In Misjuns v. City of Lynchburg, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a municipality’s decision to terminate a fire captain for posting content on social media that his municipal employer found to be offensive attacks on the transgender community.

The Plaintiff, Martin Misjuns, was employed by the City of Lynchburg as a Fire Captain and paramedic. He maintained two Facebook pages: a personal page identifying him as “Marty Misjuns” and a public figure page identifying him as “Martin J. Misjuns, Ward I Chair – Lynchburg Republican City Committee.” Neither page identified his position or employment with the municipality. In January 2021, Plaintiff posted a series of cartoons on his public figure page that depicted offensive stereotypes of transgender women utilizing bathrooms and playing sports. The posts drew complaints from residents who identified the Plaintiff as a municipal employee and filed complaints with the municipality.

After an investigation by the municipality, the Plaintiff was terminated. Subsequently, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against his municipal employer, alleging that his termination constituted a breach of contract. The Plaintiff also claimed his equal protection and First Amendment rights were violated by the municipality’s actions. After the district court dismissed his claims, the Plaintiff appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Fourth Circuit found that the Plaintiff failed to establish Monell liability against the municipality. “To hold a municipality liable for a constitutional violation under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the execution of a policy or custom of the municipality caused the violation.” Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). As such, Plaintiff’s arguments with respect to his First Amendment and equal protection claims could not prevail.

Second, the Fourth Circuit rejected the Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. The Plaintiff alleged that the municipality’s Employment Policies & Procedures handbook constituted a binding contract between the municipality and its employees. The Fourth Circuit disagreed, noting that the handbook explicitly references at-will employment and unambiguously states that it is not a contract. As such, the handbook did not constitute a contract, and without a contract, there cannot be a breach of contract.

Key Takeaway

This case highlights the challenges public employees face when balancing their free speech rights with their professional responsibilities. While individuals have the right to express their views, public employers also have the authority to regulate speech that may disrupt the workplace or harm the organization’s reputation. The decision underscores the importance of understanding the limits of free speech in the context of public employment.

About the Author

Jeyser (Jey) focuses his practice on representing cities, villages, park districts, school districts, library districts, and other public entities on a variety of legal matters including day-to-day operations, contract review and negotiation, real estate and land use matters. Click here to read Jey’s full attorney bio.