Martin Misjuns, a Fire Captain and paramedic with the Lynchburg Fire Department in Virginia, posted offensive cartoons on his public Facebook page in January 2021 depicting transgender women in bathrooms and sports. Citizens complained to city officials, describing the content as “vile,” “hateful,” and “dehumanizing.” Misjuns doubled down with another post referring to the “attacks [he had] been facing from a local activist group,” alongside a meme expressing that their defense of transgender identity “defies the one true God.” Lynchburg Mayor Mary Dolan and City Manager Reid Wodicka expressed strong disapproval in emails to complainants and directed Fire Chief Gregory Wormser to investigate.
After internal proceedings, Wormser terminated Misjuns in October 2021. Misjuns then fled a federal lawsuit against the City of Lynchburg, alleging violations of his First Amendment free speech and religious exercise rights, Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, breach of contract, and wrongful termination. He argued that city officials conspired to deny his constitutional rights to express his religious and political views on matters of public concern.
The district court dismissed all claims, and Misjuns appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. The Court found that Misjuns had failed to adequately plead any theory of “Monell liability,” the doctrine governing suits against municipalities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of federal civil rights law. Under the Monell doctrine, municipal liability requires showing that a policy or custom caused the constitutional violation.
The Court rejected Misjuns’ argument that Wormser had “final policy making authority,” noting that having discretion to make personnel decisions does not equate to final policymaking power. Crucially, Misjuns’ own complaint undermined his argument by alleging that Wormser acted “in response to instructions from” city officials, demonstrating his actions were subject to supervision by municipal policymakers.
The Court also found no evidence of a “persistent and widespread” custom of constitutional violations, noting that Misjuns presented only an isolated incident rather than evidence of systematic misconduct. While acknowledging emails between city officials expressing disapproval of Misjuns’ posts, the Court noted these communications did not establish any identifiable policy or custom. The Court stressed that “a custom cannot be established ‘by proof alone of the single violation charged’” and that there must be “numerous particular instances” of unconstitutional conduct.
The Court also rejected Misjuns’ breach of contract claim, finding the City’s employee handbook explicitly disclaimed any contractual relationship and preserved at-will employment.
Misjuns v. City of Lynchburg, 2025 WL 1584229 (4th Cir. 2025).