Roger Peele v. Clifford Burch, 722 F.3d 956

Background

Roger L. Peele, a long‑time Portage, Indiana detective, worked on a mayoral campaign for Steve Charnetzky during off‑duty hours.
Peele spoke to a reporter on May 8, 2007 criticizing coverage and an endorsed opponent; the comments were published May 9.
On May 10, 2007 Peele was reassigned from the Detective Bureau to the more desk‑bound Station Duty Officer; he sued alleging First Amendment retaliation (42 U.S.C. § 1983), due process, and defamation.
The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on Peele’s First Amendment, due process, and defamation claims; Peele appealed only the First Amendment retaliation claim.
Key disputed evidence: (1) timing of the transfer (two days after published comments); (2) deposition testimony of officer Joe Radic relaying Chief Burch’s remark that Peele was moved because he had “made the mayor mad”; and (3) defendants’ contention they decided to transfer Peele prior to the comments due to misconduct.
The Seventh Circuit reviewed summary judgment de novo, constraining analysis to the single protected instance alleged in the complaint (the May 8 publication).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Peele’s May 8 statement was constitutionally protected speech	Peele asserts his political speech supporting Charnetzky is protected	Defendants conceded the May 8/9 newspaper statement was protected but argued other campaign activities were not properly pleaded	Court limited protected conduct to the May 8 statement alleged in complaint and treated it as protected speech
Whether transfer was adverse action likely to deter speech	Peele argues reassignment was a punitive deprivation that would deter speech	Defendants downplayed harm and focused on causation	Court assumed reassignment could be an adverse action and proceeded to causation; defendants did not develop a contrary legal argument sufficiently
Causation: Was speech a motivating factor in the transfer?	Peele relied on extreme temporal proximity (comments May 8, published May 9, transfer May 10) and Radic’s testimony quoting Burch that Peele had “made the mayor mad”	Defendants produced evidence that decision was made May 4 for non‑retaliatory reasons (insubordination) and invoked legitimate reasons for transfer	Court held a reasonable jury could find motivating factor based on timing plus Radic’s direct evidence; summary judgment for defendants reversed
Admissibility/weight of Radic’s testimony and other evidence	Peele relied on Radic’s deposition as non‑hearsay statements by a party opponent (Burch) and other circumstantial items	Defendants moved to strike Radic’s testimony for conflicts, speculation, and local‑rule citation faults	Court declined to treat motions to strike as disposing of the testimony on summary judgment; considered Radic’s testimony relevant and sufficient (with timing) to create a triable issue
Immunity, conspiracy, Monell liability	Peele asked rulings on these legal defenses	Defendants did not brief these issues on appeal	Court declined to decide them on appeal and remanded for district court to address in the first instance

Key Cases Cited

Arizanovska v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 682 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2012) (summary judgment standard and construing facts for nonmovant)
Kidwell v. Eisenhauer, 679 F.3d 957 (7th Cir. 2012) (‘‘motivating factor’’ framework for public‑employee retaliation)
Greene v. Doruff, 660 F.3d 975 (7th Cir. 2011) (burden‑splitting on causation and Mt. Healthy analysis)
Spiegla v. Hull, 371 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 2004) (First Amendment protection for public‑employee speech)
Loudermilk v. Best Pallet Co., LLC, 636 F.3d 312 (7th Cir. 2011) (temporal proximity as evidence of causation)
Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (U.S. 1977) (defendant can show it would have taken the same action absent protected conduct)
Hall v. Babb, 389 F.3d 758 (7th Cir. 2004) (political‑based employment actions violate the First Amendment)
Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (balancing public‑employee speech interests)
Rutan v. Republican Party of Ill., 497 U.S. 62 (U.S. 1990) (political patronage restrictions)
Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1976) (political patronage and First Amendment)
Stanciel v. Gramley, 267 F.3d 575 (7th Cir. 2001) (district court discretion in applying local rules)