Ron Klosowski v. City of Bay City
696 F. App'x 707
6th Cir.2017Background
- Ron Klosowski was an at‑will, seasonal bridge tender who worked in Bay City through a staffing agency (ITH); Bay City foreman Joe Ledesma handled day‑to‑day scheduling and hiring decisions for bridge tenders.
- In late 2012 Klosowski told the mayor that Bay City could save substantial funds by closing two bascule bridges in December when the river froze; the mayor and other officials expressed interest.
- After Klosowski raised the proposal, relations with coworkers and Ledesma soured; Ledesma told ITH he did not want Klosowski called back for the following season. ITH later notified Klosowski that he would not be called back but said he qualified for other assignments.
- Klosowski sued Bay City and Ledesma alleging tortious interference with business expectancy and contract, violations of Michigan public policy/constitution, and a § 1983 claim for First Amendment retaliation.
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on all counts. The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the tort claims, reversed dismissal of the § 1983 municipal and individual claims against Ledesma, and remanded limited to First Amendment issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bay City is liable for tortious interference | Bay City interfered with Klosowski’s expectancy to continue tending bridges | Bay City is immune under Michigan Governmental Tort Liability Act | Dismissal affirmed; plaintiff forfeited challenge to GTLA ruling |
| Whether Ledesma tortiously interfered with contract | Ledesma caused a breach/termination of Klosowski’s contractual relationship with ITH | No contract breach occurred; assignment ended and ITH offered other work | Dismissal affirmed; no breach shown for contractual claim |
| Whether Ledesma tortiously interfered with business expectancy | Ledesma intentionally ended Klosowski’s expectancy to continue tending bridges | Ledesma reasonably treated Klosowski as a temporary contractor and lacked knowledge of an indefinite expectancy | Dismissal affirmed; plaintiff failed to show Ledesma knew of an expectancy to tend indefinitely |
| Whether Ledesma and Bay City violated First Amendment (§ 1983) | Klosowski spoke as a citizen on matter of public concern (public spending) and was retaliated against; municipality delegated final policymaking to Ledesma | Defendants argue speech was pursuant to official duties or not clearly established; municipality lacked final‑policy liability | Reversed in part: material facts exist that speech was protected and Chappel established law; Ledesma not entitled to qualified immunity; municipal liability viable because scheduling authority was delegated to Ledesma |
Key Cases Cited
- Chappel v. Montgomery Cty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 1, 131 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 1997) (speech alleging misuse of public funds can be public‑concern speech)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (speech made pursuant to official duties is not protected by First Amendment)
- Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (balancing public‑employee speech against government interests)
- Umbehr v. McClure, 518 U.S. 668 (1996) (First Amendment protections apply to independent contractors performing government work)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires an official policy or well‑settled custom)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (clearly established right standard for qualified immunity)
- Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369 (2014) (distinguishing speech pursuant to official duties from citizen speech)
- Boulton v. Swanson, 795 F.3d 526 (6th Cir. 2015) (review of whether employee spoke as citizen on public‑concern matter)