Hanson v. LeVan

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds plaintiffs-Deputy Assessors’ section 1983 action alleging that defendant-Township Assessor violated their First Amendment rights when defendant fired them shortly after he took office as Township Assessor on account of fact that they had supported his political rival and predecessor. Dist. Ct. could properly find under plausibility standard associated with motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) that defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity at this juncture of proceeding, where plaintiffs’ allegations stated claim of violation of clearly established law. Moreover, Ct. noted that: (1) no statutes or ordinances confirmed defendant’s claim that Deputy Assessor position involved policymaking input or access to Assessor’s politically sensitive or confidential thoughts so as to allow use of political affiliation to be factor in plaintiffs’ terminations; and (2) reasonable state actor would have understood that firing employee from position that lacked meaningful input into political decision-making violated employee’s First Amendment rights.