The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled in favor of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC) in a case involving the firing of a correctional officer, Stanley Felton, Sr. The court's decision, issued on July 27, 2026, affects Felton and his son, G’eas Kalafi, who claimed that Felton's termination violated their constitutional rights. The ruling emphasizes the limits of protected speech for public employees and the adequacy of due process in employment termination.
Felton worked as a correctional officer for nearly two decades before being fired for allegedly violating a work rule. The DOC accused him of alerting his son, who was incarcerated at Waupun Correctional Institution, about an upcoming search at the facility. The court's decision is significant as it clarifies the boundaries of First Amendment protections for public employees and the procedural requirements for due process in employment actions.
The case began when Felton was placed on administrative leave following an investigation into his phone call with Kalafi on December 28, 2019. During the call, they discussed a lockdown at Waupun due to an inmate stabbing a correctional officer. DOC claimed that Felton shared information about a planned search, which led to his termination on February 24, 2020. Felton and Kalafi subsequently filed a lawsuit against DOC, alleging retaliation for protected speech and a violation of due process.
In their complaint, Felton and Kalafi argued that DOC's actions were unconstitutional. They contended that Felton's firing was retaliation for his speech, which they claimed was protected under the First Amendment. Additionally, Felton alleged that he was denied procedural due process because he was not properly informed about the grievance process following his termination. The case was initially dismissed by the district court, which ruled against Kalafi's claim and later granted summary judgment to DOC on Felton's claims.
The Seventh Circuit, led by Judge Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, reviewed the district court's decisions. The court affirmed the lower court's ruling, stating, "Because the circumstances about which Felton and Kalafi complain do not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, we affirm." The court found that Felton's comments during the phone call did not constitute protected speech as they did not address a matter of public concern. Instead, the court determined that Felton's remarks were primarily personal and not of interest to the public.
In evaluating Felton's First Amendment claim, the court noted that public employee speech must relate to a matter of public concern to be protected. The court explained that Felton's frustration about the potential inconvenience of participating in a shakedown was a personal matter rather than a public issue. The court stated, "The statement merely conveys Felton’s personal frustration at the potential inconvenience of having to participate in the shakedown. It does not relate to any matter of political, social, or other concern or general interest to the public."
Regarding Felton's procedural due process claim, the court agreed with the district court's finding that Felton had received adequate pre-termination and post-termination processes. The court noted that Felton was given notice of the charges against him and an opportunity to respond before his termination. The court also pointed out that Felton failed to follow the grievance process correctly, which undermined his claim of inadequate post-termination process.
The court emphasized that an employee cannot refuse to pursue available state remedies and then claim a lack of due process in federal court. The ruling highlighted that Felton did not take advantage of the grievance process, which was available to him after his termination. The court stated, "Even assuming DOC never sent Felton an email, Felton does not explain why he waited more than two years to follow up on his initial grievance."
The implications of this ruling are significant for public employees and employers. The decision reinforces the idea that not all speech by public employees is protected under the First Amendment, particularly when it pertains to private matters rather than issues of public concern. Additionally, the ruling underscores the importance of following proper procedures in grievance processes to ensure due process rights are upheld.
Moving forward, this ruling may set a precedent for similar cases involving public employees and their rights regarding speech and due process. It clarifies the standards that courts will use when evaluating claims of retaliation and procedural due process in employment contexts. The ruling does not appear to have any pending appeals or related cases at this time.