412 F. App'x 786
6th Cir.2011Background
- Asbury worked at Ohio's Summit County Juvenile Court from 2000 to 2007 as a Detention Center Group Counselor and then Detention Officer.
- SCJC had a no-contact policy between Detention Officers and released juveniles, reinforced by Judge Teodosio in 2006.
- Asbury repeatedly violated the no-contact policy and amassed a lengthy disciplinary record including suspensions.
- In March 2007, SCJC warned of termination after a disciplinary conference; subsequent incidents led to termination.
- April 2007 termination letter cited the two recent incidents and her longstanding disciplinary history as grounds for dismissal.
- In August 2008, Asbury filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation for First Amendment rights; the district court granted summary judgment on the two retaliation counts on all defendants; the appeal challenges only those two First Amendment retaliation counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Asbury's association with released juveniles was a matter of public concern | Asbury's association touched on community concerns | Association is private; no public concern | Not protected; association not of public concern |
| Whether Asbury's speech about internal matters was a matter of public concern | Speech about internal issues constitutes public concern | Speech not about public concerns; internal matters | Not protected; speech not of public concern |
| Whether there was a causal link between protected speech/association and termination | Termination caused by exercise of First Amendment rights | No causal link; termination based on discipline history | No need to reach causation; none of the speech/association was protected |
Key Cases Cited
- City of San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S. 77 (2004) (government employee speech subjected to balancing)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (public concern and Pickering balancing framework)
- Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (balance of employee speech and government interests)
- Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc; retaliation framework for speech/association)
- Akers v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 1030 (6th Cir. 2003) (speech/association protected framework applied to prisoners staff interaction)
- Wimbush v. Wyeth, 619 F.3d 632 (6th Cir. 2010) (summary judgment standard and de novo review)