U.S. Court of Appeals rules in favor of legislative clerk fired for encouraging masking during pandemic

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled in favor of Tad Mayfield, a former Missouri legislative assistant clerk who was fired after voicing concerns about not mandating masks in the state Capitol building.

Mayfield had worked as a nonpartisan legislative specialist in the assistant chief clerk’s office of the Missouri House since 2013 before he was fired on Aug. 6, 2020.,

On Aug. 3, 2020, Mayfield emailed the speaker of the House and the president pro tem of the Missouri Senate advocating for the use of masks in the state Capitol building, according to the decision issued by the court.

In the email, Mayfield wrote, “For the health and well-being of all who enter our Capitol, I am requesting that you, as leadership in the House and Senate, adhere to CDC guidelines and implement a mandatory face mask policy for all spaces within our Capitol, excluding the personal office spaces of Members,” according to the decision.

After he was fired, Mayfield filed a lawsuit alleging that the termination had violated his First Amendment rights.

Mayfield’s lawsuit proceeded to a jury trial, where defendants Assistant Chief Clerk of the House Emily White and Chief Clerk of the House Dana Rademan Miller argued the reason for his termination related to his job performance, not the Aug. 3 email.

However, during Mayfield’s employment, he consistently received positive evaluations from his supervisors, with only one instance of corrective action, according to the court decision.

After a two-day trial, a jury sided in Mayfield’s favor. The jury awarded Mayfield $15,000 in punitive damages and awarded Mayfield attorney’s fees.

Miller and White argued that, despite the jury’s verdict, they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law and submitted an appeal.

They argued that “Mayfield failed to establish that his Aug. 3 email was constitutionally protected speech.”

The Court of Appeals said that to determine whether Mayfield’s speech was entitled to First Amendment protection, they must determine whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern.

“We agree with the district court that Mayfield’s speech in the August 3 email was a matter of public concern,” the court said. “…The email focused solely on public health and safety during what the Defendants have described on appeal as “‘the defining political issue of the time.'”

The defendants also argued that Mayfield failed to establish that his email was a motivating factor in his termination.

However, the court of appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the “Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law on Mayfield’s First Amendment claim.”