Daniel Kang, an Asian man, began working as a corporal for the Savannah Police Department (SPD) in Georgia beginning in 2012. In April 2020, Kang and other officers attempted to serve an arrest warrant on Kahlil Kelly. During the operation, they detained Darryl Faitele, mistakenly believing him to be Kelly. After obtaining Faitele’s identification and realizing he was not Kelly, Kang continued to detain him. Faitele reacted by cursing at Kang, who initially ignored the insults but eventually lost his temper, cursing back and behaving unprofessionally. Kang later admitted to his unprofessional conduct. The situation escalated when Kang behaved as if he intended to fight Faitele, sprinted toward him, and was only stopped by another officer’s intervention. Kang later admitted he wanted to hit Faitele but knew it would be inappropriate. Notably, Kang omitted these details from his incident report.
Later that month, Kang was placed on paid administrative leave following complaints from Faitele about the incident. Kang received written notice of the investigation, and Sergeant Richard Wiggins interviewed him. In June 2020, a Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) within SPD reviewed the allegations against Kang, which included violations of three SPD policies: Conduct Unbecoming, Treatment of Others, and Reporting a Police Response to Aggression/Resistance/Force. The DRB sustained the allegations and recommended additional training, job reassignment, and a five-day suspension. Kang then participated in a mitigation hearing with Police Chief Roy Minter and the DRB. After reviewing body camera footage, Kang’s disciplinary history, and other records, Minter upheld the DRB’s findings but deviated from its recommendation, terminating Kang’s employment. Minter cited Kang’s aggressive demeanor, use of foul language, threatening to charge Faitele with obstruction without evidence, and continuing to detain Faitele after confirming his identity as reasons for the termination.
In July 2020, Kang received a notice of suspension before dismissal, a form to appeal, and a DVD with evidence supporting the dismissal. The notice cited violations of SPD policies as the basis for termination. Kang appealed the decision the same day, meeting with Minter for an hour to argue against termination. Minter denied the appeal, and Kang then appealed to City Manager Patrick Chang Monahan, represented by counsel. Monahan reviewed the case materials, including the body camera footage, and upheld Kang’s termination.
Earlier, in April 2020, Kang had signed a group human resources complaint against Minter and submitted an individual complaint. The complaint criticized Minter’s leadership and treatment of subordinates but did not address public concerns. Kang never discussed the complaints with Minter, though Monahan testified that Minter was generally aware of the complaint, which had also received press coverage.
Kang sued the City of Savannah and Minter, alleging First Amendment retaliation, Equal Protection violations, and procedural due process violations. The district court granted summary judgment for the City and Minter, finding no constitutional violations. Kang appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
The 11th Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. On the First Amendment retaliation claim, the Court held that Kang was speaking as an employee, not a citizen, when he submitted the complaint.
“When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes.” The complaint focused on internal workplace grievances, specifically Minter’s leadership and its impact on job performance, and was filed with the City’s Human Resources Department. “Kang’s attempts to recast the complaint as a matter of public concern by characterizing it as being about how Minter ran the SPD and the SPD’s ability to police the community lacks merit.” The Court emphasized that an employee cannot “transform a personal grievance into a matter of public concern by invoking a supposed popular interest in the way public institutions are run.”
Regarding Kang’s Equal Protection claim, the Court found no evidence of racial discrimination. Kang argued that five black officers were treated more favorably, but the Court determined they were not similarly situated because their misconduct differed, and Kang provided no evidence about their disciplinary histories. Kang also cited the timing of his termination during the Black Lives Matter movement as evidence of discrimination, but the Court dismissed this as conclusory. “Kang did not present to the district court nor to this court any evidence to infer that he was fired because of his race.”
On the procedural due process claim, the Court held that Kang received adequate pre-termination process under Loudermill. Kang was given notice of the charges, an explanation of the evidence, and multiple opportunities to present his case, including appeals to Minter and Monahan.
Kang v. Mayor, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5508 (11th Cir. 2025).