Beth Perkins v. Township of Clayton, 411 F. App'x 810

Perkins served as Clayton Charter Township treasurer (2000–2008) and alleged First Amendment retaliation by the Township and Supervisor Shumaker.
Perkins exposed improper use of township funds and discounted cellular plans by Clerk Lurvey and Lurvey’s family; she alerted auditors and Shumaker.
Perkins discussed issues with a Swartz Creek Journal reporter; the newspaper published articles based on her information.
At a November 8, 2007 board meeting, the Board voted to hold a censure hearing against Perkins; the motion was driven by Shumaker, Perkins initially supported but later opposed it; the hearing was never held.
Shumaker filed a mandamus action in state court alleging Perkins failed to perform duties and violated FOIA; the state court partially ruled for the Township and rejected some claims, including the Township’s FOIA interpretation.
After mandamus, Perkins went on medical leave, did not return to work, and the district court granted summary judgment to the Township and Shumaker, finding no adverse action and, for Shumaker, qualified immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Township actions were adverse actions	Perkins argues actions were retaliation for protected speech.	Township contends actions were not adverse to deter public speech.	No adverse action found; not deterred.
Whether the Board's policies can support municipal liability	Perkins asserts Board policies caused retaliatory harms.	Township argues only policies of the Board may create liability; other actions were mere misuse.	Board policies (censure, mandamus, contempt) could implicate liability; still not adverse.
Whether Shumaker is entitled to qualified immunity	Perkins contends no immunity barriers to accountability.	Shumaker asserts qualified immunity if no constitutional violation occurred.	Shumaker entitled to qualified immunity because no adverse action found.

Mezibov v. Allen, 411 F.3d 712 (6th Cir. 2005) (retaliation elements for First Amendment claims)
Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc; definition of retaliation elements)
Mattox v. City of Forest Park, 183 F.3d 517 (6th Cir. 1999) (adverse action standard for public officials)
Siggers-El v. Barlow, 412 F.3d 693 (6th Cir. 2005) (deterrence standard for First Amendment retaliation)
Holzheimer v. City of Memphis, 621 F.3d 512 (6th Cir. 2010) (contextual adverse-action determination for public officials)
Paige v. Coyner, 614 F.3d 273 (6th Cir. 2010) (threshold for action deterred by government retaliation)
Radvansky v. City of Olmstead Falls, 395 F.3d 291 (6th Cir. 2005) (imputing misuses of policy to municipality limits liability)
Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1986) (final authority to establish municipal policy)
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires policy or custom)