Leverington v. City of Colorado Springs
643 F.3d 719
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Leverington, a cardiac nurse for Memorial Health System (City enterprise), was terminated after telling Officer Peters she hoped she never had him as a patient.
- Peters reported Leverington's statement to her Memorial supervisors, leading to her immediate firing by Memorial’s HR.
- Leverington sued Peters and the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming First Amendment retaliation for protected speech.
- District court dismissed, holding a single, isolated statement during a traffic stop is not protected speech.
- On appeal, the court reviews de novo whether the pleadings state a plausible First Amendment claim under Garcetti/Pickering and Worrell.
- The panel affirms the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the public-concern prong applies to Memorial claim | Leverington argues public-concern test should not govern Memorial claim | Memorial argues Garcetti/Pickering public-concern is applicable | Public-concern test applies and disposes of claim |
| Whether Leverington's statement was about a matter of public concern | Statement addressed public accountability | Statement was personal grievance, not public concern | Not on a matter of public concern; claim fails against Memorial |
| Whether Worrell v. Henry governs Peters’ claim | Worrell should apply to non-employer defendant | Garcetti/Pickering should apply due to intertwined entities | Worrell applies; Peters analyzed under non-employer framework |
| Whether Peters is entitled to qualified immunity | Speech was protected; immunity not appropriate | Right not clearly established; qualified immunity applies | Qualified immunity for Peters; speech not clearly established as protected |
Key Cases Cited
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (U.S. 1983) (public employee speech rights; balance with employer interests)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (speech-pursuant-to-official-duties inquiry; five-prong Garcetti/Pickering analysis)
- Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (balancing test for public employee speech)
- Worrell v. Henry, 219 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2000) (three-part test for retaliation by non-employer defendants)
- Dixon v. Kirkpatrick, 553 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 2009) (five-prong Garcetti/Pickering framework; public-concern context)
- Brammer-Hoelter v. Twin Peaks Charter Acad., 492 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2007) (five-prong Garcetti/Pickering analysis; public-concern focus)
- Flanagan v. Munger, 890 F.2d 1557 (10th Cir. 1989) (public-concern test not applicable to off-duty, non-work speech)
- City of San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S. 77 (U.S. 2004) (public-concern test applied to police officer speech)
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 131 S. Ct. 1192 (2011) (proximate cause in choosing retaliatory actions; employer liability)