Denton v. Yancey, 661 F. App'x 933

Background

On June 30, 2011, Lt. Mike Denton and two other officers subdued a domestic-abuse suspect; three portions of the encounter were video-recorded and showed Denton using force (stepping on the suspect's head on a ramp, forcing his face into the floor in the lobby, and hitting him in the sally-port).
A fellow patrol officer complained about Denton’s use of force; an independent investigator concluded some or all force could be excessive. Chief Yancey proposed termination; a hearing officer and the city manager approved dismissal in November 2011.
Denton and his union arbitrated; the arbitrator reinstated Denton, finding no excessive force and awarding a written reprimand instead. Denton’s counsel publicized the arbitration award and described the video to the press.
After Denton’s lawyer’s disclosures, the City released the video to the Tulsa World (defendants had previously resisted release). The City later appealed the arbitration award in state court and obtained a vacatur; Denton prevailed on appeal and was reinstated with back pay.
Denton sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1981 claiming First Amendment retaliation for (1) his arbitration testimony and (2) a July 7, 2011 union email; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants. The Tenth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Denton’s arbitration testimony was protected public‑concern speech supporting a First Amendment retaliation claim	Denton argued his arbitration testimony was protected speech and that releasing the video was retaliation for that testimony	Defendants argued the testimony did not address a matter of public concern (it was aimed at restoring Denton’s job) so no First Amendment cause of action	Court held the testimony was not on a matter of public concern; no First Amendment claim on that ground (Garcetti/Pickering analysis)
Whether Denton’s July 7, 2011 union email (association activity) motivated investigation/termination/release of video	Denton argued the email was union activity and defendants retaliated by investigating, terminating, and releasing the video	Defendants argued there was no evidence the email motivated any adverse action or that decision‑makers even knew the email timing/content	Court held Denton failed to show the email was a motivating factor; summary judgment for defendants affirmed
Causation/timing of video release: whether release was retaliatory for Denton’s disclosures	Denton claimed release was retaliation for his arbitration speech; he pointed to temporal sequence and publicity	Defendants showed they resisted release until Denton’s attorney publicly disclosed video contents, at which point defense concerns evaporated	Court found release followed Denton’s counsel’s disclosures and defendants permissibly released the video; no retaliation established
Comparative treatment claim (earlier officers treated less harshly) as evidence of retaliation	Denton argued harsher discipline versus earlier similar incident supports inference of retaliation tied to union activity	Defendants noted lack of evidence that earlier officers were non‑union or that decision‑makers knew of the email; Denton’s comparisons were speculative	Court held comparisons were unsubstantiated and insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact

Key Cases Cited

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (speech pursuant to official duties is not protected for First Amendment retaliation claims)
Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (balancing public‑employee speech interests against employer efficiency concerns)
Trant v. Oklahoma, 754 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2014) (articulating five‑part Garcetti/Pickering test and allocation of law/fact issues)
Shrum v. City of Coweta, 449 F.3d 1132 (10th Cir. 2006) (association/union retaliation claims require showing limited Garcetti/Pickering elements)
Eisenhour v. Weber Cty., 744 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2014) (speech involves public concern when it discloses government wrongdoing)