Opinion ID: 200853
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Understanding of a Reasonable Official

Text: The third step in the qualified immunity analysis, which embodies the objective standard announced in Harlow, requires us to analyze whether an objectively reasonable officer in the defendant's position would have understood [her] action to violate the plaintiff's rights. Suboh, 298 F.3d 95. Given the facts alleged in the complaint, as described in Part I.A. supra, we have no trouble finding that a reasonable official similarly situated to Swift would have known that terminating Mihos for his vote violated his constitutional rights. Taking the allegations in the complaint as true, Mihos exercised his best judgment as to the proper course of action, cast his vote, and was fired in retaliation for that vote for reasons unrelated to legitimate governmental interests. No reasonable public official could have failed to realize that a member of a public instrumentality cannot be terminated on such grounds for voting on matters of public concern within his authority. Having found that (1) Mihos's allegations, if true, establish a violation of his First Amendment rights, (2) the right -37- was clearly established at the time Swift fired him, and (3) a reasonable public official would have known that the discharge constituted a constitutional violation, we find that Swift is not entitled to qualified immunity.16