Albert DiBrito v. City of St. Joseph
675 F. App'x 593
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Al DiBrito was Deputy Director of the City of St. Joseph Public Safety Department (second-in-command to Director Mark Clapp); Richard Lewis was City Manager.
- DiBrito complained to Lewis about two matters: (1) Clapp taking and purchasing a firearm that had been turned into the department, and (2) alleged defamatory comments Clapp made to Officer Tom Vaught about DiBrito’s hiring and past conduct.
- DiBrito’s firearm complaint was prepared on department letterhead, referenced a police report, recommended investigation, and was signed "Deputy Director." He had researched law enforcement rules and contacted federal officials before filing.
- Lewis investigated, involved Michigan State Police (which declined a criminal probe), retained outside counsel Theresa Smith Lloyd for a third-party investigation, and was troubled by DiBrito’s own admissions that no law appeared violated.
- Lloyd’s report criticized both officers: it recommended disciplining Clapp for inappropriate comments and addressing multiple concerns about DiBrito (honesty, statements to subordinates, favoritism, retaliation). Lewis suspended Clapp and terminated DiBrito.
- DiBrito sued under the First Amendment (retaliation) and the Due Process Clause (reputation/liberty), plus state claims; the district court granted summary judgment to defendants and this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DiBrito’s complaint about Clapp’s firearm purchase is constitutionally protected speech | DiBrito: complaint was citizen speech on public concern (misuse of public property) | City: complaint was made pursuant to DiBrito’s official duties as Deputy Director | Held: Not protected — made pursuant to official duties (Garcetti/Lane analysis) |
| Whether DiBrito’s complaint about Clapp’s comments to Vaught is protected speech on a matter of public concern | DiBrito: alleged defamation and statements threaten PSD effectiveness — public concern | City: comments were an internal employment grievance, not public concern | Held: Not protected — concerned private intra-office dispute (Connick test) |
| Whether DiBrito’s termination violated substantive due process via reputational liberty deprivation | DiBrito: termination and associated statements injured reputation and foreclosed future law-enforcement employment | City: no evidence foreclosing future employment; mere damage to attractiveness insufficient | Held: Not a due process violation — failed to show loss of ability to pursue future employment (second element) |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (speech pursuant to official duties not protected)
- Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369 (narrowing Garcetti; ask whether speech is ordinarily within job duties)
- Handy-Clay v. City of Memphis, 695 F.3d 531 (Sixth Circuit test for First Amendment retaliation)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (public-concern inquiry; distinguish internal office matters)
- Boulton v. Swanson, 795 F.3d 526 (Sixth Circuit: Garcetti read narrowly; examples of run-of-the-mill disputes)
- Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378 (use appropriate constitutional provision over generalized substantive due process)
- Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (substantive-due-process limitations)
- Med Corp. v. City of Lima, 296 F.3d 404 (elements for reputational liberty deprivation)
- Ludwig v. Bd. of Trs. of Ferris State Univ., 123 F.3d 404 (mere lessening of attractiveness to employers insufficient)
- Bannum, Inc. v. Town of Ashland, 922 F.2d 197 (denied business opportunity does not amount to liberty deprivation)