516 F.Supp.3d 711
E.D. Mich.2021Background
- Shannon Blick, a white elementary-school principal in Ann Arbor, was placed on involuntary paid administrative leave in April 2019 pending an investigation into alleged improper payments to a janitor. The leave letter barred her from contacting students, staff, or parents and from entering district property.
- District officials emailed the Lawton community announcing her leave and asking for her privacy; Blick denies requesting privacy and alleges the communications stigmatized her.
- Blick alleges reverse racial discrimination (she says minority administrators were favored), First Amendment deprivations (speech, petition, association), denial of a name‑clearing hearing and other due‑process harms, Title VII and ELCRA claims, Monell municipal liability, and a civil conspiracy claim.
- Defendants moved to dismiss. Blick filed two late motions to supplement the record; the court denied both. Defendants sought fees; the court denied that request.
- The court dismissed Blick’s race‑discrimination (§ 1983, Title VII, ELCRA), due‑process, Monell, and civil‑conspiracy claims, but allowed her First Amendment claims (free speech, petition, association) against municipal and individual defendants to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reverse race discrimination (§ 1983, Title VII, ELCRA) | Blick says paid leave and related actions were racially motivated reverse discrimination and disparate treatment of non‑minority administrators | Placing an employee on paid administrative leave and the communications here are not adverse employment actions; plaintiff fails to plead an adverse action or plausible discrimination | Dismissed: plaintiff failed to allege a materially adverse employment action; claims under § 1983, Title VII, ELCRA dismissed |
| First Amendment (free speech, petition, association) | Prohibitions on speaking to parents/community, attending board meetings, making FOIA requests, and other restrictions curtailed public‑concern speech and association | Restrictions addressed internal investigatory needs and speech of private/personal concern; therefore not protected | Survived: court finds it plausible Blick was restrained from speaking on matters of public concern; Pickering balancing deferred pending factual development |
| Procedural due process / name‑clearing hearing | Blick asserts property/liberty interests in her job/reputation and seeks a name‑clearing hearing due to stigmatizing statements and alleged constructive discharge | Administrators lack tenure or property interest in the position; paid leave avoids Loudermill due‑process concerns; no actual termination or proven constructive discharge | Dismissed: paid leave with pay does not trigger due‑process protections here; plaintiff not entitled to name‑clearing hearing absent termination |
| Monell and civil conspiracy (municipal liability; conspiracy to violate constitutional rights) | Municipal policies/customs and an agreement among officials produced the constitutional deprivations | No individual constitutional violations (except First Amendment), allegations lack specific facts identifying a single plan or overt acts in furtherance | Dismissed: Monell claims tied to dismissed individual claims fail; conspiracy claim dismissed for lack of particularized factual allegations |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, [citation="550 U.S. 544"] (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, [citation="556 U.S. 662"] (2009) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Connick v. Myers, [citation="461 U.S. 138"] (1983) (public‑concern inquiry for public‑employee speech)
- Pickering v. Board of Education, [citation="391 U.S. 563"] (1968) (balancing employee speech and employer interests)
- Jackson v. City of Columbus, [citation="194 F.3d 737"] (6th Cir. 1999) (gag orders and public‑concern speech for high‑profile public employees)
- White v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., [citation="364 F.3d 789"] (6th Cir.) (definition of adverse employment action)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., [citation="436 U.S. 658"] (1978) (municipal liability requires a policy or custom)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, [citation="470 U.S. 532"] (1985) (due process for public employees and significance of paid suspension)
- Paul v. Davis, [citation="424 U.S. 693"] (1976) (reputation alone does not create a liberty interest for due process)
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, [citation="434 U.S. 412"] (1978) (standards for awarding attorney's fees to prevailing defendants)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, [citation="411 U.S. 792"] (1973) (framework for proving disparate treatment in employment)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, [citation="534 U.S. 506"] (2002) (plaintiff not required to plead a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas at pleading stage)