Shane Anders v. Tony Cuevas
984 F.3d 1166
6th Cir.2021Background
- Anders owns Star Towing and Area Towing; he cooperated with a Michigan State Police internal-affairs investigation by providing names of troopers who accepted event tickets. After the investigation, Monroe Post Commander Cuevas removed Star Towing from the non-preference tow rotation.
- Hall, a trooper whose name was disclosed, allegedly pressured Area Towing staff to hold auctions on weekdays; plaintiffs say this was harassment intended to create pretext for removal from the state rotation.
- Area Towing had long provided towing services to the City of Taylor; Mayor Sollars allegedly pushed use of another tower (connected to Gasper Fiore), the city council approved a three-year renewal for Area Towing, and Sollars vetoed that renewal, leaving Area Towing on month-to-month status.
- Councilmember Ramik contacted Fox 2 News and publicly accused Anders of stealing, called him a “crook,” and said he would “destroy” Anders; plaintiffs sued Ramik for defamation.
- Procedural posture: plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First Amendment retaliation and Equal Protection) and for defamation; district court denied several immunity defenses; on interlocutory appeal the Sixth Circuit (1) affirmed denial of immunity as to Cuevas (Count I), Sollars (Count IV), and Ramik (Count VI); (2) reversed as to Hall (Count II) for failure to plead an adverse action; and (3) vacated the Equal Protection class-of-one denial as to Cuevas (Count III) to allow amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment retaliation — Cuevas (removal from non-preference list, Count I) | Anders/Star: cooperation with state investigation was protected speech; Cuevas removed Star Towing in retaliation. | Cuevas: asserted qualified immunity and disputed causation/clearly established law. | Speech was protected; removal plausibly adverse and causally linked; denial of qualified immunity affirmed. |
| First Amendment retaliation — Hall (pressure to change auction schedule, Count II) | Area Towing: Hall’s pressure/harassment was retaliatory adverse action. | Hall: conduct was de minimis and not an adverse action; qualified immunity applicable. | Allegations show only de minimis interference; no adverse action pleaded; reversed (Hall entitled to immunity at this stage). |
| Equal Protection class-of-one — Cuevas (Count III) | Anders: removed based on personal animus; treated differently than similarly situated vendors. | Cuevas: Engquist and discretionary government action undermine class-of-one theory. | Complaint fails to plead adequate similarly situated comparators; district court’s denial vacated to permit amendment. |
| First Amendment retaliation — Sollars (veto of council renewal, Count IV; absolute/qualified immunity) | Area Towing: veto motivated by Anders’ refusal to contribute, criticism, and cooperation with investigators; veto caused loss of multi-year contract (adverse). | Sollars: veto is legislative and entitled to absolute immunity; alternatively qualified immunity. | Absolute legislative immunity not resolved on pleadings; the veto plausibly constitutes retaliatory adverse action and clearly established First Amendment law applies; denial of immunity as to §1983 claim affirmed. |
| Defamation — Ramik (Count VI; governmental immunity) | Anders/Area: Ramik made false, defamatory statements to media and public about theft and criminal conduct. | Ramik: statements relayed from citizens/in furtherance of official duties; entitled to governmental immunity. | Factual record insufficient to show the statements were within official authority or privileged; denial of governmental immunity affirmed pending discovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marohnic v. Walker, 800 F.2d 613 (6th Cir. 1986) (cooperation with law enforcement can be protected speech)
- See v. City of Elyria, 502 F.3d 484 (6th Cir. 2007) (statements exposing police corruption merit strong First Amendment protection)
- Lucas v. Monroe Cnty., 203 F.3d 964 (6th Cir. 2000) (removal from towing list after criticizing sheriff can be adverse retaliatory action)
- Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44 (1998) (absolute legislative immunity turns on the nature of the act, not motive)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t of Agr., 553 U.S. 591 (2008) (limits on class-of-one claims in the public employment context)
- O’Hare Truck Serv., Inc. v. City of Northlake, 518 U.S. 712 (1996) (refusal to contribute to a campaign is protected political speech)
- Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 1999) (definition of adverse action in First Amendment retaliation context)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (interlocutory appeals available for denial of qualified immunity)