Opinion ID: 365900
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: confidential employees

Text: 64 A question raised by the concurring opinion in Elrod is whether the language nonpolicymaking, nonconfidential established two classes of public employees subject to patronage dismissals. One commentary and analysis of Elrod has suggested that the concurring opinion created two exceptions to the Court's general proscription of patronage dismissals, permitting patronage dismissals of confidential employees as well as public employees in policymaking positions. The Supreme Court, 1975 Term, 90 Harv.L.Rev. 186, 193-94 (1976). 65 (T)he policymaking and confidential employee Exceptions . . . are justified by state interests sufficient to outweigh the accompanying burdens on first amendment rights. Elected officials must be able to assemble their own loyal staffs of advisors and administrators to assist them in formulating and implementing the policies necessary to carry out their electoral mandates. . . . Certainly elected officials should be permitted to dismiss their predecessor's personal secretaries and a few others who work closely with such officials in positions requiring a relationship of mutual trust. However, courts should construe the exception narrowly and guard against efforts to invoke it in support of across-the-board patronage dismissals. 66 Id. at 194 & n. 41 (emphasis added). 67 Another commentator has suggested that a confidential employee might be deemed a policymaker within the meaning of Elrod, confidentiality being one criterion thrusting a governmental position to the policymaking end of the scale. Comment, Patronage Dismissals and Compelling State Interests: Can the Policymaking/Nonpolicymaking Distinction Withstand Strict Scrutiny, 1978 Southern Ill.Univ.L.J. 278, 285. On the other hand, this same commentator has also observed that a confidential employee, under the rationale of the Elrod plurality and the language of the concurrence, could be a second class of public employees subject to patronage dismissals: 68 Surely the rationale underlying the policymaking employee justification of patronage dismissals is equally applicable to one who, although not in a position to formulate or implement policies, occupies a position with such access to confidential information that he could covertly restrict the implementation of the policies of the newly elected official. On the other hand, it can be argued that an alternative available would be dismissal for cause when such covert actions occur. However, this alternative may not be as effective as dismissal of a confidential employee because of political incompatability (sic) with his elected superiors; to await discovery of covert action may prove devastating to policy implementation by the new administration. If a standard is to be established it would seem that one in a confidential position should be no less subject to patronage dismissal than one in a policymaking position: in either case dismissal may be deemed necessary to insure that representative government not be undercut by tactics obstructing the implementation of policies of the new administration. 69 Id. at 285-86 (footnote omitted). 70 The existence of a confidential employee exception is further buttressed by the Elrod plurality opinion's repeated citation of a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit written by then Circuit Judge Stevens, who did not participate in Elrod although a member of the Supreme Court. Illinois State Employees Union, Council 34 v. Lewis, 473 F.2d 561 (7th Cir. 1972), Cert. denied, 410 U.S. 928, 943, 93 S.Ct. 1364, 1370, 35 L.Ed.2d 590, 609 (1973). In Lewis Justice Stevens, then Circuit Judge Stevens, stated that the question before the court was whether a nonpolicymaking employee may be discharged for refusing to transfer his political allegiance from one political party to another. In reversing the district court's entry of summary judgment, erroneously predicated on rejection of the non-movant's version of the facts, then Circuit Judge Stevens said: 71 Plaintiffs properly do not challenge the public executive's right to use political philosophy or affiliation as one criterion in the selection of policy-making officials. Moreover, Considerations of personal loyalty, or other factors besides determination of policy, may justify the employment of political associates in certain positions. It is difficult to believe, however that any such justification would be valid for positions such as janitors, elevator operators or school teachers. 72 473 F.2d at 574 (emphasis added). 73 One post-Elrod decision has found that the Elrod concurrence requires that public employees be nonconfidential employees, as well as nonpolicymakers, before they can maintain an action for patronage dismissal. Finkel v. Branti, 457 F.Supp. 1284 (S.D.N.Y.1978), Aff'd, 598 F.2d 609, (2d Cir. 1979) Cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 99 S.Ct. 3095, 61 L.Ed.2d --- (1979). In Finkel plaintiffs, assistant public defenders, had been appointed to their positions by a Republican Public Defender, also an appointee. Their employment was to be terminated when a Democratic Public Defender was appointed. Plaintiffs alleged that they were nonpolicymaking, nonconfidential employees who were satisfactorily performing their duties; therefore, attempting to replace them on political grounds violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Finkel court enjoined the termination or attempted termination of the plaintiffs' employment upon the sole ground of their political beliefs, holding, Inter alia, that plaintiffs were neither policymakers nor confidential employees. In attaining this result, the Finkel court said;In Elrod and its progeny, the requirements of nonpolicymaking and nonconfidentiality are discussed in a manner that makes clear that the concepts are related to one another. More specifically, the discussion in the cases suggests that the concept of confidentiality is ancillary to the concept of policymaking. An employee is a confidential employee if he or she stands in a confidential relationship to the policymaking process, E. g., as an advisor to a policymaker, or if he or she has access to confidential documents or other materials that embody policymaking deliberations and determinations, E. g., as a private secretary to a policymaker. 74 457 F.Supp. at 1291 (emphasis added). Finding that plaintiffs were nonconfidential employees, the Finkel court emphasized that any confidential relationship between plaintiffs and the Public Defender was in the latter's capacity as a supervisor, Not in his role as decisionmaker about the orientation and operation of the public defender's office (I. e. a policymaking role). 75 While agreeing, in general, with the Finkel court and the commentaries discussed above that a confidential employee may constitutionally be discharged solely upon the basis of political affiliation when he stands in a confidential relationship to a policymaker or the policymaking process, we hold that appellant Stegmaier falls within the confidential employee exception even though the position of Deputy Circuit Clerk does not stand in a confidential relationship to a policymaker or a policymaking process. 76 Where a state, through its constitution, has decided to make certain public offices elective, it has also chosen to vest the electorate with the power to select one candidate over another for any reason. In the case of a Circuit Clerk under the Alabama unified judicial system, it is clear that a candidate for the office of Circuit Clerk can have no policy platform on which to seek office since policy decisions as to the operation of his office, the administration of justice, practice and procedure in the circuit courts, and the expenditure of funds are beyond his duty and authority. The public, however, does have the right under the Alabama Constitution to elect its Circuit Clerks and, presumably, attempts to elect capable and honest individuals when doing so. If there is any policy presumably sanctioned by the electorate, Elrod v. Burns, supra, 427 U.S. at 367, 96 S.Ct. at 2687, in its election of one individual as Circuit Clerk over another, it is that of honesty and integrity. This presumption is especially strong where the nature of the Circuit Clerk's position involves the handling of private and public litigant's fees and judgments. See generally Ala.Code tit. 12, §§ 12-17-93, 12-17-94 (1975); note 3 Supra. When, by statute, a deputy clerk is empowered to conduct all business which the clerk is authorized to conduct, Ala.Code tit. 12, §§ 12-17-93(2) (1975), and when, by statute, the clerk is subject to civil liability and fines for failure to perform his statutory duties, Id. § 12-17-94(b), the Circuit Clerk must be afforded the opportunity to select his single deputy clerk; he must be able to select a deputy in whom he has total trust and confidence and from whom he can expect, without question, undivided loyalty. Of course these general remarks in no way reflect any judgment on appellant Stegmaier's competence, honesty or integrity; they serve simply to justify why Circuit Clerk Trammell was justified in selecting a Deputy Clerk of his own choice. 77 We conclude, therefore, that appellant Stegmaier falls within the confidential employee exception to Elrod v. Burns, supra, notwithstanding the fact that appellee Trammell, as Circuit Clerk, does not occupy a policymaking position. 78 The judgment entered by the district court below is therefore 79 AFFIRMED.