Christian Cutler v. Stephen F. Austin State Univ
767 F.3d 462
5th Cir.2014Background
- Christian Cutler was Director of Art Galleries at Stephen F. Austin State University and in 2010 told a staffer for Rep. Louie Gohmert he would not participate in a congressional high‑school art event, calling Gohmert a “fear monger.”
- Rep. Gohmert sent a letter (copied to University President Pattillo) complaining about Cutler’s refusal; University administrators (Provost Berry, Dean Himes, supervisor Robinson) investigated and Berry recommended termination.
- Cutler was given a termination letter and offered the chance to resign; he resigned and later sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment retaliation.
- The district court denied defendants’ summary‑judgment motion and qualified immunity defense, finding genuine disputes whether Cutler spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern and whether the University conducted a reasonable, good‑faith investigation.
- Defendants appealed the denial of qualified immunity; the Fifth Circuit accepted the interlocutory qualified‑immunity appeal but declined to review the fact‑bound final‑decisionmaker question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cutler spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern (Garcetti threshold) | Cutler: his comments were external, about Gohmert personally and not part of his job duties, so citizen speech on a public concern | Defs: speech was part of official duties (or at least factually disputed) and thus not protected | Court: Accepting Cutler’s version for qualified‑immunity review, there is a genuine dispute; his speech plausibly was citizen speech protected by the First Amendment |
| Whether defendants conducted an objectively reasonable, good‑faith investigation (Waters) | Cutler: investigation was ad hoc, minimal, pretextual (Berry decided to fire before adequate inquiry) and lacked written reports or routine procedures | Defs: they investigated and relied on reasonable information; investigation entitled to deference | Court: Precedent made clear what a reasonable investigation requires; on plaintiff’s version the investigation was insufficient and possibly pretextual, so immunity not established |
| Whether the right was clearly established such that officials had fair warning | Cutler: Fifth Circuit precedent (e.g., Davis, Charles) gave officials fair warning that terminating citizen speech and conducting inadequate investigations violate the First Amendment | Defs: law was too abstract/uncertain (invoking Morgan), so no fair warning | Court: Circuit precedent provided fair warning on both citizen‑speech and investigation reasonableness; right was clearly established |
| Whether appellate jurisdiction permits review of final‑decisionmaker status | Cutler: defendants waived; in any event final‑decisionmaker is liability defense not immunity | Defs: raised issue on appeal | Held: Court lacks jurisdiction to resolve fact‑intensive final‑decisionmaker claim in this interlocutory qualified‑immunity appeal; that issue remains for later appeal after final judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Kovacic v. Villarreal, 628 F.3d 209 (5th Cir.) (collateral‑order review limits in qualified‑immunity appeals)
- Kinney v. Weaver, 367 F.3d 337 (5th Cir.) (standards for interlocutory review of qualified immunity)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (public‑employee speech unprotected if pursuant to official duties)
- Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (1994) (employer entitled to deference when it reasonably investigates and in good faith concludes speech was unprotected)
- Salge v. Edna Indep. Sch. Dist., 411 F.3d 178 (5th Cir.) (de minimis investigations unreasonable under Waters)
- Johnson v. Louisiana, 369 F.3d 826 (5th Cir.) (example of reasonable pre‑termination investigation)
- Davis v. McKinney, 518 F.3d 304 (5th Cir.) (employee’s external complaints to law‑enforcement/EEOC can be citizen speech)
- Charles v. Grief, 522 F.3d 508 (5th Cir.) (sending complaints to legislators constituted citizen speech)
- Morgan v. Swanson, 659 F.3d 359 (5th Cir.) (qualified immunity where law on speech rights was not clearly established)
- Ashcroft v. al‑Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011) (law must give fair warning to be clearly established)
- Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369 (2014) (Pickering balancing and citizen‐speech framework)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (fair‑warning principle in qualified immunity)