290 F. Supp. 3d 1257
N.D. Ala.2018Background
- Boglin, a senior secretary in Career Development Services at Alabama A&M, processed requisitions and travel/reimbursement forms and alleged coworkers (including supervisor Yvette Clayton) engaged in improper reimbursement and leave practices.
- Boglin twice made internal verbal reports about the improper practices to the university's Vice President of Student Affairs and showed documents to a coworker; Clayton allegedly retaliated by humiliating and ultimately terminating Boglin.
- Boglin sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment retaliation against Alabama A&M, its Board of Trustees (individually and officially), and Clayton (individually and officially).
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity for the university and most official-capacity defendants and arguing Boglin failed to plead protected speech under Garcetti/Connick.
- The court treated the immunity challenge as a facial 12(b)(1) attack, dismissed official-capacity claims against Alabama A&M and the board with prejudice, dismissed official-capacity claim against Clayton without prejudice, and granted plaintiff leave to amend limited individual-capacity claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Eleventh Amendment bars suit against Alabama A&M and board | Boglin sought reinstatement (prospective relief) so Ex parte Young allows official-capacity claims | Alabama is immune; reinstatement is prospective only if defendant has authority to reinstate; board lacks day-to-day hiring/firing power under Ala. Code | Board and Alabama A&M immune; official-capacity claims against board dismissed with prejudice; official-capacity claim vs Clayton dismissed without prejudice because plaintiff conceded Eleventh Amendment bar but could amend if Clayton had authority |
| Whether Ex parte Young applies to reinstatement | Reinstatement is prospective relief addressing continuing harm from termination | Defendants: termination was a discrete past act; Ex parte Young requires ability to enforce or grant prospective relief | Court: reinstatement generally falls within Ex parte Young, but not here because complaint fails to allege the named officials have authority to reinstate under state law |
| Whether Boglin spoke as a citizen (Garcetti first prong) | Boglin contends internal reports were citizen speech on public concern | Defendants: reports were made pursuant to job duties and thus unprotected employee speech | Court: Speech owed its existence to job duties (processing forms, attempting to ensure proper performance) and therefore was not citizen speech; not protected |
| Whether speech addressed matter of public concern (Connick second prong) | Boglin argues misuse of public funds/public-interest in proper administration | Defendants: complaints were internal, job-focused, personal grievance | Held: Complaint shows speech concerned internal departmental operations and personal job duties; no plausible allegation of public-oriented purpose; thus not a matter of public concern |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (narrow exception to Eleventh Amendment for prospective injunctive relief against state officials)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (public employees speaking pursuant to official duties are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (speech is protected only if it addresses a matter of public concern; courts consider content, form, and context)
- Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (balancing test between employee's interest in commenting and government's interest in efficient public service)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: complaints must state a plausible claim for relief)
- Lane v. Central Alabama Community College, 772 F.3d 1349 (11th Cir. 2014) (reinstatement is prospective relief under Ex parte Young)
- Alves v. Board of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga., 804 F.3d 1149 (11th Cir. 2015) (internal reports of mismanagement often held to be made pursuant to job duties and thus unprotected)
- Summit Medical Assocs., P.C. v. Pryor, 180 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 1999) (Ex parte Young requires an ongoing violation and official with enforcement authority)
- Manders v. Lee, 338 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2003) (state actors and instrumentalities qualify for Eleventh Amendment protection)