Jeffords v. Columbia Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs

BARBARA JEFFORDS, a/k/a Barbara Lemley, Plaintiff, v. COLUMBIA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,RONALD WILLIAMS, individually, and JODY DUPREE, individually, Defendants.

Case No: 3:13-cv-286-J-32PDB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

November 12, 2014

ORDER

Barbara Jeffords claims that Columbia County Commissioners Jody Dupree and Ronald Williams retaliated against Jeffords for her exercise of her First Amendment rights of free speech and to petition the government. (Doc. 1). Jeffords has also sued the Columbia County Board of County Commissioners for Dupree and Williams' statements. (Doc. 1). Defendants moved for summary judgment (Doc. 19) and Plaintiff responded (Doc. 22, 23). The Court heard oral argument on October 20, 2014, and the transcript of that proceeding is incorporated herein. (Doc. 27).

I. FACTS

A. Jody Dupree

At the County Commissioner Board meeting on March 3, 2011, Jeffords spoke in opposition to the Board's appointment of Jack Berry to the Well Florida Council. (Doc. 23-1 at 4). Jeffords said,

I'm opposed to Mr. Berry being . . . appointed to the Wellness Florida Board. He does not represent Columbia County in a good light. . . . [M]ost or a large number of people in Columbia County are intimidated by him, but he does not intimidate me. And I just think that it would be poor judgment for you as [a] Board to appoint him to that council.

(Doc. 23-14 at 7-8).

At some point after that meeting, one of Commissioner Dupree's neighbors told Jeffords that Dupree had an unfenced pool. (Doc. 23-1). Jeffords took a photograph of the pool and notified Stewart Lilker, the publisher of a website called the Columbia County Observer. (Doc. 23-1 at 4-5). On March 17, 2011, Lilker published an article calling Dupree's pool, "a back yard death trap", and suggesting that Dupree had engaged in "brazen evasion of the law". (Doc. 23-12 at 2). Lilker noted that Jeffords had contributed to the article. (Doc. 23-12 at 4).

Jeffords attempted to contact Dupree's ex-wife, allegedly out of concern that she might still own the property and might therefore be liable for the unfenced pool. (Doc. 23-1 at 5). However, Jeffords was never able to locate or communicate with her. (Doc. 23-1 at 5).

After the conclusion of public comments at the Board meeting on the night the article was published, Dupree gave a twenty-minute speech. (Doc. 23-14). The majority of this speech pertained to Lilker. (Doc. 23-14). However, Dupree also mentioned receiving a disturbing phone call from his ex-wife in which she informed him that a citizen of the community had said that "they" were going after Dupree and wanted dirt on him. (Doc. 23-14 at 6). The unnamed citizen was therefore giving Dupree's ex-wife a chance to get retribution against Dupree. (Doc. 23-14 at 6). Dupree stated that hisex-wife was irate, and she held "this despicable individual" in contempt. (Doc. 23-14 at 6). Dupree later suggested that his ex-wife had a hard time believing "that anyone would think that she would even consider stooping" to the depths required to give up dirt on her ex-husband. (Doc. 23-14 at 22).

During the same speech, Dupree personally apologized to Jack Berry for Jeffords' comments at the prior meeting. (Doc. 23-14 at 7). He promised to ensure that no more "personal attacks" would be made at the Board meetings. (Doc. 23-14 at 7). In the process, he repeated Jeffords' words from the transcript of the prior proceeding and described them as "inflammatory", "despicable", and "a personal vendetta against Mr. Berry." (Doc. 23-14 at 7-8).

As an example of the kind of negativity and personal attacks he sought to discourage, Dupree went on to list some of Lilker's complaints about local governance, never once mentioning the article about his pool published earlier that day. (See Doc. 23-14 at 8-20). Dupree asserts that, as he recalls, he did not find out about the article until days after it was published, and therefore after the March 17 meeting. (Doc. 19-2 at 31, 47).

During his speech, Dupree did, however, tell Lilker and Jeffords,

You two, I can promise you this: The respect I got for y'all is down there at the bottom. Do not ever come to me asking for any special consideration. It will not exist. I cannot believe that you, Barbara [Jeffords], have stooped to the level that you have [stooped]. I will make sure that every friend you got knows what you tried to do. There is no doubt about it.

I remember the times you come to my house when you were going through personal issues, and we were nothing but a friend to you. That was it. Nobody talked about your personal stuff on the street. Nobody did anything to shameyou or your sons, but apparently that same consideration is not good enough for the rest of us.

(Doc. 23-14 at 20-21).

In closing, Dupree promised once again that there would no longer be personal attacks at the meetings, and reassured those in attendance that they could come talk to the Board. (Doc. 23-14 at 21). Dupree then concluded his remarks to applause. (Doc. 23-13 at 38:50).

B. Ronald Williams

In 2010, Jeffords supported Lilker's campaign for County Commissioner. (Doc. 23-1 at 3). In August 2010, after Lilker's defeat, a gravestone bearing Lilker's name, as well as Jeffords' name and the name of another Lilker supporter, was placed on the courthouse steps with cow manure. (Doc. 23-1 at 3). While it was apparently tradition to "bury" unsuccessful candidates, Jeffords took exception to this episode because, unlike previous burials, it was performed at the courthouse, rather than at election headquarters, occurred after the primary, rather than after the general election, and included the names of supporters, rather than just the name of the candidate. (Doc. 23-1 at 3).

Both Jeffords and Lilker complained to the police department. (Doc. 23-1 at 3). Lilker requested and received a copy of the courthouse security camera videos to investigate the incident. (Doc. 23-1 at 3). In the videos, Jeffords said that she could see Williams' truck, Dupree's vehicle, and County Commissioner Weaver. (Doc. 23-1 at 3-4). Nevertheless the state attorney, Skip Jarvis, refused to further investigate the incident, and said that the video was too dark to identify the individuals involved.(Doc. 23-1 at 4). Williams now admits that he and Dupree, along with others, created the mock grave. (Doc. 23-3 at 4-5). He denies, however, that the burial was not in accordance with tradition, as he asserts that the graves were always placed in front of the courthouse and always included the names of the candidates' supporters. (Doc. 23-3 at 5-6).

More than half a year later, on some date between March 10 and April 7, 2011 (Doc. 19-1 at 16), Jeffords photographed the rear and sides of Williams' truck before a Board meeting. (Doc. 23-1 at 4). On April 21, 2011, at another Board meeting, Williams requested that the meeting be reconvened after it had already been adjourned. (Doc. 23-1 at 6). Then, he stated that, at the last scheduled meeting, Jeffords "took the effort on herself to plunder around [his] truck, lookin' . . . in the tailgate and takin' pictures of [his] truck". (Doc. 23-17 at 3). Williams asserted that he did not trust Jeffords, because he believed that anyone who would contact a Board member's ex-wife "to try to dig up dirt, would do anything." (Doc. 23-17 at 3). Williams promised that he would be filing an incident report with the sheriff, for fear that Jeffords might plant drugs or explosives on his truck. (Doc. 23-17 at 3). He then finished his statement and the meeting by stating that, "[I]f I get blown up - you all know what's goin' on. Okay?" (Doc. 23-16 at 2:08:14).

Jeffords did not attend the next meeting after the April 21, 2011 meeting, but has otherwise continued to be a regular attendee at the meetings, where she speaks on occasion. (Doc. 19-1 at 20).¹ As a result of her experiences at the meetings, shebelieves that "there probably has been" someone who has avoided speaking at a board meeting. (Doc. 19-1 at 21). Jeffords herself was unable to fall asleep for several months after the incidents, although that problem is now somewhat resolved. (Doc. 19-1 at 22-23).

II. LAW

Jeffords' complaint contains two counts, one against the Columbia County Board of County Commissioners, and one against Williams and Dupree, each asserting that she was the victim of retaliation for engaging in constitutionally protected speech. (Doc. 1 at 4-8).

Defendants seek summary judgment, contending that Jeffords has failed to establish the requisite elements for a First Amendment retaliation claim. (Doc. 19 at 8). Relatedly, Defendants Williams and Dupree seek summary judgment on the grounds that they have qualified immunity.² A First Amendment retaliation claim requires that a plaintiff have engaged in constitutionally protected speech, that the defendant engaged in retaliatory conduct that adversely affected that speech, and thatthe retaliatory conduct and adverse effect were causally connected. Bennett v. Hendrix, 423 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2005). An adverse effect occurs where "the defendant's allegedly retaliatory conduct would likely deter a person of ordinary firmness from the exercise of First Amendment rights." Bennett, 423 F.3d at 1254 (11th Cir. 2005). Although this is an objective standard, whether the plaintiff herself was deterred can be evidence of whether a reasonable person would be deterred. Id. at 1255.

Where there are consequences for the plaintiff's speech, those consequences need not be great to deter a person of ordinary firmness. Moon v. Brown, 939 F. Supp. 2d 1329, 1349 (M.D. Ga. 2013) (finding that a person of ordinary firmness would be deterred by having their truck towed, with an expense of $90). However, to adversely affect speech, retaliatory conduct must constitute more than a mere inconvenience to the plaintiff's exercise of her First Amendment rights. Bethel v. Town of Loxley, 221 F. App'x 812, 813 (11th...