Dixon v. University of Toledo, 842 F. Supp. 2d 1044

Plaintiff Dixon served as interim Associate Vice President for Human Resources over all UT campuses, reporting to Logie and Jacobs.
Dixon had a history of positive performance reviews and was known for supporting diversity.
In April 2008, Logie prepared to make Dixon’s position permanent and over all campuses.
Dixon wrote an interoffice memo reflecting her views on homosexuality; she later published a letter in Toledo Free Press objecting to views on civil rights for homosexuals.
Dixon was placed on administrative leave after her April 18, 2008 Toledo Free Press letter, and was terminated on May 8, 2008 following a disciplinary hearing.
Dixon pursued § 1983 claims for First Amendment Free Speech retaliation and Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection against Logie and Jacobs; University claims/claims against the University were dismissed or dropped.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dixon’s speech was protected by the First Amendment in the employment context	Dixon argues her complaint expressed public concern and should be protected	Defendants contend Dixon spoke pursuant to her official duties or that Bose presumption applies, outweighing her interests	Goes to Dixon’s protection under Pickering/Connick; court finds partial protection but upholds termination under employer interests
Whether Dixon was subjected to unequal treatment under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection	Dixon asserts others were not fired for similar views	Differences in status and duties show non-similarity; no comparators are similarly situated	Plaintiff failed to show similarly situated comparators; equal protection claim rejected
Whether Logie’s and Jacobs’ actions are entitled to qualified immunity and whether Logie had authority	Qualified immunity does not shield constitutional violations; Logie allegedly had input	No evidence Logie participated in termination; qualified immunity applies if rights were not clearly established	Qualified immunity not reached since no constitutional violation established; Logie not shown to be involved in termination

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (speech in official duties; governing employee speech not absolute protection)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (U.S. 1983) (public employee speech balancing; employer interests)
Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (balancing public employee speech vs. school efficiency)
Evans-Marshall v. Bd. of Educ., 624 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 2010) (elements for First Amendment retaliation by public employee)
Rose v. Stephens, 291 F.3d 917 (6th Cir. 2002) (presumption of employer balance for certain positions)
McCloud v. Testa, 97 F.3d 1536 (6th Cir. 1996) (McCloud categories for Bose presumption analysis)
Silberstein v. City of Dayton, 440 F.3d 306 (6th Cir. 2006) (Bose presumption applied to category-based classifications)
Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (U.S. 1994) (government employee speech considerations and limits)
City of San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S. 77 (U.S. 2004) (diversity/functional impact of public employee speech on operations)
Savage v. Gee, 665 F.3d 732 (6th Cir. 2012) (academic freedom argument not applicable here)