Source: https://multiracial.com/index.php/1996/07/15/cromer-v-brown-no-94-1403/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 00:48:56+00:00

Document:
for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville.
Henry M. Herlong, District Judge.
Counsel, Lorraine C. Davis, Assistant General Counsel, Robert J.
SION, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.
in part, and remand for further proceedings.
fired from his job as lieutenant because of race.
cover conduct completed prior to the law’s enactment).
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986).
tenant from 1977 until 1988.
tion to captain], [w]hat did he say?
a captain for him, since I was dating that white girl. . . .
Question: All right. Tell me about that conversation.
When did this take place? . . .
with myself and Sheriff Brown over the years.
tions] to the best of your recollection.
ened to terminate me . . . .
Brown, suggested to the sheriff that he promote Cromer to captain.
again talked with the sheriff about the possibility of a promotion.
Again, Beth, Cromer’s white companion, was a subject of discussion.
captain in the history of the Greenville County Sheriff’s Office.
than any white captain whose performance was ever questioned.
affairs), off- duty jobs and equipment.
the opportunity to display their abilities.
was a need for a black negotiator on the SWAT team.
Sheriff Brown was quite upset by the letter, and he blamed Cromer.
angry because Cromer had gone to the meetings of the Association.
meetings, providing a full defense for the sheriff.
role in the operations of his office.
the sheriff blamed Cromer for his troubles.
months earlier. Sergeant Watts requested a meeting with the sheriff.
fired both Sergeant Watts and Cromer.
effort to block Cromer from receiving unemployment compensation.
denying any wrongdoing or improper conduct on his part.
demotion did not. The EEOC issued Cromer a right- to- sue letter.
claims and by dismissing others. Cromer now appeals.
iff Brown on Cromer’s Title VII claims.
by such officer to be on the officer’s personal staff . . . .” Id.
federal, not state, law. Curl v. Reavis, 740 F.2d 1323, 1327 (4th Cir.
Brewster, 788 F.2d at 990; Gregory, 818 F.2d at 1117.
decisions in the sheriff’s department?
Cromer v. Brown, C/A No. 6:92- 3555- 20AK, mem. op. at 4 (D.S.C.
to state law.”5 Gregory, 818 F.2d at 1117; see Curl, 740 F.2d at 1328.
employee worked under the direction of the official or someone else.
Curl, 740 F.2d at 1328.
sitive position of trust, close to the elected official.
that Cromer was not a member of Sheriff Brown’s personal staff.
Cromer and those in Cromer’s platoon.
mer’s position was created and compensated pursuant to state law.
fore, reverse the district court on that issue.
were only four captains and all were members of the command staff.
court’s ruling to that effect.
Grievance Board to make a recommendation.
new, unforeseen applications of pre- existing rights.” Pinder v.
range of reasonableness, then no liability will attach.
at the time of the challenged actions.
arching entitlement” to a named right. Pinder , 54 F.3d at 1173.
unlawfulness of the challenged action was apparent to the official.
Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640; Pinder, 54 F.3d at 1173.
nation and animus in the sheriff’s office.
n.1 (4th Cir. 1995) (citing Harlow, 457 U.S. at 817- 18).
concern by examining the “content, form and context” of his speech.
Connick, 461 U.S. at 147- 48.
ment Agency” was being destroyed by internal racial discrimination.
natory policies” as “a matter inherently of public concern”).
involved a matter of public concern.
391 U.S. at 568. Interests of the community also weigh in the balance.
Piver v. Pender County Bd. of Educ., 835 F.2d 1076, 1078 (4th Cir.
perceived racial discrimination was clearly established in 1991.
1537 (6th Cir.) (plaintiff reported employer’s illegal activities), cert.
114 S. Ct. 926 (1994); Gorman v. Robinson, 977 F.2d 350, 356 (7th Cir.
1992) (plaintiff informed FBI of his employer’s wrongdoings); Stough v.
gations of possible police misconduct).
1887 (1994). These interests weigh heavily in Cromer’s favor.
[the] ranks.” Maciariello v. Sumner, 973 F.2d 295, 300 (4th Cir.
1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1080 (1993).
ine the extent to which Cromer’s speech undermined these interests.
was demoted from the command staff to lieutenant.
patrol” by supervising through use of intimidation and retaliation.
the sheriff: discipline, morale and good working relationships.
an “antagonist[ ]” who had to be “eradicate[d].” See id. at 26.
black officers did not make their allegations of discrimination public.
to the sheriff on this point.
given great weight. And the community at large shares in that interest.
establishes that Cromer’s speech was protected.
Columbus, 705 F.2d 1299 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 468 U.S.
Public Safety, but members felt that this resulted in no progress.
responded with two days of peaceful picketing at the police station.
less allegations of unlawful conduct, racism, and discrimination.” Id.
protected under Pickering‘s balancing test. Id. at 1304- 06.
Id. at 1305 (citations omitted).
ment reorganization); see also Bridgeport Guardians, Inc. v.
Association’s complaint about racial discrimination in the workplace.
serious enough to give the community at large an interest in the matter.
ciably affect the sheriff’s efficiency interests.
457 U.S. at 800. Accord DiMeglio, 45 F.3d at 794- 95 n.1.
officers’ complaints about racial discrimination.
Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 622 (1984) (citations omitted).
had a clear right to participate in the Association. See N.A.A.C.P. v.
the limitations on his right to speak).
“arm[s] of the State,” Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v.
the state is whether the state treasury will be liable for the judgment.
Id. at 433; see also Bockes v. Fields, 999 F.2d 788, 790- 91 (4th Cir.
Corp., 115 S. Ct. 394, 400 (1994)) (internal citation omitted).
state treasury would be partially liable for a judgment in this case.
&#167 1983 for money damages.
court should not have granted summary judgment to Sheriff Brown.
v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 n.10 (1989).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 

v.