A federal court of appeals ruled 2-1 last week that Walsh County Sheriff Lauren Wild was within his rights to fire his deputy after he ran against him in the 2010 sheriff election.
Ron Nord, who was a deputy for 19 years with the Walsh County Sheriff’s Department, lost to Wild in the election.
The next day Wild called Nord into his office earlier than usual and fired him, according to court documents.
This sparked controversy in the county: Nord filed a lawsuit against Walsh County and Wild, seeking damages of more than $50,000, and a recall election was held months later, which Wild won.
Nord accused the sheriff of violating his constitutional right to seek office and of firing him in retaliation for his comments on the campaign trail.
ADVERTISEMENT
Wild contested that Nord had spread lies to try to gain votes and that he was within his right to fire him.
The sheriff testified that Nord had said on the campaign trail that Wild was in poor health and that Wild’s wife didn’t want him to run. The sheriff also said he heard that Nord was saying Wild was going to resign as sheriff and run for a position as a state senator according to court documents.
Wild testified that Nord was lying in some of his statements.
The appeals court ended up siding with Wild, agreeing that he has immunity from the suit’s claims.
One of the judges, C. Arlen Beam, writes in the opinion that “some speech may be protected and some may not.”
Because Nord was a public employee and because he was talking about matters of personal interest - not public concern - his speech was not protected under the First Amendment, the court ruled.
The court also ruled that as an elected official, the sheriff is protected from liability even if he makes a bad decision - as long as it was reasonable.
Wild consulted a human resources consultant and the Walsh County Prosecutor Barbara Whelan before firing Nord according to court documents. They told him he was within his right to do so according to court documents.
ADVERTISEMENT
One of the three judges, Bobby Shepherd, disagreed, writing a dissenting opinion that said Wild had already acknowledged in court that Nord’s statements were protected by the First Amendment.
He also wrote that Wild had not given Whelan enough context when asking her opinion on firing Nord.
Neither party’s attorneys could be reached for comment.
