697 F.Supp.3d 748
M.D. Tenn.2023Background
- Plaintiff James A. DeLanis, a Baker Donelson attorney, served as Chair and a member of the Davidson County Election Commission (a state-appointed official); Baker represented Metro Nashville.
- Metro Council adopted a 34% property tax increase; citizen-initiated referenda followed and the Commission (including DeLanis) considered placing a second referendum on the ballot.
- Metro Council member Robert J. Mendes sponsored a resolution opposing referenda and, according to the complaint, Metro officials pressured Baker (a firm client) to influence DeLanis’s Commission vote or risk losing Metro business.
- Baker’s principal John Hicks repeatedly contacted DeLanis asking him not to vote to appeal a chancery ruling; after DeLanis refused, Baker terminated his employment (offer to resign from the Commission or leave the firm immediately).
- DeLanis sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First Amendment retaliation, due process, equal protection), alleging Metro and Mendes (official and individual capacities) and Baker conspired to deprive him of rights; Metro, Mendes, and Baker moved to dismiss in part.
- Court disposition: official-capacity claims against Metro and Mendes dismissed (Monell); First Amendment retaliation survives against Mendes (individual) and Baker; due process and equal protection claims dismissed (due process with leave to amend); qualified immunity denied for Mendes; civil-conspiracy theory survives as to defendants who remain liable on § 1983 claims; state tort claims against Baker remain.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Municipal liability (Monell) for Metro / Mendes (official capacity) | Metro and Mendes caused / ratified a policy of pressuring Baker to get DeLanis fired, so municipality is liable for retaliation | No municipal policy or final policymaker identified; single council member not empowered to set final policy causing termination | Dismissed: plaintiff failed to plausibly allege a municipal policymaker or Monell basis (official-capacity claims dismissed) |
| First Amendment retaliation (against Mendes individual and Baker) | Mendes and unnamed Metro officials pressured Baker to change or punish DeLanis for voting; termination of private employment is an adverse action that chills protected voting activity | Public officials must tolerate greater criticism; DeLanis retained his office/vote, so conduct not sufficiently adverse | Denied as to Mendes (individual) and Baker: allegations plausibly state retaliatory adverse action (termination of private employment) |
| Qualified immunity for Mendes (and Baker) | Preexisting Sixth Circuit law made retaliatory termination of a public official’s private employment unlawful | No clearly established law put Mendes on notice; dismissal appropriate | Denied: on pleadings, Sixth Circuit precedent made unlawfulness sufficiently apparent; Mendes not entitled to dismissal on qualified immunity; Baker (private entity) cannot assert qualified immunity |
| Due process and equal protection claims | DeLanis alleges deprivation of ability to serve and vote free of duress; constitutional violations | Claims are vague and not clearly pled; equal protection argument not defended | Dismissed: equal protection conceded; due process dismissed for lack of specificity but plaintiff may seek leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires a policy, custom, or actionable ratification)
- Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1986) (municipal liability where a municipal policymaker directly causes the constitutional violation)
- Zilich v. Longo, 34 F.3d 359 (6th Cir. 1994) (threats, harassment, and attacks outside the legislative sphere can constitute actionable First Amendment retaliation)
- Mattox v. City of Forest Park, 183 F.3d 515 (6th Cir. 1999) (public officials may need thicker skin; reputational attacks often insufficient as adverse action)
- Perkins v. Township of Clayton, [citation="411 F. App'x 810"] (6th Cir. 2011) (context-specific adverse-action analysis for public officials; non-extreme harassment may not suffice)
- Jorg v. City of Cincinnati, [citation="145 F. App'x 143"] (6th Cir. 2005) (a municipality can be liable where a municipal policymaker directly causes the rights violation)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. 1987) (qualified-immunity: unlawfulness must be apparent in light of preexisting law)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (qualified immunity framework: determine constitutional violation then whether right was clearly established)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (qualified immunity analysis may be resolved at earliest appropriate point; courts generally prefer early resolution)