171002P.pdf   03/29/2019  Donald Morgan  v.  Michael Robinson
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  17-1002
   U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha   
   [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, for the Court En Banc] 
   Civil case - Civil rights. In this action, plaintiff alleged he was 
   terminated from his position in the sheriff's department after he opposed 
   defendant in a primary election and lost; the district court denied 
   defendant's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity and a 
   panel of his court affirmed. See Morgan v. Robinson, 881 F.3d 646 (8th 
   Cir. 2016), reh'g en banc granted, opinion vacated, March 21, 2018). The 
   evidence established that defendant could have reasonably believed that 
   plaintiff's speech was at least potentially damaging to and disruptive of 
   the discipline and harmony of the office and detrimental to the close 
   working relationships and personal loyalties necessary to maintain an 
   effective police force; at the time of the personal action at issue here, 
   the law was not sufficiently clear so that defendant would have known 
   terminating plaintiff violated his First Amendment rights, and defendant 
   was entitled to qualified immunity on the claim. Judge Shepherd, with whom 
   Judge Kelly and Judge Erickson join, dissenting. 
  
171002P.pdf   02/02/2018  Donald Morgan  v.  Michael Robinson
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  17-1002
   U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha   
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Benton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Civil rights. In action alleging defendant retaliated against 
   plaintiff in violation of his First Amendment rights after plaintiff ran 
   against defendant for the office of Sheriff of Washington County, 
   Nebraska, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for 
   summary judgment based on qualified immunity; plaintiff's speech regarding 
   conditions in the department and the state of its services were made as a 
   citizen on matters of public concern; defendant failed to show the 
   statements caused a single concrete incident of disruption, and the speech 
   was protected by the First Amendment; plaintiff's termination violated a 
   right secured by the First Amendment, and that right was clearly 
   established at the time of plaintiff's termination; a public employee 
   cannot be terminated for making protected statements during a campaign for 
   public office where that speech has no demonstrated impact on the 
   efficiency of office operations.