Bridgett Handy-Clay v. City of Memphis, Tennessee, 695 F.3d 531

Handy-Clay was appointed July 2007 as the City of Memphis public records coordinator in the City Attorney’s Office, an exempt employee.
Her duties included routing public-record requests, reviewing disclosed documents for confidentiality, and supporting minutes of the Memphis Charter Commission.
She alleged a culture of concealment and deliberate delays in record production caused by Cathy Porter and office restructuring.
She reported concerns about corruption, mismanagement of public funds, and improper use of city time to Morris, Wharton staff, and others.
On August 25–27, 2010 she submitted open-records requests; she was terminated on August 27, 2010, and a press conference announced it on August 30, 2010.
She filed a December 2010 § 1983 complaint alleging First Amendment retaliation and other claims; the district court dismissed the § 1983 claims and declined supplemental state-law claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Handy-Clay spoke as a private citizen on a public concern	Handy-Clay spoke about corruption and public-records issues as a concerned citizen.	Speech arose from her official duties as public records coordinator and was not citizen speech.	Speech touched public concerns and was not limited to internal duties.
Whether the speech was a substantial or motivating factor in Handy-Clay's termination	Termination followed close temporal proximity to records requests and disclosures of concerns.	Need more factual development to show causation and non-retaliatory grounds.	Factual allegations plausibly show protected speech motivated the adverse action at the pleading stage.
Whether Handy-Clay's due process claim is viable	Termination without process violated due process protections from the Fourteenth Amendment.	At-will employee has no constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment; no due process claim.	Procedural and substantive due process claims fail; no protectable property interest and no shocking conduct shown.

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (public employee speech limits when made pursuant to official duties)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (U.S. 1983) (speech on public concerns; government cannot condition employment on restrictions)
Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must state plausible claims, not mere conclusory statements)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (balance speech rights against government efficiency interests)
Holzemer v. City of Memphis, 621 F.3d 512 (6th Cir. 2010) (temporal proximity supports retaliation inference in First Amendment claims)
Paige v. Coyner, 614 F.3d 273 (6th Cir. 2010) (temporal proximity between protected conduct and adverse action supports inference of retaliation)
Chappell v. Montgomery Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 1, 131 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 1997) (public corruption concerns addressed as matters of public concern)
Weisbarth v. Geauga Park Dist., 499 F.3d 538 (6th Cir. 2007) (speech exposing misconduct can involve public concern)
Pucci v. Nineteenth Dist. Ct., 628 F.3d 752 (6th Cir. 2010) (extraordinary communications beyond ordinary internal complaints)