Gerald Sensabaugh v. Kimber Halliburton, 937 F.3d 621

Gerald Sensabaugh, head football coach at David Crockett High School, posted two Facebook messages criticizing school conditions; one post included photos showing students’ faces.
School officials (HR, principal Wright, Director Halliburton) worried the photos might violate policy/FERPA and asked Sensabaugh to remove the photos; he initially refused.
After a heated phone call in which Sensabaugh yelled and allegedly threatened supervisors, the district issued a Letter of Guidance directing removal of the photos (but preserving his right to post opinions) and later a Letter of Reprimand placing him on paid administrative leave pending an independent investigation.
An independent law firm investigated, interviewed witnesses, and found Sensabaugh engaged in unprofessional, insubordinate, threatening, and retaliatory conduct, recommending termination.
Halliburton gave Sensabaugh an opportunity to respond to the investigation; he did not. She then terminated his employment. Sensabaugh sued for First Amendment retaliation against Halliburton and Monell liability against the Board.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Letters (Guidance/Reprimand) were adverse actions for First Amendment retaliation	Sensabaugh: Letters chilled speech and, with threats, were adverse	Halliburton: Letters imposed no discipline affecting employment and suspension with pay is not adverse	Court: Both letters were not adverse actions; Guidance did not limit speech and suspension with pay is not adverse
Whether termination was motivated by protected Facebook posts (causation)	Sensabaugh: Temporal proximity and earlier discipline show causation	Halliburton: Termination followed independent, substantiating investigation and unrebuffed findings; posts were expressly tolerated	Court: No causal link; six months and an independent investigation foreclose showing the posts were a substantial or motivating factor
Whether Halliburton violated clearly established First Amendment rights (qualified immunity)	Sensabaugh: First Amendment rights were chilled and violated	Halliburton: No constitutional violation shown; qualified immunity applies	Court: Halliburton entitled to qualified immunity because no underlying violation was proven
Whether Board is liable under Monell for municipal liability	Sensabaugh: Board liable for permitting retaliation	Board: No underlying constitutional violation, so no Monell liability	Court: Monell claim fails because there was no constitutional violation by Halliburton

Bell v. Johnson, 308 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2002) (elements for public-employee retaliation claim)
Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (standard for adverse action in retaliation claims)
Dye v. Office of the Racing Comm’n, 702 F.3d 286 (6th Cir. 2012) (burden-shifting and summary judgment standard in retaliation cases)
Vereecke v. Huron Valley Sch. Dist., 609 F.3d 392 (6th Cir. 2010) (causation and temporal proximity principles)
Leonard v. Robinson, 477 F.3d 347 (6th Cir. 2007) (motivating-factor / but-for causation discussion)
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires underlying constitutional violation)