STRONG v. STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al

Filing 21

ORDER denying 12 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by JUDGE RICHARD SMOAK on 3/23/2010. (jcw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION KAREN M. STRONG, Plaintiff, vs. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, and WARDEN SAM CULPEPPER, in his individual capacity, Defendants. _________________________________________/ ORDER Defendant Warden Sam Culpepper's motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) is denied. In analyzing the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, a two part inquiry is used: "(1) do the alleged facts show that the government actor violated a constitutional right? and (2) was that constitutional right clearly established?" Boyce v. Andrew, 510 F.3d 1333, 1341 (11th Cir. 2007), citing Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct 2151, 2156 (2001). The law is clearly established that an employer may not demote or discharge a public employee for engaging in protected speech. Boyce at 1341, citing Travers v. Jones, 323 F.3d 1294, 1295 (11th Cir. 2003). It is well settled by the Supreme Court that for a government CASE NO. 5:10cv7/RS-MD

employee's speech to have First Amendment protection, the employee must have (1) spoken as a citizen and (2) addressed matters of public concern. Id. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's speech was outside the scope of her official duties as an employee and addressed a matter of public concern. The complaint therefore sufficiently alleges that Plaintiff's speech was protected under the First Amendment, and that Defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right.

ORDERED on March 23, 2010.

/s/ Richard Smoak RICHARD SMOAK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE