Doug Greisen v. Jon Hanken, 925 F.3d 1097

Doug Greisen, Scappoose police chief, investigated and raised concerns with city officials in 2012–2013 about delayed invoice payments, changes in auditors, and potential mismanagement of city finances.
City manager Jon Hanken initiated three investigations into Greisen (PIT-maneuver, hostile work environment, unaccounted cash), suspended him, placed him on leave with a gag order, and publicly disclosed inflammatory information to the press.
A City Personnel Review Committee (PRC) exonerated Greisen of wrongdoing in the PIT investigation and recommended retraction of discipline; Hanken resigned soon after the PRC findings.
Hanken’s interim successor, Donald Otterman, terminated Greisen using a no-cause clause; Greisen was thereafter unable to obtain comparable employment and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation.
A jury awarded Greisen economic and noneconomic damages; the district court denied Hanken’s renewed JMOL and new-trial motions; Hanken appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Greisen’s speech addressed a matter of public concern	Greisen: his inquiries exposed potential misuse of public funds and weak auditing — public concern	Hanken: record insufficiently detailed; speech was a private grievance/power play	Court: Speech substantially involved public concern; qualified immunity denied
Whether Greisen spoke as a private citizen or pursuant to official duties	Greisen: he spoke outside chain of command on matters not in his job duties	Hanken: as police chief he necessarily acted in official capacity when speaking to officials	Court: Factors support private-citizen finding; qualified immunity denied
Whether Hanken’s communications with media and investigatory actions constituted adverse employment actions and causation	Greisen: Hanken’s campaign (investigations, gag, press statements) was retaliatory and proximately caused later termination	Hanken: His media speech is his own First Amendment speech; successor’s termination was independent	Court: Speech + other acts formed campaign of harassment; jury reasonably found causation; no immunity
Whether Pickering balancing (government justification) was properly raised	Greisen: N/A (plaintiff met initial burden)	Hanken: government interests outweighed Greisen’s rights (raised late)	Court: Pickering defense waived by Hanken for failure to raise timely; not reviewed

Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (Sup. Ct. 1983) (framework for evaluating public‑concern speech by public employees)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (Sup. Ct. 2006) (speech pursuant to official duties not protected by the First Amendment)
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (Sup. Ct. 1968) (balancing employee speech interests against government interests)
Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. 411 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (proximate cause when biased subordinate’s actions causally contribute to adverse employment decision)
Allen v. Scribner, 812 F.2d 426 (9th Cir. 1987) (retaliatory campaign of harassment including defamatory media statements can support § 1983 retaliation claim)
Eng v. Cooley, 552 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2009) (five‑step test for public‑employee First Amendment retaliation claims)
Karl v. City of Mountlake Terrace, 678 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2012) (clarifies protected speech when not made pursuant to job duties)