Jeff Dye v. Office of the Racing Comm'n, 702 F.3d 286

Background

ORC regulates Michigan horse-racing; stewards are independent contractors handling regulatory duties.
Four stewards allege retaliation for political speech or perceived Republican affiliation during 2006 election and 2005-2007 period.
White (Racing Commissioner) and Post (Deputy) implemented administrative changes after White’s confirmation and Post’s appointment.
Dye spoke in support of DeVos; Erskine, Hall, Perttunen disputed White’s performance and testified about office discussions.
Alleged adverse actions include demotion, reduced days/pay, stricter timekeeping, travel-reimbursements cut, and termination of two stewards in 2009.
District court granted summary judgment to defendants; stewards appeal alleging First Amendment retaliation (speech and affiliation).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether protected-speech retaliation requires public-concern speech.	Erskine, Hall, Perttunen engaged in public concerns.	Only protected speech with public significance applies.	Erskine, Hall, Perttunen not protected; Dye protected.
Whether protected-speech standard applies to Erskine/Hall/Perttunen and whether Dye’s speech was protected.	Dye and others engaged in protected speech about DeVos.	Speech disrupted agency operations; not all statements protected.	Dye protected; Erskine/Hall/Perttunen not protected.
Whether retaliation based on perceived political affiliation is actionable.	Perceived Republican affiliation suffices to support retaliation claim.	Actual affiliation required; perception alone insufficient.	Court adopts perceived-affiliation theory as actionable.
Whether banked-time elimination and other actions are adverse actions with causal link to affiliation.	Evidence shows affiliation influenced actions like banked-time loss.	Actions justified by budget/oversight concerns; no causal link shown for all actions.	Banked-time loss viable prima facie; Dye's demotion causation requires proof; others mixed.
What is the proper causation standard given temporality and evidence?	Temporal proximity supports causation for Dye; broader evidence needed.	Temporal proximity insufficient for long-delayed terminations; require more proof.	Dye: proximity may suffice; later terminations fail causation without other evidence.

Key Cases Cited

Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (public-speech interests; test for protected expression)
Scarbrough v. Morgan Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 470 F.3d 250 (6th Cir. 2006) (Pickering balancing framework applied to public-employer speech)
Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (general framework for balancing public employee speech vs. efficiency)
Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (1994) (government employer's analysis may weigh what was believed vs. what was said)
Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (political patronage cases and right to political association)
Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980) (political patronage principles in public employment)
Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990) (political affiliation in employment decisions; not just voting/affiliation)
Mickey v. Zeidler Tool & Die Co., 516 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2008) (temporal proximity as prima facie evidence of causation in retaliation cases)
Dixon v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 324 (6th Cir. 2007) (temporal proximity limitations in causation for retaliation)
Adair v. Charter Cnty. of Wayne, 452 F.3d 482 (6th Cir. 2006) (banked-time and compensation actions; relevance to adverse action analysis)
Arendale v. City of Memphis, 519 F.3d 587 (6th Cir. 2008) (causation standards in retaliation claims; timeliness context)
Welch v. Ciampa, 542 F.3d 927 (1st Cir. 2008) (perceived affiliation theories in First Amendment retaliation)
Gann v. Cline, 519 F.3d 1090 (10th Cir. 2008) (perceived affiliation in retaliation considerations)
Ambrose v. Twp. of Robinson, 303 F.3d 488 (3d Cir. 2002) (perceived support theory rejected; focus on protected conduct)