541 F. App'x 522
6th Cir.2013Background
- Keeling was Permits Clerk in Coffee County Codes Department; Darden was her supervisor starting Sep 2009.
- On Nov 12, 2009, four citizens sought Darden’s help; Darden was absent again.
- Keeling escorted two citizens to the mayor’s office and explained the situation to the mayor.
- Keeling wrote a formal letter to the mayor on Nov 16 alleging harassment by Darden and policy violations.
- Darden issued a Nov 16 reprimand to Keeling for incomplete applications; Keeling challenged it and the reprimand was later removed from her file.
- Keeling was terminated May 27, 2010 due to budget constraints; district court granted summary judgment to defendants on federal claims and declined to exercise jurisdiction over state claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Keeling speak as a citizen or as a public employee? | Keeling spoke as a citizen raising public concerns. | Speech arose from employment duties and procedures. | Keeling did not speak as a citizen; context shows public-employee speech. |
| If not a citizen, did the speech touch a matter of public concern? | Speech touched public concerns about customer service and policy. | Content not shown to address a matter of public concern. | Courts held no need to reach public-concern analysis because not citizen speech. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (public employee speech in performance of official duties not protected by the First Amendment)
- Farhat v. Jopke, 370 F.3d 588 (6th Cir. 2004) (framework for public employee speech protections; two-part test)
- Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 131 S. Ct. 2488 (2011) (public employeeCannot distinguish speech as citizen vs. employee; public concern factor)
- Weisbarth v. Geauga Park Dist., 499 F.3d 538 (6th Cir. 2007) (speech to investigator and action tied to professional responsibilities; not citizen speech)
- Weintraub v. Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of New York, 593 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2010) (speech can be pursuant to official duties even if not in job description)
- Handy-Clay v. City of Memphis, Tenn., 695 F.3d 531 (6th Cir. 2012) (assesses context, audience, and purpose to determine citizen vs. employee speech)
- Davis v. McKinney, 518 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (speech context for employee complaints about duties)
- Nagle v. Village of Calumet Park, 554 F.3d 1106 (7th Cir. 2009) (relevance of content specificity when assessing public-concern)