Armstrong v. Wyoming Ex Rel. Department of Environmental Quality, 408 F. App'x 136

Armstrong, a Wyoming DEQ environmental analyst, was fired in 2007 for incurring $2,500 in personal charges on a state-issued cell phone.
He was reinstated by an administrative review board, but the DEQ placed him on paid administrative leave while it appealed in state court.
Armstrong resigned after accepting another job, with the resignation conditioned on DEQ satisfying several demands; the DEQ paid him $42,784.44 but did not satisfy his demands.
Armstrong filed a four-count complaint alleging wrongful termination, First Amendment retaliation, due process violations, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and ADEA violations.
The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, applying Garcetti/Pickering and other precedents, and finding no protected property or liberty interests.
On appeal, Armstrong waived some claims, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court, upholding dismissal of free speech and due process claims and declining to consider new contract theories.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Armstrong's First Amendment claim survives.	Armstrong asserts firing stemmed from First Amendment activity.	Speech was made as part of official duties, not protected.	Claim properly dismissed; no protected speech.
Whether Armstrong had protected due process interests (property or liberty).	Settlement/continued employment created property liberty interests.	No enforceable contract or employment interest; resignation voluntary.	No protected interests; due process claims fail.
Whether the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is viable against the state.	Implied covenant was breached given adverse resignation context.	Wyoming immunity bars such claims; not waived by statute.	Barred by sovereign immunity.
Whether the ADEA claim is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.	ADEA waives sovereign immunity; state consent not required.	ADEA does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity.	Barred; lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Whether Armstrong's contract-based theories were properly preserved for appellate review.	There are enforceable contracts binding the resignation terms.	Contract theory not properly presented below; waived on appeal.	We decline to consider new contract arguments; waived.

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (speech as part of official duties loses First Amendment protection)
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (public employee speech balancing test)
Sandoval v. City of Boulder, 388 F.3d 1312 (10th Cir. 2004) (requirements for publishing statements affecting reputation)
Hoff v. City of Casper-Natrona Cnty. Health Dep’t, 33 P.3d 99 (Wyo. 2001) (Wyoming sovereign immunity and waivers)
Becker v. Kroll, 494 F.3d 904 (10th Cir. 2007) (contract theory preservation on appeal)
Ecclesiastes 9:10-12, Inc. v. LMC Holding Co., 497 F.3d 1135 (10th Cir. 2007) (vague appellate arguments insufficient to preserve theory)
Tele-Communications, Inc. v. Commissioner, 104 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 1997) (preservation and waiver principles on appeal)
Dixon v. Kirkpatrick, 553 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 2009) (Garcetti/Pickering five-prong test framework)
Migneault v. Peck, 204 F.3d 1003 (10th Cir. 2000) (Eleventh Amendment considerations in ADEA context)
Peterson v. Grisham, 594 F.3d 723 (10th Cir. 2010) (de novo review standard for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)