Joe Carollo v. Luigi Boria, 833 F.3d 1322

Background

Joe Carollo was appointed City Manager of Doral in 2013 and terminated in 2014 by Mayor Boria and Council members Fraga and Ruiz.
Carollo reported alleged misconduct by Boria, Ruiz, and Fraga to law enforcement and other agencies and disclosed related concerns at City Council meetings.
Alleged misconduct spanned Florida campaign finance violations, financial disclosure violations by officials, and general corruption including zoning and contracting concerns.
Carollo’s complaint alleged his termination violated his First Amendment rights, and the district court denied qualified immunity to appellants.
The court held Carollo spoke as a citizen for some, but not all, of his asserted disclosures; it remanded for amendment and discovery to determine his ordinary job responsibilities.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to allow amendment to cure pleading defects and proceed to discovery.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Carollo speak as a citizen or as City Manager for campaign finance disclosures?	Carollo spoke as a citizen about public concerns.	Carollo’s speech fell within his official duties under the Charter.	Carollo plausibly spoke as a citizen for campaign finance disclosures.
Are Carollo’s remaining speech acts plausibly protected as citizen speech?	Other disclosures and public statements also concern matters of public concern outside duties.	Remaining speech aligned with ordinary job responsibilities and thus not protected.	Plaintiff plausibly pled citizen speech for some remaining disclosures; others require amendment.
Were Carollo’s First Amendment rights clearly established at the time of termination?	Garcetti and Pickering implied protection for whistleblower-like speech.	No clearly established right given the context and Garcetti/Moss precedents.	The rights were clearly established for at least some speech; further development of the record warranted.
Should the case be remanded to allow amendment and discovery?	Amendment could cure pleading defects and clarify duties.	Limited discovery should be confined and determined on later stages.	Remand with leave to amend and proceed to discovery.
Is it appropriate to deny qualified immunity at the pleadings stage where disputed whether speech was citizen or employee speech?	Pleadings support citizen-speech claim and negate immunity for at least some acts.	Qualified immunity should shield officials absent clearly established rights at pleading stage.	Ordinarily unresolved; court allowed amendment and deferred full immunity ruling pending discovery.

Key Cases Cited

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (two inquiries: public concern and whether speech is employee-speech)
Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369 (S. Ct. 2014) (limits Garcetti’s scope; citizen speech exception refined)
Pickering v. Bd. of Ed. of Township High Sch. Dist., 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (establishes balancing framework for public employee speech)
Akins v. Fulton Cty., Ga., 420 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2005) (public reporting of bidding irregularities protected)
Walker v. Schwalbe, 112 F.3d 1127 (11th Cir. 1997) (timeframe where public employee speech protected from retaliation)