This Is Why There Are Police Merit Boards.

[Kutnupe14]

All I can say in WTF?

This should be in the Onion-

Bon Homme County, SD – Bon Homme County Sheriff Lenny Gramkow demonstrated incredibly poor sportsmanship when he fired the deputy who had just beaten him one minute after he lost in a landslide.

https://www.themaven.net/bluelivesm...ating-him-in-election-OD9cmbfwdEORzjNgTPoZ8Q/

 

[SMiller]

How long would the guy be fired for? Would they even file paperwork and just laugh?

 

[Dead Duck]

Things must have gotten a bit heated during the campaign. He could be just a jerk but I don't work there so I'm not privy to the insiders gossip. Obviously the Sheriff can't trust him enough to be his deputy for the rest of the year.

 

[Kutnupe14]

How long would the guy be fired for? Would they even file paperwork and just laugh?

Not all department have merit boards. The hiring/firing decisions, in this case, are solely the chief's decision. So they are going to have to find some other route to get the guy his job back.

 

[WebSnyper]

Not all department have merit boards. The hiring/firing decisions, in this case, are solely the chief's decision. So they are going to have to find some other route to get the guy his job back.

Wow... time for a special referendum election?

 

[HoughMade]

With or without a merit board, firing someone from a government job for political reasons is illegal.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

With or without a merit board, firing someone from a government job for political reasons is illegal.

Federal judge disagrees: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-sheriffs-reelection/?utm_term=.8baed00a09fe

A homicide detective in a Virginia sheriff’s department is a “policymaker,” a federal judge has ruled, so the detective can be fired for opposing the sheriff’s reelection.... He refused to reappoint McCaffrey in 2016 because he supported Eric Noble, Chapman’s opponent in the 2015 Republican primary, and “not a work performance issue,” according to a prosecutor’s memo in the case...

“I have a right to not swear in any deputies or other sworn personnel at the beginning of my term,” and “I perceived Mr. McCaffrey’s conduct as a threat to my ability to lead and manage” the Loudoun sheriff’s office.

...previous 4th Circuit rulings to decide that McCaffrey’s firing was justified. “The law in this circuit is clear,” Trenga quoted from a 1997 ruling, “that sheriffs in Virginia have the right to lawfully terminate their deputies for political affiliation reasons.”

 

[HoughMade]

Federal judge disagrees: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-sheriffs-reelection/?utm_term=.8baed00a09fe

Was the deputy (OP story), in what was his present position, a policy maker?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Was the deputy (OP story), in what was his present position, a policy maker?

No idea. However:

Trenga quoted from a 1997 ruling, “that sheriffs in Virginia have the right to lawfully terminate their deputies for political affiliation reasons.”

So it would appear there's no federal law against it and it will vary from state to state, assuming the court above got it right.

 

[Leadeye]

Over the years working for private companies I've been amazed at this petty behavior. I've seen leadership hire people who had quit just so they could fire them shortly afterward. The most costly act of this was a VP who fired a manager based on office gossip and his own personal feelings. The manager got the last laugh and the company had to hire him back as a consultant at an exorbitant rate for 18 months after his termination.

 

[HoughMade]

After looking at the Virginia case, it appears that Sheriffs, as elected, have more latitude than other law enforcement officials. However, the latitude is not without limits:

Generally, public employees cannot be fired “solely for the reason that they were not affiliated with a particular political party or candidate.” Knight v. Vernon, 214 F.3d 544, 548 (4th Cir. 2000). However, the Supreme Court in Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) and Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980) recognized an exception to this general rule. The Court in Elrod recognized that certain public employees may be terminated for partisan reasons without offending the First Amendment where doing so would “further some vital government end by a means that is least restrictive of freedom of belief and association in achieving that end, and the benefit gained...outweigh the loss of constitutionally protected rights.” Elrod, 427 U.S. at 363. The Court expanded upon this in Branti, noting that “if an employee's private political beliefs would interfere with the discharge of his public duties, his First Amendment rights may be required to yield to the States' vital interest in maintaining governmental effectiveness and efficiency.” 445 U.S. at 517. The ultimate question in this inquiry is “whether the hiring authority can demonstrate that party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public office involved.” Id. at 518…

…If a public employee's position is both partisan and that of a policymaker under this test, that employee is exempt from the traditional bar on partisan termination and therefore cannot state a claim alleging violation of his First Amendment rights.[ [emphasis added]

McCaffrey v. Chapman, 117CV937AJTIDD, 2017 WL 4553533 (E.D. Va. Oct. 12, 2017).

The quoted part above from the 1997 about what a sheriff can do goes to the "partisan" analysis, but the "policymaker" analysis goes further.

In his Complaint, McCaffrey describes himself as “the lead detective in complex, high-profile cases, including rape, robbery, and homicide investigations.” Compl. ¶ 12. McCaffrey was by no means a junior deputy in the LCSO, but rather someone who had served twenty years in other departments before joining the LCSO in 2005. Compl. ¶ 11. The Complaint also alleges that McCaffrey had the discretion to contact directly the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office and the Medical Examiner's Office and to request the resources of those offices in support of the LCSO's law enforcement mission. Compl. ¶ 74h. Even after drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff's favor, under Jenkins and the Fourth Circuit's subsequent pronouncements, a deputy with McCaffrey's alleged experience, seniority and responsibilities within a sheriff's office is a policymaker.

McCaffrey v. Chapman, 117CV937AJTIDD, 2017 WL 4553533, at *5 (E.D. Va. Oct. 12, 2017).

In sum, I learned something new today. I don't know anything about the deputy in the ND case in the OP, but I have a hard time believing he would not be a "policymaker". One caveat is that ND may have state law that is different and affects the analysis. What a sheriff can do in Virginia affected the outcome in that case.

 

[T.Lex]

Also, he may not've been fired because of the election results. He may've been fired for something like "insubordination" or the wonderfully ambiguous "conduct unbecoming."

The political issue was completely irrelevant.

Or at least, the answer to the complaint will say something like that.

 

[HoughMade]

I also feel the need to mention that while the McCaffrey case look well-reasoned to me, it is a District Court case with not a lot of precedential value and it mentioned the 4th Circuit a lot and ND is in the 8th Cir. and they may be differences, but not that likely.

 

[T.Lex]

I also feel the need to mention that while the McCaffrey case look well-reasoned to me, it is a District Court case with not a lot of precedential value and it mentioned the 4th Circuit a lot and ND is in the 8th Cir. and they may be differences, but not that likely.

Yes, because INGOers worry about binding v. persuasive precedent.

 

[MarkC]

Yes, because INGOers worry about binding v. persuasive precedent.

Um, well, SOME of us do!

 

[femurphy77]

Definition of assbag: Lenny Gramkow

 

[Fargo]

Yes, because INGOers worry about binding v. persuasive precedent.

You can take your unpublished opinions and shove em!

 

[KLB]

Um, well, SOME of us do!

Weirdo!

 

[KellyinAvon]

Also, he may not've been fired because of the election results. He may've been fired for something like "insubordination" or the wonderfully ambiguous "conduct unbecoming."

The political issue was completely irrelevant.

Or at least, the answer to the complaint will say something like that.

Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline and of a nature to bring discredit... that article 134 of the UCMJ. It's also what the charges were at Billy Mitchell's Court-martial.