The Missouri Attorney General’s office has moved the Western District federal court to dismiss a former Missouri House staffer's lawsuit against the Missouri House of Representatives over a lack of masking.
“Plaintiff’s own allegations clearly establish that his statements were made pursuant to his official duties as an employee of the House of Representatives, as they were largely made about his ability to perform his job duties,” said Mark Blanton, assistant attorney general, in his March 24 motion to dismiss. “As such, Plaintiff’s speech was not protected under the First Amendment.”
As previously reported, Tad Mayfield worked at the Missouri House from 2011 as a state employee earning some $50,000 annually until he was terminated last year in August allegedly for exercising his First Amendment rights by complaining.
“I don't think they denied him freedom of speech,” St. Louis Attorney Sid Chase said. “He spoke. He made statements. They say that he was not doing his job adequately and they fired him. As the plaintiff, he has the burden of proof. He's got to show that they fired him solely because of what happened on the masking situation and I think that is tough.”
The assistant Attorney General further moved the court to dismiss Mayfield’s whistleblower claim for civil damages.
“Dismissal regarding Plaintiff’s Missouri whistleblower claim against the House of Representatives is also proper,” Blanton wrote. “The information Plaintiff stated in his emails to his supervisors about the novel coronavirus 2019 (“COVID-19”) was publicly known and widely available.”
Mayfield’s attorney filed the lawsuit last month in Cole County Circuit Court but the Attorney General’s office removed the case to federal court.
"It’s a civil rights claim and it’s based on a federal right,” Chase told St. Louis Record. “But there is another reason. It is easier to get a dismissal in federal court. State courts don't like to dismiss plaintiffs. They feel that everybody deserves their day in court. The federal courts are much more formal and will dismiss faster.”
Mayfield’s attorney Kirk D. Holman argued in his brief in opposition that his client’s speech is protected by the First Amendment because masking and the pandemic are a matter of public concern.
“The allegations in Plaintiff’s Petition, viewed in the light most favorable to him, sufficiently allege that he spoke as a private citizen on a matter of public concern, rather than pursuant to his job duties,” Holman wrote in his April 7 pleading. “Because this element of Plaintiff’s prima facie case of First Amendment retaliation is the only element challenged by Defendants, Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim of First Amendment retaliation, for which relief can be granted.”
Chase added that Mayfield has a chance to win if the litigation is not dismissed.
“You never know what's going to happen in litigation. That's why cases are settled,” he said. “There are cases coming out of the COVID situation, which is interesting in law but this one is not of grave report except to this plaintiff who has this thought in his head that he can control what the legislature feels is safe. He may be right but it’s not for him to say.”
Mayfield's attorney, Kirk Holman, and assistant attorney general Mark Blanton did not immediately respond to requests for comment.