ge d ha ras sm en t m ot iv at e d b y t h e em pl oyee’s

ex pr es si on of he r po li ti cal vi ews , th e Sev en th Ci rcu it rev ers ed
, ho ld in g “ th at is al l th at is ne ces sa ry to sa ve th is pa rt of th e co m pl ai nt fro m be in g di sm is se d.” Id

. at 62 5

. W e th in k Bar t il lu st rat es th e di st in ct io n be twee n th is cas e a n d C a r ver , whi ch

ex pl ic it ly reco gn iz ed th at ha ras sm en t ba se d on po li ti cal vi ews can rai se a

c o n s t i tu ti on al vi ol at io n, ev en if th e vi ct im was al so a can di da te

. Se e Ca rv er , 1 0 4 F.3 d a t 8 52

.

As fo r whe th er po li ti cal affi li at io n was an ap pr op ria te req ui rem en t fo r th e job
, de fen da nt s ci te no ev id en ce an d of fer n o a r g um en t fro m whi ch we m ig ht co nc lu de th at th e ch ie f de pu ty c l erk was a po li cy m ak in g or co nf id en ti al po si ti on

. In st ead
, d efen da nt s ci te W

al la ce v. Ben wa re , 67 F.3 d 65 5, 66 1 (7 th Ci r. 19 95 )
, fo r t h e
pr op os it io n th at an em

pl oyer—i n th at c as e, a sh eri ff— m ay di sm is s or de m ot e a de pu ty who ch al le ng ed hi m in an el ect io n wi t h o ut vi ol at in g th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t. W al la ce is in ap po si te , ho wev er, be cau se un de rlyin g it s en ti re di sp os it io n, whi ch we di sc us s m or e fu ll y be lo w, is th e reco gn it io n th at de pu ty sh eri ffs are po li cy m ak in g

em pl oyees— a sh owi ng th at ha s no t be en m ad e he re. Se e id

. at 65 9 (ex pl ai ni ng th at de pu ty s he rif

fs fal l un de r th e po li cy m ak er ex cep ti o n t o th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t’s ba n

on pa tro na ge di sm is sa ls ); id

. at 6 6 1 ( “We ha ve pe rm it te d a sh eri ff to di sm is s or de m ot e a po li ti cal ly di sl oyal de pu ty un de r th e th eo ry th at on ce el ec t ed to pu bl ic of fic e, a sh eri ff sh ou ld be en ti tl ed to p l a c e in th e po li cyma ki ng po si ti on of de pu ty sh er if f lo y al an d tru st wor th y in di vi du al s who wou ld be m os t effe ct iv e in carr y in g ou t hi s el ect or al m an da te .” (em ph as is ad de d) ). Abs en t an y sh owi ng th at th e ch ie f de pu ty cl erk was a po li cy m ak in g o r co nf id en ti al po si ti on , W

al la ce is leg al ly ina pp li cab le

.

-1 3-Mo reo ve r, ev en if W al la ce were rel ev an t— th at is
, e v e n i f
, li ke W al la ce , po li ti cal affi li at io n was a req ui rem en t of th e ch ie f de pu ty cl erk ’s job

— W al la ce do es

no t ho ld th at a lo si ng pa rty’ s in vo lv em en t in an el ect io n g i v e s th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty

un br id le d la ti tu de to ha ras s hi s op po ne nt

. W al la ce ob se rv ed th at “ a de pu ty who ch al le ng ed th e sh eri ff in an el ect io n wit hs ta nd s a F i rs t Am en dm en t ch al le ng e on ly be cau se we pr es um e th at th e sh eri ff’s act io n is di rect ed to w ard th e effi ci en t an d effe ct iv e op erat io n of hi s pu bl ic of fic e.” Id

. at 66 2

. As th e co ur t ex pl ai ne d, “ it wou ld be il lo gi cal to ap pl y th e sa m e pr es um pt io n to ha ras sm en t de si gn ed sp eci fic al l y to hi nd er o r to di sr up t a d ep ut y in th e p erfo rm an ce o f hi s d ut ie s.” Id

. Defen da nt s fa il

to ex pl ic at e h ow W

al la ce su pp or ts th ei r po si ti on he re, wh ere t he ev id en ce co ul d b e

co ns tru ed to su gg es t th at , rat he r th an pr om ot e th e effi ci en cy an d effe ct iv en es s of th e

co ur t, Mr. Reu te r in st ead ha ras se d an d im pe de d Ms

. McKe e in th e pe rfo rm an ce of he r du ti es by ne ed le ssly re loc at ing he r w or k st at io n, di st ract in g he r wit h se cu rit y cam eras , ta ki ng he r ke y s an d pa rk in g pa ss , is su in g he r a po li ti cal l y mo t i v a te d no ti ce of

co rrec ti ve act io n ba se d on a di sp ut ed co m pl ai nt , ret ai ni ng hi s wife ’s fo rm er as so ci at e

as a fact -fi nd er to ad

jud ic at e he r gr ie va nc e, is ol at in g he r to pe rfo rm m en ia l wor k, an d

reas si gn in g h er o ld du ti es to a ne w hi re wi th no rel ev an t q ua li fic at io ns

.

Tu r n i n g to de fen da nt s’ fact ua l jus ti fic at io n, whi ch pr es um ab ly is th ei r Mt. Hea lt hy de fen se , th ey co nt en d th at Ms

. McKe e was fir ed fo r he r ou tb ur st du rin g
t h e o f f i ce-g os si p arg um en t. Defen da nt s as se rt th at Mr. Reu te r, as th e du ly el ect e d

c l e r k
, ha d bo th th e di sc ret io n an d th e au th or it y to di sc ip li ne hi s de pu ty cl erk s. Hi s of fic e, ho wev er, di d no t gi ve hi m li cen se to vi ol at e cl earl y es ta bl is he d co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. Bec au se Ms

. McKe e ha s co m e fo rward wit h su ffi ci en t ev id en ce th at po li ti cal

an im us was a su bs ta nt ia l o r moti va ti ng fact or in he r tre at m en t an d di sm is sa l, de fen da nt s m

us t de m on st rat e “ th at th e reco rd wou ld co m pe l a reas on ab le jury to fin d th at th e ad ve rs e act io n wo ul d ha ve oc cu rr ed an ywa y ,” Mah n , 89 1 F.3 d a t 10 97 (el li ps is an d in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Defen da nt s ca nnot m ak e thi s show ing be cau se th e ou t s id e pa ne l of jud ge s who he ard Ms

. McKe e’s ap pe al rei ns ta te d he r wit h ba ck

pa y

. Mo reo ve r, de fe n d a n t s mak e no effo rt to jus ti fy an y of th e ot he r

-1 4-tre at m en t sh e ex pe rie nc ed
, in cl ud in g he r reas si gn m en t to th e tra ffi c di vi si on

f o l l o w i n g he r rei ns ta te m en t, no ne of whi ch were os te ns ib le co ns eq ue nc es of th e of fic e-g os si p a rg um en t.

Defen da nt s ne ve rth el es s of fer on e la st fact in su pp or t of qu a li fie d im m un it y

. The y po in t ou t th at ul ti m at el y ne it he r Mr. Reu te r no r Ms

. Scri vn er fir ed Ms

. McKe e;
rat he r, sh e vo lu nt ari ly qu it

. Se e Apl t. Br. at 19

. Bu t de fen da nt s do no t con te nd th at Ms

. McKe e can no t sh ow sh e was co ns tru ct iv el y di sc ha rg ed

. Se e Jo ne s v. Fit zg er al d
, 28 5 F.3 d 70 5, 71 5- 16 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (rec og ni zi ng th at co ns tru ct iv e di sc ha rg e, whi ch

m ay be ba se d on po li ti cal ret al ia ti on , req ui res a pl ai nt iff to es ta bl is h th at “ de fen da nt s de li be rat el y m ad e or al lo wed he r wor ki ng co nd it io ns to be co m e so in to le rab le th at th e

em pl oyee ha d no ot he r ch oi ce bu t to qu it ”). In st ead
, de fen da nt s reas se rt th at sh e ha d

no rig ht to rem ai n on th e st aff an d av oi d be in g as si gn ed to th e tra ffi c di vi si on . We ha ve al read y reject ed th at co nt en ti on , an d th us , t h e d i st ric t co ur t pr op erl y de ni ed
qu al ifi ed im m

un it y on Ms . McKee ’s cla im

ag ai ns t M r. Reu te r.

B. McKee v. S

cr iv ne r Our pr eced in g di sc us si on ap pl ie s, as well
, t o M s

. M cKee’s cl ai m ag ai ns t Ms . S cri vn er. W e rei te rat e th at to th e ex t e n t Ms . M cKee’s cl ai m s are ba se d on he r

can di da cy , de fen da nt s were en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. Aga in
, ho wev er, w e do

no t un de rs ta nd th at to be th e ba si s fo r he r cl ai m s. Co n s e qu en tl y , ha vi ng reject ed de fen da nt s’ arg um en ts , we ha ve li tt le di ffi cu lt y co nc lu di ng th at a rat io na l jury co ul d in fer th at Ms

. Scri vn er’s co nd uc t was po li ti cal ly m ot iv at e d

. P l a in ti ffs al le ge d th at Ms . S cri vn er as si st ed Mr. Reu te r in m ak in g th ei r wor ki ng co nd it io ns in to le rab l e in

ex ch an ge fo r he r ap po in tm en t to t h e c hi ef de pu ty cl erk po si ti on

. Ms

. Scri vn er
t e s t i f i ed th at sh e own ed a pi zza pa rlo r an d ho st ed Mr. Reu te r’s cam pa ig n, pe r h a p s

m ul ti pl e ti m es

. Sh e te st ifi e d th at sh e m arch ed in a pa rad e to su pp or t Mr. Reu te r’s wife in he r bi d fo r co un ty co un se lo r, an d al th ou gh sh e co ul d no t reca ll
, sh e m ay ha ve

m arch ed fo r Mr

. R e u t e r’s cam pa ig n as well

. Sh e di d reca ll
, ho wev er, weari ng a
t-s hi rt th at sa id “ Reu te r” on it
, Apl t. App

. at 41 3, di sp la y in g a ya r d -s ig n th at sa id

-1 5-“ Reu te r” on it
, id

. at 41 5 , an d ha nd in g ou t flyers at an el ect io n po ll st a t i o n w h i le

th an ki ng vo te rs for th ei r su pp or t o f Mr. Re ut er d ur in g t he 20 14 cam pa ig n.

Afte r Mr. Reu te r won th e el ect io n, Ms

. Scri vn er to ok Ms

. McKe e’s job as ch ie f de pu ty cl erk
, de sp it e ack no wled gi ng sh e ha d no rel ev an t ex pe rie nc e, ha d ne ve r be en in a co ur th ou se , an d di d no t kn ow wha t it m ean t to be a de pu ty cl erk

. Se e id

. at 42 1 (Scr iv ne r Dep o.) (“ I—I di dn ’t kn ow an y th in g ab ou t ho w th i s of fic e ran

. I’ve

ne ve r—wa s ne ve r in a co ur th ou se , wa s ne ve r— so I di dn ’t k no w wh at de pu ty cl erk

ev en act ua ll y m ean t.”)

. W it hi n da y s of as su m in g he r ne w ro le
, Ms

. Scri vn er lo dg ed

a co m pl ai nt wit h Mr. Reu te r ag ai ns t Ms

. M c K e e

. Th a t co m pl ai nt res ul te d in th e

no ti ce of co rrec ti ve act io n— Ms

. McKe e’s fir st in so m e twen ty-fiv e y ears of se rv ic e. M s. McKe e res po nd ed th at th e no ti ce was po li ti cal ly m ot iv at ed
, th at Ms

. S c r i v n e r

was m ak in g th reat en in g co m m en ts , an d th at bo th Ms

. Scri vn er an d Mr. Reu te r were im pe di ng he r ab il it y to do he r job by ex cl ud in g he r fro m m eet in gs an d em ai ls
, di sa bl in g he r co m

pu te r pr og ram s, an d hu m il ia ti ng he r in fro nt of ot he r em pl oyees. Se e id

. at 25 9- 61 (Mc Kee gr ie va nc e al le gi ng th e no ti ce was “ po li ti cal ly m ot iv at ed ,”
Ms

. Scri vn er was crea ti ng a “ ho st il e wor k en vi ro nm en t,” an d Mr. Reu te r an d
Ms

. Scri vn er ha d “ pr ev en te d [h er] f ro m do in g [h er] job res po ns ib il it ie s on a da il y ba si s by ex cl ud in g [h er] fro m m eet in gs an d em ai l no ti ces th at ALL ot he r em pl oyees

re ce ive d[
, ] dis ab l[ ing ] se veral co m pu te r pr og ram fu nc ti on s[
, an d] hu m il ia t[i ng he r]”).
Mr. Reu te r wit hd rew th e co rrec ti ve act io n, b u t whe n he fir ed Ms

. McKe e, Ms

. Scri vn er wro te th e wor d “ ka rm a” on th e bo ard ou ts id e he r of fic e, whi ch an ot he r

em pl oyee un de rs to od to m ean “ th at Mr. Reu te r an d

. . . Ch ris ty Scri vn er, were si ng li ng ou t pe op le who ha d su pp or te d Je an et te McKe e in th e cam pa ig n,” id

. at 20 3

. All th is ev id en ce co ul d al lo w a rat io na l jury to reas on ab ly in fer th at po li ti cal an im us

was a su bs ta nt ia l or m ot iv at in g fact or be hi nd M s

. S c r i v n e r’s co nd uc t. And Ms

. Scri vn er ha s no t arg ue d th at sh e was jus t fo ll owi ng or de rs , as op po se d to ac t i ng

a g ai ns t Ms

. McKe e fo r he r own reas on s. Bec au se de fen da nt s ad va nc e no fu rth e r arg um en t, we c o n c lu de th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y de ni ed qu al ifi ed im m un it y on Ms . McKee ’s cla im

ag ai ns t M s. Sc riv ne r.

-1 6-C. Hick man v. Reut er Fi na ll y , de fen da nt s di sp ut e th e de ni al of qu al ifi ed im m un it y on Ms

. Hick m an ’s cl ai m ag ai ns t Mr. Reu te r. The y co nt en d th e ev id en ce sh ows Ms

. Hick m an was fir ed

no t be cau se sh e is a Dem oc rat an d su pp or te d Ms

. M c K e e , bu t be cau se sh e was in co m pe te nt

. The y po in t ou t th at Ms

. Hick m an is su ed arre st warra nt s fo r th e wro ng
pe op le
, is su ed warra nt s un ti m el y an d no t as di rect ed
, fai le d to c h eck he r m ai l fo r a

m on th , a nd rep eat ed ly s ho wed ne gl ect , i nc om pe t e n c e, an d po or jud gm en t. Bu t th e

ev id en ce al so sh ows th at Ms

. Hick m an ha d be en em pl oyed fo r fo ur y ears an d ha d

ne ve r rece iv ed a ne ga ti ve pe rfo rm an ce ev al ua ti on

. It was no t un ti l aft er Mr. Reu te r,

a Rep ub li can , was el ect ed in a cam pa i g n in whi ch Ms

. Hick m an su pp or te d hi s Dem oc rat ic op po ne nt th at sh e was tra ns ferr ed an d be ga n rece iv in g po or pe rfo rm an ce

e v al ua ti on s. Ms

. Hick m an rep eat ed ly as ke d Mr. Reu te r to tra ns fer he r o u t o f t h e
tra ffi c di vi si on , jus t as ot he r em pl oyees ha d be en tra ns ferr ed

. He refu se d, ho wev er,

su gg es te d th at sh e qu it , a nd ot he rwis e ig no red he r c o mp l a i n t s th at Ms . C us ic k was

m is tre at in g he r. He si m il arl y ig no red he r co nc ern s of be in g in ad eq ua te ly tra in ed an d of be in g fir ed an d to ld he r to rel ax

. Yet at th e sa me t i me, h e h a d Ms

. Cu si ck do cu m en t ne ga ti ve mon th ly pe rfo rm an ce ev al ua ti on s th at se rv ed to jus ti fy he r di sm is sa l. Thi s ev id en ce s at is fie s Ms . Hi ck m an ’s b ur de n to sh ow th at he r po li ti cal affi li at io n an d act iv it ie s were a m ot iv at in g fact or i n h e r d is m is sa l. Tha t th ere was

ev id en ce sh e m ad e m is ta ke s on th e job do es no t co m pe l th e co nc lu si on th at sh e wou ld ha ve be en fir ed in an y ev en t, be cau se th e ou ts id e pa ne l of jud ge s ov erru le d he r di sm is sa l an d rei ns ta te d he r. Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y de ni ed qu al ifi ed im m un it y on Ms . Hick m an ’s cla im ag ai ns t M r. Reu te r.

IV The di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of qu al ifi e d i mm u n i ty is affi rm ed

. App el le es ’

m ot io n t o e xp ed it e su bm is si on of t he cas e to a pa ne l i s de ni ed as m oo t. Ap pe ll ees ’

m ot io n to su pp le m en t th e reco rd on ap pe al wit h Mi ss ou ri Co ur t Ope rat in g Ru le 7 is de ni ed as u nn eces sa ry

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ -1 7-