[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-13566 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
December 16, 2008
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 06-01056-CV-J-33-JRK
ZORA PAIGE BARTHLOW,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES B. JETT,
in his individual capacity,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(December 16, 2008)
Before BIRCH, HULL, and HILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Zora Paige Barthlow sued James B. Jett, in his individual capacity, for
damages in connection with her termination from the Clerk of Courts for Clay
County, Florida. The district court entered summary judgment for Jett, holding
that he was entitled to qualified immunity. For the following reasons, we shall
affirm.
Barthlow claims that she was terminated in retaliation for having filed a
complaint against Jett with the Florida Elections Commission in connection with
his re-election campaign. She claims that she “exercised her right to free speech in
addressing a matter of public concern,” and that Jett retaliated by altering the
terms of Barthlow’s employment and ultimately firing her. Jett responds that he is
protected by qualified immunity from Barthlow’s claims and that, in any event, he
had lawful reasons for terminating her employment. We review the district court’s
grant of summary judgment de novo. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 247-48 (1986).
A government actor is entitled to qualified immunity from an action alleging
retaliatory firing for protected speech if he can show that he would have taken the
same action in the absence of the speech. Stanley v. City of Dalton, 219 F.3d
1280, 1288 (11th Cir. 2000) (citing Bryson v. City of Waycross, 888 F.2d 1562,
2
1565-66 (11th Cir. 1989)). There is no constitutional violation if the state actor
had a legitimate reason for firing the employee. Id. at 1293. Even if the employer
partially relied on the protected speech in taking the adverse employment action,
there is no liability if the employer can present sufficient evidence that the same
decision would have been made absent the protected speech. Id.
It is clear that Jett had a legitimate reason for firing Barthlow. The record is
replete with evidence adduced by Jett that Barthlow had an extensive history of
reprimands for unprofessional conduct. Her file contains numerous reprimands
for abusive and harassing incidents with co-workers, Clerk of the Court customers,
and Assistant State Attorneys. In one particularly egregious incident, one of the
Clay County circuit judges felt compelled to complain of her unprofessional
conduct in the courtroom, which resulted in an inmate being mistakenly released
from custody when the court had remanded for incarceration. The judge
recommended that Barthlow be immediately reassigned and removed from further
court appearances. On other occasions, Barthlow incorrectly advertised the date
of a tax deed sale, failed to send a memorandum to the jail resulting in the inmate
spending an extra day in jail, and leveled false accusations of sexual harassment
against a fellow employee, which she later withdrew. Barthlow’s supervisor stated
in her evaluation that:
3
[Barthlow’s] attitude comes across as being overbearing and non-
flexible. Her harsh tone of voice affects the work environment in the
department. She comes across as if []everything is supposed to go her
way and she doesn’t adjust well to a heavy work flow or reassignment
of tasks. . . . [Barthlow] seems to blame others when problems occur
rather than accepting responsibility of the problems herself.
Barthlow does not dispute that these incidents occurred. Instead, she offers
a variety of excuses for her behavior. The district court, however, found that Jett
had presented sufficient evidence of Barthlow’s negative employment history to
establish his legitimate reasons for terminating her employment. We agree.
Furthermore, even if this were a case of mixed motives,1 we would affirm
the district court’s entry of summary judgment. A state actor is entitled to
qualified immunity for firing an employee when motivated in part by unlawful
considerations if lawful reasons were also present. Stanley, 219 F.3d at 1296.
Such lawful considerations are patently present in this case. Therefore, even if it
were true that Jett was motivated in part by retaliatory intent, Jett had more than
ample lawful cause to terminate Barthlow.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is due to be
AFFIRMED.
1
We make no finding that Jett acted with retaliatory intent. We note only that even if he
had, he would be entitled to qualified immunity if his termination of Barthlow was lawful for
other reasons. Stanley, 219 F.3d at 1296.
4