Court Opinion

ID: 9410721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-24 05:01:34.488994+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:59.963836
License: Public Domain

In the

    United States Court of Appeals
                 For the Seventh Circuit
                     ____________________
No. 21-3394
KEVIN DEEREN,
                                                  Plaintiff-Appellant,
                                 v.

RICHARD ANDERSON, et al.,
                                               Defendants-Appellees.
                     ____________________

         Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                   Western District of Wisconsin.
           No. 20-cv-508-bbc — Barbara B. Crabb, Judge.
                     ____________________

    ARGUED SEPTEMBER 21, 2022 — DECIDED JUNE 26, 2023
                 ____________________

   Before FLAUM, SCUDDER, and KIRSCH, Circuit Judges.
    KIRSCH, Circuit Judge. Deputy Sheriff Kevin Deeren an-
nounced his candidacy for Sheriff of Trempealeau County in
late 2017. Shortly thereafter, in early 2018, officials within the
Sheriff’s Department discovered that Deeren had failed to dis-
close information about his arrest record when he applied to
become a deputy. Specifically, Deeren was asked in a 2015 job
interview whether he had any prior contact with law enforce-
ment; he failed to disclose that he had been arrested and
2                                                 No. 21-3394

charged with criminal sexual assault in 2007. After the De-
partment learned of the arrest in 2018, Deeren was again
asked about his prior contacts with law enforcement. Deeren
again omitted his 2007 arrest and, when confronted, refused
to answer questions about it. Then-Sheriff Richard Anderson
and Chief Deputy Harlan Reinders sought to terminate
Deeren for dishonesty and insubordination, and Deeren ulti-
mately resigned from the Department and lost the sheriff’s
race to Brett Semingson, another deputy in the Department.
    Deeren filed this lawsuit, alleging that Anderson,
Reinders, and Semingson engaged in several retaliatory ac-
tions against him in response to his candidacy and in violation
of the First Amendment. The district court granted summary
judgment for the defendants, concluding no defendant vio-
lated Deeren’s First Amendment rights. We agree. Because
Deeren has failed to offer evidence from which a reasonable
jury could conclude that any defendant engaged in a single
act of unconstitutional retaliation, we affirm.
                               I
    Kevin Deeren applied for a job with the Trempealeau
County Sheriﬀ’s Department in December 2014. During an in-
terview, he was asked whether he had received any citations
or had any prior contact with law enforcement. Deeren said
only that he had a couple of traﬃc tickets. He did not disclose
that he had been arrested and charged with felony sexual as-
sault in South Carolina in 2007. The prosecutor eventually
dropped the charges in September 2008, and Deeren’s arrest
record was expunged under South Carolina law.
   Without knowing about Deeren’s arrest, then-Sheriﬀ Rich-
ard Anderson made the decision to hire him pending a
No. 21-3394                                                    3

background check. A lieutenant in the Department ran a crim-
inal history check through the FBI’s National Instant Criminal
Background Check System, but it produced no arrest records
for Deeren. The lieutenant also asked another county to run a
background check on Deeren through Thomson Reuters’
CLEAR database (the Department lacked its own account).
The CLEAR report included information about Deeren’s 2007
arrest and charges, but neither Anderson nor Chief Deputy
Harlan Reinders read it before hiring Deeren. In the end, the
sexual assault charges never came up during Deeren’s hiring
process, and he was hired as a patrol deputy in May 2015.
    Deeren initially performed well and was promoted to pa-
trol sergeant within a year. But things took a turn in late 2017.
On the evening of November 4, Deeren assisted in the arrest
of a man who had brutally assaulted his wife, resulting in a
72-hour no-contact order. The next day, Deeren went to inter-
view the victim at her job on a dairy farm, only to ﬁnd the
domestic violence oﬀender working beside her in clear viola-
tion of the no-contact order. Deeren decided not to enforce the
order and allowed the oﬀender to work beside the victim for
several hours. After receiving complaints about the matter,
Anderson ordered an investigation into Deeren’s conduct at
the farm and placed him on administrative leave. Upon com-
pleting the investigation, Anderson determined that Deeren
should be demoted.
    In a November 27 meeting, Anderson informed Deeren
that he was being demoted because his actions at the farm
demonstrated poor judgment and a lack of leadership. Deeren
denied any wrongdoing and accused Sheriﬀ Anderson of de-
moting him because he was running for sheriﬀ. This was news
to Anderson—Deeren had never told him that he was running
4                                               No. 21-3394

for sheriﬀ, and at that point, Deeren had not publicly an-
nounced his campaign. Indeed, Deeren did not publicly
launch his candidacy until November 29, two days after the
meeting. Anderson told Deeren that he did not know about
his campaign, and it had nothing to do with his demotion.
   In the days that followed, Anderson criticized Deeren in
private conversations with two individuals unaﬃliated with
the Department. First, he told a private citizen that Deeren
had been demoted (which was true) and was a “bad guy”
whom the citizen should stay away from. And second, Ander-
son told an assistant district attorney that Deeren was “no
good” and implied that Deeren had complaints ﬁled against
him as a police oﬃcer in Chicago. In addition, Deputy Brett
Semingson issued a memo calling for increased patrols in an
area, about two miles from Deeren’s home, due to complaints
about traﬃc violations and drug activity. Deeren subse-
quently saw increased patrols around his neighborhood.
   To prepare for a February 2018 personnel committee hear-
ing on Deeren’s demotion, Reinders reviewed Deeren’s per-
sonnel ﬁle. Reinders found the CLEAR report, read it for the
ﬁrst time, and learned of Deeren’s sexual assault arrest.
Reinders was alarmed not simply by the arrest on felony
charges, but also because the CLEAR report did not indicate
how the charges had been resolved (a felony conviction
would have rendered Deeren ineligible to carry a gun or to
serve as a law enforcement oﬃcer in Wisconsin). Reinders im-
mediately notiﬁed Anderson about the arrest; they began to
investigate the resolution of the charges and informed the
County’s attorney of the discovery. Around the same time, a
coordinator at a local domestic violence shelter inde-
pendently learned of Deeren’s 2007 arrest and notiﬁed the
No. 21-3394                                                   5

County’s attorney. The 2007 arrest did not come up at the
hearing, and the personnel committee ultimately determined
that Deeren’s sergeant rank should be reinstated.
    After the hearing, Anderson hired an independent private
investigator to probe the details of Deeren’s arrest. The inves-
tigator interviewed Deeren in early March. He warned
Deeren at the outset that refusal to answer any question may
result in discipline or termination for insubordination. The in-
vestigator then started with the same question Deeren had
been asked in his 2015 job interview: to disclose all pre-2015
contacts with law enforcement. Again, Deeren omitted his
sexual assault arrest—he identiﬁed only a speeding ticket, a
wrong-way driving ticket, and a previously undisclosed un-
derage drinking ticket. When pressed by the investigator on
whether he had any other contact with law enforcement,
Deeren said “no.” The investigator then identiﬁed the South
Carolina woman who had accused Deeren of sexual assault
and asked Deeren whether he knew her. Deeren said he was
“not legally obligated to answer that question.” The investi-
gator reminded Deeren that his refusal to answer would be
considered insubordination and could result in his termina-
tion. Deeren acknowledged that he understood but continued
to refuse to answer any questions about his arrest.
   After the interview, the investigator informed Anderson
that Deeren had refused to answer questions nine diﬀerent
times during the interview. Anderson decided that Deeren
should be terminated for his dishonesty during the hiring
process and his dishonesty and insubordination during the
investigation. In late April, the personnel committee held a
hearing on Deeren’s termination and rejected Anderson’s rec-
ommendation. Despite the committee’s decision, Deeren
6                                                  No. 21-3394

resigned from the Department and began campaigning for
sheriﬀ on a full-time basis.
    Less than a week after his resignation, Deeren told the lo-
cal paper that Anderson targeted him because of his candi-
dacy for sheriﬀ. Deeren did not provide speciﬁcs about what
the paper referred to as “the 2007 incident in Chicago” but
insisted that it was not connected to his employment as a po-
lice oﬃcer and that an investigation “revealed no wrongdo-
ing” on his part. Local media and other citizens sought details
of the incident and began making public records requests for
Deeren’s personnel ﬁle. Deeren, in turn, sued the County in
state court to block the release of records relating to his 2007
arrest and his discipline for dishonesty and insubordination.
The court partially granted Deeren’s request, and the County
released only the parts of Deeren’s records that complied with
the court’s order. Deeren did not appeal the order or object to
the records that were produced.
    In the end, Deeren lost the November 2018 election to
Semingson—a life-long Trempealeau County resident and 25-
year Department employee. Deeren later joined the City of
Osseo Police Department as a reserve oﬃcer (Osseo is in
Trempealeau County). Osseo’s police chief—who had sup-
ported Deeren’s bid for sheriﬀ—stopped by Semingson’s of-
ﬁce to discuss Deeren’s hiring. Semingson told the chief that
he should not hire Deeren as a police oﬃcer and expressed
concern about Deeren having access to the County’s records
database (which it shared with Osseo). Semingson was wor-
ried that, given Deeren’s negative campaigning and past dis-
honest conduct, Deeren might try to manipulate information
in the database to make Semingson or the Department look
bad. After the meeting, the chief sent Semingson a follow up
No. 21-3394                                                    7

email informing him that Deeren would continue to work for
Osseo, but he would not be used as a patrol oﬃcer or given
access to the database. Semingson did not respond or discuss
Deeren further with the police chief.
    Deeren ﬁled this lawsuit against Anderson, Reinders, and
Semingson, alleging that each retaliated against him in viola-
tion of his First Amendment rights. He also brought a Monell
claim against Trempealeau County and several state law
claims. The district court granted summary judgment to de-
fendants on all federal claims and relinquished jurisdiction
over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
                               II
   We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment
de novo and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of
Deeren, the non-moving party. See Smith v. City of Janesville,
40 F.4th 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2022).
    To establish a prima facie case of First Amendment retali-
ation, Deeren must demonstrate that: “(1) he engaged in con-
stitutionally protected speech; (2) he suffered a deprivation
likely to deter him from exercising his First Amendment
rights; and (3) his speech was a motivating factor in his em-
ployer’s adverse action against him.” Cage v. Harper, 42 F.4th
734, 741 (7th Cir. 2022). The parties do not dispute that
Deeren’s campaign speech was constitutionally protected, so
we focus on the last two elements. The second element asks
whether a defendant’s conduct “would likely deter a person
of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in protected
activity.” Surita v. Hyde, 665 F.3d 860, 878 (7th Cir. 2011). The
third element requires the plaintiff to show causation, mean-
ing that his “protected conduct was a substantial or
8                                                     No. 21-3394

motivating factor in the employer’s decision” to take the ad-
verse action against him. Kingman v. Frederickson, 40 F.4th 597,
602 (7th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). If Deeren produces
enough evidence to establish these elements, then the burden
shifts to the defendants to show that they would have taken
the same action regardless of the protected speech. Sweet v.
Town of Bargersville, 18 F.4th 273, 278 (7th Cir. 2021). If the de-
fendants carry that burden, then the plaintiff must offer facts
reasonably suggesting that the defendants’ proffered reasons
were pretextual. Kingman, 40 F.4th at 601.
    Deeren has failed to oﬀer evidence to support a prima fa-
cie case of First Amendment retaliation. For starters, Deeren
says Anderson and Semingson’s negative comments about
him were retaliatory. Speciﬁcally, he points to Anderson’s
statements to the private citizen and the assistant district at-
torney, and Semingson’s February 2019 conversation with the
Osseo police chief. No reasonable juror could ﬁnd that these
statements would deter a person of ordinary ﬁrmness from
engaging in protected speech. When the alleged retaliatory
act is a defendant’s speech, the plaintiﬀ must show that the
speech in question rose “to the level of threat, coercion, intim-
idation, or profound humiliation.” Novoselsky v. Brown, 822
F.3d 342, 356–57 (7th Cir. 2016). Nothing Anderson or Sem-
ingson said approaches that high bar. Their statements about
Deeren were simply the kinds of critiques that come with the
territory of running for oﬃce. And criticism—even in the
form of condemnation—is not enough. Id. What’s more, we
will not “aﬀord one party his right to free speech while dis-
counting the rights of the other party.” Hutchins v. Clarke, 661
F.3d 947, 956 (7th Cir. 2011). Anderson retained his own First
Amendment right to express opinions of Deeren, a candidate
for public oﬃce. And the First Amendment did not compel
No. 21-3394                                                  9

Semingson to withhold his concerns about Deeren when the
Osseo chief approached him months after the campaign had
ended. See id. at 956–57 (disclosure of past disciplinary his-
tory was not a threat, coercion, or intimidation actionable un-
der 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
    Next, Deeren points to three alleged acts that no reasona-
ble jury could ﬁnd retaliatory. First, Deeren argues that the
increased patrols in his neighborhood were meant to intimi-
date him. But no evidence in the record supports that asser-
tion or otherwise suggests that the increased patrols had any-
thing to do with his campaign. Without evidence reasonably
suggesting that the policy targeted him based on his speech,
Deeren’s subjective belief that the patrols put him under sur-
veillance is wholly insuﬃcient. Second, Deeren says that one
of the defendants leaked details to the public about his 2007
sexual assault arrest. But here too Deeren oﬀers only specula-
tion, and there is no evidence to support an inference that any
defendant leaked information about Deeren to the public, let
alone that they did so to retaliate against his speech. And
third, Deeren contends that defendants selectively released
his personnel records and withheld positive records in his ﬁle.
This argument is ﬂatly contradicted by the record. Deeren
sued to block the release of his ﬁle, the County complied with
the court’s order in releasing Deeren’s records, and no evi-
dence suggests that any individual defendant was even in-
volved in releasing his records to the public. What’s more,
Deeren personally received his complete personnel ﬁle in De-
cember 2017. If he wished for the public to have a more com-
plete picture of his ﬁle, nothing stopped him from sharing in-
formation about his certiﬁcates, awards, and commendations
at any time (indeed, it appears that Deeren did just that by
sending his record to a newspaper).
10                                                No. 21-3394

    That leaves Anderson and Reinders’s recommendation to
terminate Deeren in February 2018. No reasonable juror could
ﬁnd a causal link between Deeren’s speech and the termina-
tion recommendation. Deeren relies on timing alone, high-
lighting that these actions occurred after he announced his
candidacy. But the three-month gap between Deeren’s cam-
paign announcement and the termination recommendation is
insuﬃcient to create a triable issue of fact on causation. See
Kingman, 40 F.4th at 603 (ﬁnding three months between plain-
tiﬀ’s public criticism of defendant and plaintiﬀ’s termination,
even with escalating hostility within that period, unconvinc-
ing to show causation). Even if we assume Deeren could show
causation and shift the burden to the defendants, his retalia-
tion claim would still fail. Anderson and Reinders oﬀered a
legitimate explanation for their termination recommenda-
tion—Deeren’s dishonesty and insubordination. At summary
judgment, Deeren must “produce evidence upon which a ra-
tional ﬁnder of fact could infer that the defendants’ proﬀered
reasons are lies.” McGreal v. Village of Orland Park, 850 F.3d
308, 314 (7th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up). Such evidence does not
exist here. It is undisputed that Deeren failed to disclose his
2007 arrest when he applied to the Department, and that he
again refused to provide truthful answers to the investigator’s
questions in 2018. Deeren oﬀers nothing to undermine the
truthfulness of Anderson and Reinders’s non-retaliatory rea-
sons for seeking his termination.
    Lastly, Deeren contends that even if none of the identiﬁed
acts can be considered retaliatory in isolation, together they
amounted to a campaign of retaliatory harassment. We
disagree. True, “a campaign of petty harassment” that
includes “minor forms of retaliation” and “false accusations”
may violate the First Amendment. See Massey v. Johnson, 457
No. 21-3394                                                   11

F.3d 711, 720–21 (7th Cir. 2006) (quoting DeGuiseppe v. Village
of Bellwood, 68 F.3d 187, 192 (7th Cir. 1995)). But at summary
judgment, a plaintiﬀ must muster evidence that could
reasonably show that the alleged campaign of retaliation was
motivated by the plaintiﬀ’s protected speech. That evidence
does not exist here, and no rational jury could ﬁnd that the
events identiﬁed by Deeren amounted to a campaign of
retaliation designed to deter his free speech. See id. at 721. In
this case, zero plus zero equals zero. Deeren’s attempt to
aggregate non-retaliatory actions—taken by diﬀerent
individuals over the span of many months—cannot save his
retaliation claims from summary judgment.
    We end with Deeren’s Monell claim against the County.
Under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658
(1978), a county may be liable for a deprivation of an individ-
ual’s constitutional rights that result from an oﬃcial policy,
custom, or practice. The district court did not address
Deeren’s Monell claim in its opinion, but it nevertheless en-
tered summary judgment in the County’s favor. While the
court should have explained its ruling, summary judgment
for the County necessarily followed from Deeren’s failure to
identify an underlying constitutional violation. See Novo-
selsky, 822 F.3d at 357 (“To have a viable Monell claim for dam-
ages, a plaintiﬀ must show a violation of his constitutional
rights by an individual defendant.”). In other words, because
no individual defendant violated Deeren’s constitutional
rights, “it follows that [he] cannot avoid summary judgment
on his Monell claim against the county.” Id.
   On this record, no reasonable jury could ﬁnd that Ander-
son, Reinders, or Semingson retaliated against Deeren for
12                                            No. 21-3394

exercising his First Amendment rights. Accordingly, we af-
ﬁrm the district court’s entry of summary judgment.
                                                AFFIRMED