In DeFrancesco v. Robbins, published May 7, 2025, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 lawsuit at the pleadings stage due to qualified immunity. The lawsuit alleged that both the plaintiff and his husband held high positions at a university. The plaintiff's husband spoke out about the university's hiring of a friend of the university president to serve as senior vice president of the university despite several objections. The plaintiff's husband, along with other senior university officials, met with the president and objected to what appeared to be a hiring process pre-planned by the president. The complaint alleges that the husband spoke in his capacity as a private citizen, not as a university employee. With no explanation, the new senior vice president told the plaintiff he was filed and had to reapply for his job. The plaintiff was then targeted for harassment. The senior vice president eventually terminated the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the university for 1st amendment retaliation. The district court granted a motion to dismiss the complaint, on the ground that the law did not clearly establish the right asserted.
The 9th Circuit agreed. As of June 2019, when the plaintiff was terminated, neither binding precedent nor a persuasive body of law had established that a plaintiff could sue for 1st Amendment retaliation based on a family member's exercise of free speech rights. Because the law did not clearly establish a violation of the constitution, the majority did not reach the question of whether the plaintiff stated a claim for 1st Amendment retaliation. A concurring judge opined that the court should reach that issue, and rule that the plaintiff had stated a claim.
Leave a Reply