DiRuzza v. County of Tehama (March 21, 2000)
* Court: Ninth Circuit
* Jurisdiction: County of Tehama
* Plaintiff’s Job Class: Deputy Sheriff
* Amicus Counsel: Michael Rains for PORAC, PORAC Legal Defense Fund,
Kern Law Enforcement Association, and Elko County Sheriffs' Employees
Association
* Trial Court: Against deputy
* Ninth Circuit: In favor of deputy
* Issues: Free speech, policymaker, section 1983 suits
DiRuzza Facts
* In November 1994, incumbent Sheriff Blanusa was defeated by Robert
Heard.
* Deputy DiRuzza had publicly supported Blanusa to the extent of
appearing in a televised political advertisement.
* Prior to Heard's assuming office, DiRuzza during a domestic dispute
fired her service revolver out of her bedroom window after her fiance
damaged her car, tore her telephone off the wall, and threatened her.
* In December 1994, the D.A. charged DiRuzza with a felony; DiRuzza
was later allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, provided she resign
from her position as a deputy sheriff.
* Sheriff Heard suspended DiRuzza for 30 days.
* In March 1996, DiRuzza sued Sheriff Heard under section 1983,
claiming he had retaliated against her because of her support of Blanusa.
* While denying he had retaliated against DiRuzza for political
reasons, the sheriff sought to dismiss the case on the grounds that,
since deputy sheriffs are policymakers, they can be fired for political
grounds. The sheriff also asserted that the employment actions he took
were due to the pending felony charges against DiRuzza for discharging
her weapon.
* The district court agreed with the sheriff and dismissed DiRuzza's
suit.
* The district court also held that Sheriff Heard was entitled to
qualified immunity since he had not violated a clearly established right
possessed by DiRuzza.
* The Ninth Circuit by a two-to-one vote reversed the district
court's decision.
DiRuzza's Analysis
Policymaker or Not
* The law is well-established that a public employee who is a
policymaker can be fired for political reasons.
* The United States Supreme Court in the 1979 Elrod case first
announced this limitation on the First Amendment rights of public
employees, holding that a bailiff and a process server were not
policymakers.
* In the 1980 Branti case, the United States Supreme
Court held that assistant public defenders were not policymakers.
* The Ninth Circuit in the 1997 Fazio case concluded
that high-level deputy district attorneys were policymakers and
therefore may be terminated for partisan political reasons.
* Three federal circuits have held that deputy sheriffs were
policymakers, and three other federal circuits have held that deputy
sheriffs are not policymakers.
* The Ninth Circuit concluded in DiRuzza that it is not
always the case that deputy sheriffs are policymakers, noting that the
term "deputies" under Government Code section 24101 can
include high-level employees such as an undersheriff.
* In determining if DiRuzza is a policymaker, it is necessary to look
at her actual duties, her "responsibilities, her relative pay,
technical competence, power to control others, authority to speak in the
name of policymakers, public perception, influence on programs, contact
with elected officers, and responsiveness to partisan politics and
political leaders".
* The bottom line for DiRuzza is that the Ninth Circuit remanded her
case back to the district court "for an individualized
determination of whether DiRuzza was a policymaker for whom political
affiliation was a reasonable requirement".
Qualified Immunity
* The established rule under section 1983 is that a public official
performing discretionary functions cannot be sued f or damages, where
the official's conduct did "not violate clearly established
statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would
have known".
* The Ninth Circuit concluded that the law under Elrod
was clear when Sheriff Heard acted in 1995.
* If on remand DiRuzza is found not to have been a policymaker, then
the sheriff's qualified immunity defense will likely evaporate.
Retaliation
* The Ninth Circuit declined to rule in favor of the sheriff
concerning the adverse employment actions he took against DiRuzza, since
the facts are in dispute as to whether political retaliation was a
substantial or motivating factor in his actions.
Conclusion
This is a very important case, but it is not over yet. The Ninth
Circuit hints rather strongly that deputy sheriffs in California are not
policy makers and therefore may not be disciplined for political
reasons. The fight now returns to the district court, where facts will
have to be submitted on the question of whether a deputy sheriff is in
fact a policymaker.
