## Facts

- Lawrenceburg Power System (LPS), a Tennessee municipal utility, maintained an anti-nepotism policy barring permanent employment of immediate relatives and limiting employment to one family member.
- Keith Vaughn worked for LPS since 1987 and by 1997 maintained LPS grounds and buildings.
- Jennifer Vaughn worked for LPS part-time in high school and became a full-time cashier after graduating in 1996.
- Keith and Jennifer became engaged in 1997; LPS informed them that if they married, one would have to resign, but both could remain employed if they did not marry.
- The couple married in January 1998 without either resigning; LPS suspended both and set a deadline for them to decide which spouse would leave.
- Keith told LPS that Jennifer would resign, but she did not submit a written resignation or return by the deadline; LPS terminated Keith, and Jennifer’s employment ended in connection with enforcement of the policy.
- The Vaughns sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (challenging the policy under right-to-marry and equal protection theories and alleging retaliation) and under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) for retaliatory discharge.

## Issues

1. Whether LPS’s anti-nepotism policy unconstitutionally burdened the fundamental right to marry (and violated equal protection) such that it was actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. Whether the terminations supported a THRA retaliatory discharge claim based on opposition to an allegedly discriminatory practice.
3. Whether Keith Vaughn stated a viable § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim based on alleged retaliation for refusing to affirm or agree with the policy.

## Decision

- Affirmed summary judgment for LPS on the Vaughns’ constitutional challenges to the anti-nepotism policy under § 1983.
- Affirmed summary judgment for LPS on the THRA retaliatory discharge claim.
- Reversed summary judgment on Keith Vaughn’s § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim and remanded for further proceedings due to genuine disputes of material fact.

## Legal Principles

- A policy that does not bar marriage but makes it economically costly is an indirect burden that does not trigger heightened scrutiny; it is reviewed under rational basis.
- Under rational basis review, an anti-nepotism policy may be justified by legitimate governmental interests such as avoiding favoritism, conflicts of interest, and morale problems associated with employing immediate family members.
- THRA retaliation requires protected activity (opposition to a practice covered by the statute), an adverse action, and a causal connection; enforcement of a facially neutral anti-nepotism policy, on this record, did not establish the required elements.
- A public employee’s First Amendment retaliation claim turns on fact-specific questions, including whether the employee engaged in protected expression and whether that expression was a motivating factor in the adverse action; summary judgment is improper where material facts on causation and protected activity are disputed.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that LPS’s anti-nepotism policy did not directly and substantially burden the right to marry and was valid under rational basis review, and it rejected the THRA retaliation claim; however, it remanded Keith Vaughn’s First Amendment retaliation claim because the record contained triable factual disputes about whether his discharge was driven by his expressed opposition to the policy.


Vaughn v. Lawrenceburg Power Sys., 269 F.3d 703 (6th Cir. 2001)