Opinion ID: 28441
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Qualified Immunity and Mt. Healthy

Text: In the third issue raised on appeal, Constable Connell seeks to avail himself of the principle that a public employer may escape liability by proving that it would have taken the same adverse employment action “even in the absence of the protected conduct.” Gerhart v. Hayes, 217 F.3d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 2000)(citing Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977)). Connell contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity because an objectively reasonable officer would have believed that he could 14 lawfully terminate Hitt’s employment -- notwithstanding Hitt’s involvement with the union -- because of the bomb threat against Deputy North and Chief Deputy Horn. Cf. Gonzales v. Dallas County, Texas, 249 F.3d 406, 412 (5th Cir. 2001). Connell fails to apprehend the significance of the jury finding that he fired Hitt because of Hitt’s union membership and not because of the bomb threat. The jury was instructed on Connell’s Mt. Healthy defense: In order to find a violation of Hitt’s rights, they had to decide, inter alia, whether the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the action he took against the plaintiff was for other reasons, regardless of whether or not the plaintiff exercised his protected association activity. If you find that the defendant would have taken the same action against the plaintiff for reasons apart from the association activity, then your verdict should be for the defendant. The jury verdict rejects Connell’s explanation of the employment decision. Their factual finding is supported in the record. See Boddie v. City of Columbus, Miss., 989 F.2d 745, 748 (5th Cir. 1993). No reasonable officer could have concluded that firing Hitt because of his union affiliation was legally permissible. Id. Further, because the jury discredited Connell’s explanation, the basis for his qualified immunity contention was vitiated.5 5 The jury verdict distinguishes this case from Gonzales v. Dallas County, 249 F.3d 406 (5th Cir. 2001), in which summary judgment was granted to a constable who fired one of his deputies at least in part because of the deputy’s undisputed use of excessive force. Here, the jury had to determine, whether the disputed bomb threat was a credible threat and an actual motivating 15