Henry Lyons v. F. Wayne Vaught, 781 F.3d 958

Lyons taught a self-developed course as a part-time lecturer at UMKC for seven semesters; his Spring 2012 reappointment was not offered and the course was dropped from UMKC’s catalog.
Lyons sued three UMKC administrators in state court, alleging First Amendment retaliation; Chancellor Morton was dismissed from the suit, leaving Vaught and Bassa as defendants.
Lyons alleged that he spoke out against preferential treatment of student-athletes during the student grade-appeal process and in later meetings about the issue.
The district court examined Garcetti v. Ceballos to determine when public employee speech is unprotected; it denied dismissal for potential Garcetti immunity at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reversed in part, holding that Lyons’s protected speech to Morton was not sufficiently pled as known to Vaught and Bassa, and that they were entitled to qualified immunity because the alleged protected speech may have been unrelated to their knowledge or participation.
The court concluded that Lyons failed to plead a causal connection showing Vaught and Bassa knew of the protected speech and that the adverse action (non-reappointment) was tied to that protected conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lyons states a Garcetti claim against Vaught and Bassa.	Lyons's November 2011 meeting with Morton concerned a matter of public concern and was not within Lyons’s official duties.	Lyons’s speech during the grade-appeal process was within his official duties, not protected.	Lyons’s Garcetti claim insufficiently pled against Vaught and Bassa at this stage.
Whether Lyons plausibly alleged a causal link between protected speech and the adverse action.	Defendants knew of Lyons’s protected speech and nonetheless denied reappointment.	There is no pleading that Vaught or Bassa knew of the Morton meeting speech; only that Lyons voiced concerns after.	No plausible showing that the protected speech caused the adverse action; qualified immunity applies.
Whether Vaught and Bassa are entitled to qualified immunity.	The district court correctly avoided dismissing based on Garcetti and noted plausible awareness of Lyons’s protected speech.	Defendants did not know of Lyons’s protected speech; only non-protected, related to the student appeal process.	Vaught and Bassa are entitled to qualified immunity.

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (speech made pursuant to official duties not protected)
Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369 (U.S. 2014) (whether speech is within duty; public concern; qualified immunity analyzed)
Davison v. City of Minneapolis, 490 F.3d 648 (8th Cir. 2007) (elements of First Amendment retaliation and causation)
Garcetti v. Ceballos (duplicate citation formatting avoided), none () ()
Gorum v. Sessoms, 561 F.3d 179 (3d Cir. 2009) (causal connection in retaliation claims; awareness by decisionmakers)
Gagliardi v. Sullivan, 513 F.3d 301 (1st Cir. 2008) (protected speech and public concern; employer knowledge required)
Ambrose v. Twp. of Robinson, 303 F.3d 488 (3d Cir. 2002) (causation and knowledge in retaliation cases)
McGee v. Pub. Water Supply Dist. 2, 471 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2006) (preemption of citizen-speech analysis; scope of duties)