Karl v. City of Mountlake Terrace
678 F.3d 1062
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Karl is a Confidential Administrative Assistant to the Mountlake Terrace Police Chief; her duties were clerical.
- Karl testified in May and July 2008 in a § 1983 suit (Wender) alleging First/Fourteenth Amendment violations by the City and Chief Smith.
- Karl testified that Wender criticized drug policy and that Caw urged Smith to terminate Wender and that Wender faced local pressure.
- After the deposition, Caw allegedly made negative comments about Karl and the City sought to remove her.
- Karl was transferred to a records specialist role with a six‑month probation, then terminated in January 2009 following recommendations including Wilson and Caulfield.
- Karl sued under § 1983 for retaliation; the district court denied summary judgment on qualified immunity as to Caw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Karl's deposition testimony involve a matter of public concern? | Karl's testimony addressed government misconduct in Wender case. | Testimony was private personnel matter, not public concern. | Speech involved public concern. |
| Was Karl speaking as a private citizen or as a public employee? | Karl spoke as private citizen; not within official duties. | Speech tied to her role and duties as an employee. | Karl spoke as a private citizen. |
| Was there a but-for causal link between protected speech and Karl's termination? | Caw retaliated; termination followed due to Karl's testimony. | Nonretaliatory factors and independent investigation could sever causality. | Genuine issues of material fact precluded summary immunity on causation; not automatically immunized. |
| Was the right to retaliate for subpoenaed deposition testimony clearly established in 2008? | Case law since Alpha Energy Savers and Clairmont made it clearly established. | Garcetti changed scope; deposition testimony not protected in all contexts. | Right was clearly established; officials on notice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (reaffirmed/clarified qualified immunity analysis)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (speech as part of official duties not protected)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (public concern balancing framework for speech)
- Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) (mixed-motive causation framework)
- Alpha Energy Savers, Inc. v. Hansen, 381 F.3d 917 (2004) (testimony addressing government misconduct is public concern)
- Robinson v. City of Beaverton, 566 F.3d 823 (2009) (public concern when litigation involves discrimination/government misconduct)
- Eng v. Cooley, 552 F.3d 1062 (2009) (prong analysis and Mt. Healthy framework)
- Clairmont v. Sound Mental Health, 632 F.3d 1091 (2011) (public employee speech; private citizen distinction)
- Desrochers v. City of San Bernardino, 572 F.3d 703 (2009) (public concern assessment for speech testing)
- Rehberg v. Paulk, U.S. _, 132 S. Ct. 1497 (2012) (trial/grand jury testimony protection context)
- Huppert v. City of Pittsburg, 574 F.3d 696 (2009) (speech related to job duties; public employee protection)