Scott Savage v. E. Gee
665 F.3d 732
6th Cir.2012Background
- Savage, head of Reference and Library Instruction at OSU Mansfield, worked Aug 2004–June 27, 2007.
- He proposed a controversial book for freshmen, prompting internal debate and committee discussion.
- Emails show disagreement over the book The Marketing of Evil and concerns about anti-gay statements.
- Faculty and staff filed harassment complaints against Savage; University conducted limited investigations.
- Savage took leave of absence in 2006 for emotional distress and later resigned amid ongoing disputes.
- He filed federal claims in March 2008 seeking damages and injunctive relief; district court granted summary judgment on numerous grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Damages waiver under Leaman governs federal claims | Savage argues damages claims survive Court of Claims | Leaman bars damages against officials after Court of Claims suit | Damages barred; no certification sought or granted |
| Whether Savage’s speech constitutes First Amendment retaliation | Speech related to academic matter should be protected | Speech made under official duties not protected | Speech not protected; no adverse action shown imports failure of retaliation claim |
| Constructive discharge claim viability | Working conditions were intolerable and intended to force quitting | No objective intolerability or intent to force resignation | No triable issue; no constructive discharge |
| Standing to challenge the University policy facially | Policy affects him and chilling effect supports standing | No actual or imminent harm to Savage | Savage lacks standing for facial challenge |
| As-applied challenge to policy standing | Policy harmed Savage in investigation | No concrete harm shown | No standing; claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Leaman v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Retardation & Development Disabilities, 825 F.2d 946 (6th Cir. en banc 1987) (waiver of federal claims against officers after Court of Claims suit; includes federal)
- Fox v. Traverse City Area Pub. Schs. Bd. of Educ., 605 F.3d 345 (6th Cir. 2010) (adverse action required for retaliation)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (public concern and citizen speech; balancing of interests)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (speech in official duties not protected; possible academic exception)
- Evans-Marshall v. Bd. of Educ., 624 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 2010) (teacher curricular choices not protected speech)
- Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (balance between speech and government interests)
- Moore v. KUKA Welding Sys. & Robot Corp., 171 F.3d 1073 (6th Cir. 1999) (constructive discharge framework; intent and objective harm)
- Morrison v. Bd. of Educ. of Boyd Cnty., 521 F.3d 602 (6th Cir. 2008) (standing and concrete harms; chill doctrine)
- Thomas More Law Ctr. v. Obama, 651 F.3d 529 (6th Cir. 2011) (standing; imminent injury; chill factor)
- Piggee v. Carl Sandburg Coll., 464 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2006) (standing for injunction against speech restriction when not in employment)
- Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971) (standing and chilling effect)
- Dambrot v. Central Michigan Univ., 55 F.3d 1177 (6th Cir. 1995) (overbreadth and chill in First Amendment)