65 F.4th 302
6th Cir.2023Background
- Billy and Amanda Lemaster operated Lemaster Towing & Recovery and Billy served as volunteer fire chief in Lawrence County, KY; their towing income depended heavily on the county E-911 rotation list.
- After supporting Phillip Carter’s successful 2018 campaign for judge executive, Billy posted critical Facebook comments about Carter’s firing of the EMA director (April 2019) and later about Carter’s alleged ties to a local resident (August 2019).
- Carter called Billy angrily after the April post; Billy agreed to delete it and initially saw an increase in tow calls.
- In September 2019 the E-911 Center emailed dispatchers stating “Per Judge Carter … Lemaster Towing is no longer on the rotation list,” and calls to Lemaster Towing thereafter “dropped off tremendously.”
- The Lemasters sued Carter and Lawrence County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First Amendment retaliation) and state tort claims; the district court granted summary judgment to both defendants on the § 1983/Monell claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed summary judgment as to Carter (free-speech retaliation claim), affirmed as to Lawrence County (Monell), and remanded the state tort claim for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal from the E-911 rotation list was an adverse action under the First Amendment | Removal (or effective removal) of Lemaster Towing deprived the business of government-generated income and would deter ordinary speakers | Carter denied removing the company and claimed dispatchers misunderstood his instructions | Adverse action: yes — evidence (email and drop in calls) sufficed to create a jury question |
| Whether Lemaster's Facebook posts were protected speech | April post criticized a government firing and addressed a public concern; August post was political innuendo about public conduct | Carter argued the August post was purely personal and not a matter of public concern | April post: protected; August post: court avoided deciding, unnecessary because Carter testified he had not seen it before deposition |
| Causation standard and whether Lemaster's April post motivated the removal | The April post motivated Carter; temporal gap plus pattern of retaliatory acts supports inference | Carter argued the four-and-a-half month gap and other disputes (fire-department issues) show no causal link or that any action was for other reasons | Causation: plaintiff met motivating-factor threshold to survive summary judgment; jury must decide whether speech was but-for cause or Carter would have acted anyway (burden shifts to defendant at trial) |
| Whether Lawrence County is liable under Monell for Carter's actions | County liable because Carter was a high-ranking official who directed removal | County argued Carter lacked final policymaking authority over rotation-list changes (board/911 director had final authority) | Monell: no municipal liability — record showed county board/911 director had final authority; single dispatcher testimony insufficient to prove county policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) (burden-shifting framework where speech is a motivating factor and defendant must show same-action defense)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires an official policy or custom)
- Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S. Ct. 1715 (2019) (First Amendment retaliation requires that protected speech be a but-for cause of the adverse action)
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) (speech-motive/causation principles for retaliatory prosecutions)
- Umbehr v. McClure, 518 U.S. 668 (1996) (government contractor/benefit-speech balancing and application of Pickering)
- Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (balancing public-employee speech interests against government interests)
- Lucas v. Monroe County, 203 F.3d 964 (6th Cir. 2000) (removal from tow rotation list can be adverse action deterring speech)
- Comcast Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of African Am.-Owned Media, 140 S. Ct. 1009 (2020) (distinguishing motivating-factor proof from but-for causation)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (framework for inference of discriminatory motive where employer fails to articulate legitimate nondiscriminatory reason)
- Vereecke v. Huron Valley Sch. Dist., 609 F.3d 392 (6th Cir. 2010) (temporal proximity and analysis of retaliatory motive)
- Anders v. Cuevas, 984 F.3d 1166 (6th Cir. 2021) (applying adverse-action and causation analysis to tow-list removal)