## Facts

- Mitchell Shands, Don Key, and Forrest Busch served as volunteer firefighters for the City of Kennett, Missouri.
- A dispute arose when the firefighters contacted a city council member to oppose the fire chief’s preferred candidate for a volunteer position and to secure appointment of their friend instead.
- City officials treated the contact as insubordination and misconduct within the fire department’s chain of command.
- On April 10, 1989, the City terminated the firefighters.
- The City Council held a special closed session on the discharges where witnesses testified; the firefighters were permitted to question witnesses and make statements in their defense.
- After the session, the City publicly stated the discharges were for “personnel reasons,” and specified they were not for financial misdealings, illegal conduct, or moral turpitude.
- A city official also told the media the discharges involved personnel reasons, including insubordination and misconduct.
- The firefighters sued, alleging (1) retaliation for protected speech under the First Amendment and (2) deprivation of Fourteenth Amendment liberty interests based on allegedly false, stigmatizing statements without adequate name-clearing process.

## Issues

1. Whether the firefighters’ communications to a council member about a specific volunteer appointment were speech on a matter of public concern protected by the First Amendment.
2. Whether characterizing the terminations as involving “insubordination and misconduct” imposed a constitutionally cognizable stigma in connection with discharge sufficient to trigger a Fourteenth Amendment liberty-interest claim.
3. Whether the City provided adequate process, including a meaningful opportunity to clear one’s name, in connection with any alleged reputational harm.
4. Whether the evidence could legally support the jury’s verdict for plaintiffs, making judgment notwithstanding the verdict improper.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the City and individual defendants.
- The court held the firefighters’ communications sought to influence an internal personnel decision and did not address a matter of public concern; therefore, the First Amendment claim failed as a matter of law.
- The court held the public statements describing “personnel reasons” involving insubordination and misconduct did not amount to the type of stigma (such as accusations of dishonesty, criminality, or moral turpitude) required for a liberty-interest claim, particularly given the City’s express disclaimer of such wrongdoing.
- The court further concluded that the special council session—allowing the firefighters to hear testimony, question witnesses, and present their account—provided sufficient opportunity to respond for any asserted name-clearing interest.
- Because the legal elements of the constitutional claims were not met on the record, the jury’s damages awards could not stand.

## Legal Principles

- Public-employee (and similarly situated volunteer) speech is constitutionally protected only if it addresses a matter of public concern; speech centered on a discrete internal personnel choice is generally unprotected.
- A Fourteenth Amendment liberty-interest claim based on reputational harm requires stigmatizing statements made in connection with discharge plus denial of an opportunity to clear one’s name; generalized assertions of “insubordination” or “misconduct” in a workplace dispute typically do not constitute the required stigma absent implications of dishonesty, criminality, or moral turpitude.
- When a public employer provides a meaningful chance to respond—such as questioning witnesses and presenting one’s version of events—due process may be satisfied for name-clearing purposes, depending on the nature of the alleged stigma.
- Judgment notwithstanding the verdict is appropriate where, even viewing the evidence favorably to the verdict winner, the law does not permit a reasonable jury to find the required constitutional violations.

## Conclusion

The court upheld judgment for the City because the firefighters’ attempt to influence a volunteer appointment was an internal personnel dispute outside First Amendment protection, and the City’s limited public statements about insubordination and misconduct—combined with an opportunity to respond at a council session—did not establish a Fourteenth Amendment liberty-interest violation.


Shands v. City of Kennett, 993 F.2d 1337 (8th Cir. 1993)