Godwin v. Rogue Valley Youth Correctional Facility

*875 MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff-Appellant Ronald Godwin appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees Rogue Valley Youth Correctional Facility (“RVYCF”), the Oregon Youth Authority (“OYA”), 1 Superintendent Ken Jerin, Director Collette Peters, and Assistant Director Jean Straight 2 (collectively, “Defendants”). The district court determined that Godwin was not wrongfully terminated in violation of his First Amendment rights to association and free speech. We reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. Because the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we do not repeat them here.

To state a prima facie case for his hybrid speech/association claim, Godwin must show that: (1) he engaged in protected speech and/or association, (2) Defendants “took an adverse employment action” against him, and (3) his speech and/or association was “a substantial or motivating factor for the adverse employment action.” Hudson v. Craven, 403 F.3d 691, 695 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Thomas v. City of Beaverton, 379 F.3d 802, 808 (9th Cir. 2004)). It is undisputed that Defendants terminated Godwin because…

Dissenting,

I agree that an expression of support for the “Vagos,” an organization classified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) as an “outlaw motorcycle gang,” “touches on” a matter of public concern, Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 149 , 103 S.Ct. 1684 , 76 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983). I disagree with the majority’s requirement that actual evidence of disruption is essential before a law enforcement agency can fire an employee for his affiliation with, or expression in support of, the “Vagos.” Such affiliation or expression is contrary to his governmental employer’s mission, as reflected in its important law enforcement interests. I would And that the government employer has a strong safety interest in maintaining public respect for its law enforcement agencies and officials, and that this interest is necessarily undermined when a law enforcement employee engages in conduct or speech antithetical to his employer’s legitimate law enforcement mission. Under these circumstances, the employer is justified in terminating the aberrant employee as a matter of law. For this and the reasons set forth below, I would uphold the district court’s grant of summary judgment in defendants’…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

AUG 10 2016

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD GODWIN, No. 14-35042

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00478-CL

v.

MEMORANDUM*

ROGUE VALLEY YOUTH

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, (RVYCF);

et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Owen M. Panner, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 5, 2016 Portland, Oregon

Before: PREGERSON, BEA, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff-Appellant Ronald Godwin appeals from the district court’s grant of

summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees Rogue Valley Youth

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Correctional Facility (“RVYCF”), the Oregon Youth Authority (“OYA”),

Superintendent Ken Jerin, Director Collette Peters, and Assistant Director Jean

Straight2 (collectively, “Defendants”). The district court determined that Godwin

was not wrongfully terminated in violation of his First Amendment rights…