971 F.3d 546
6th Cir.2020Background
- Jamie Marquardt, a Cleveland EMS captain, had two incendiary posts on his private Facebook page expressing approval of Tamir Rice’s death and lamenting he had not killed Rice himself; posts were friends-only and removed within hours.
- Colleagues saw the posts, EMS Commissioner Nicole Carlton cited them in a complaint and initiated a social-media-policy hearing.
- Two weeks after the hearing the City terminated Marquardt, stating his speech violated City policy and “did not involve a matter of public concern.”
- Marquardt sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliatory termination in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding the posts concerned only private interest.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo and held the posts addressed a matter of public concern (related to the widely publicized Tamir Rice shooting), reversed summary judgment, and remanded for the required balancing of employee and employer interests.
- The court also reversed the district court’s dismissal of the failure-to-train claim and vacated the award of costs to defendants for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Facebook posts addressed a matter of public concern | Marquardt: posts relate to Tamir Rice shooting, a topic of public debate, so concern to community | City: posts were private, personal, and gratuitously violent—not public concern | Court: Posts touched on public matters (Rice shooting); reversed district court on this question |
| Whether summary judgment and denial of reconsideration were proper | Marquardt: district court erred in finding no public concern and granting summary judgment | City: SJ was proper because speech was personal and harmful | Court: Reviewed de novo, reversed summary judgment and remand for balancing test |
| Validity of ancillary rulings (failure-to-train dismissal; costs award) | Marquardt: reversal of free-speech ruling requires revisiting failure-to-train and costs | City: costs proper; failure-to-train dismissal valid | Court: Reversed dismissal of failure-to-train and reversed costs award for further consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (public-concern test for public-employee speech)
- Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987) (offensive statements can still be public concern)
- City of San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S. 77 (2004) (employee speech addressing public matters may be protected)
- Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228 (2014) (public-employee speech touching public interest can merit First Amendment protection)
- Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011) (bitter/offensive speech about public issues is protected)
- Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017) (social media as modern public square)
- Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (1994) (government employer may regulate employee speech to prevent disruption)
- Mosholder v. Barnhardt, 679 F.3d 443 (6th Cir. 2012) (analyze content, form, context in public/private distinction)
- Farhat v. Jopke, 370 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2004) (distinguishes personal grievances from matters of public concern)
- Evans-Marshall v. Bd. of Educ. of Tipp City Exempted Vill. Sch. Dist., 624 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 2010) (retaliation framework elements)
- Rorrer v. City of Stow, 743 F.3d 1025 (6th Cir. 2014) (two-part test: public-concern then balancing)
- Dambrot v. Central Mich. Univ., 55 F.3d 1177 (6th Cir. 1995) (distinguishes private locker-room speech from public-issue expression)