## Facts

- Several former employees of a North Carolina community college sued the college’s board of trustees and various officials, alleging unlawful discharge and nonrenewal.
- Plaintiffs alleged adverse employment actions were taken because of political affiliation and association in connection with controversy over selecting a new college president.
- One plaintiff alleged retaliation for writing a letter criticizing the board’s presidential selection process.
- Plaintiffs asserted federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment violations and related state-law claims.
- The action was filed in North Carolina state court; defendants removed to federal court on federal-question grounds.
- Plaintiffs sought remand, arguing removal was procedurally defective because not all defendants timely and properly joined in the removal.
- The district court denied remand and granted summary judgment to defendants on the First Amendment claims.

## Issues

1. Whether removal was procedurally proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), including whether all properly served defendants timely joined or consented to removal.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on the First Amendment claims alleging discharge/nonrenewal based on political affiliation or retaliation for protected speech.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to remand.
- The court held the removal was timely and satisfied the unanimity requirement; alleged defects in how consent was manifested did not require remand absent prejudice and where timely consent existed.
- The court reversed the grant of summary judgment for defendants on the First Amendment claims.
- The court remanded for further proceedings because the record contained evidence from which a reasonable jury could find political or retaliatory motivation.

## Legal Principles

- Under § 1446(b), all properly joined and served defendants must join in or consent to removal within the statutory period; nonprejudicial technical defects in documenting consent do not necessarily compel remand if timely unanimity exists.
- Non-policymaking public employees generally may not be discharged solely due to political affiliation, and may not be retaliated against for protected speech on matters of public concern, absent sufficient governmental justification.
- In public-employee speech cases, courts apply the Pickering framework; speech on institutional governance can constitute a matter of public concern, and summary judgment is improper where disruption and balancing cannot be resolved as a matter of law on the record.
- Summary judgment standards require viewing evidence in the nonmovant’s favor and avoiding credibility determinations; where motive and intent are central and supported by specific facts, the claims ordinarily present triable issues.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that removal to federal court was procedurally valid, but it reversed summary judgment because plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence to create genuine disputes over whether their discharges and nonrenewals were motivated by political affiliation or retaliation for protected speech, requiring further proceedings in the district court.


McKinney v. Bd. of Trs. of Mayland Cmty. Coll., 955 F.2d 924 (4th Cir. 1992)