Stella Satter v. State of Washington Department of Ecology
462 F. App'x 685
9th Cir.2011Background
- Satter appeals a district court summary judgment favoring defendants on First Amendment and constructive-discharge claims.
- She alleges an unconstitutional prior restraint on her speech during an investigation into her work-related conduct.
- She also alleges constructive discharge by resigning under duress.
- The district court held Slattery had qualified immunity and that the resignation was voluntary.
- The panel assumes, for argument, that the speech restriction could violate Pickering but holds immunity defeats the claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Slattery's speech restriction during the investigation violate Satter's First Amendment rights? | Satter | Slattery | Assumed violation, but qualified immunity applies |
| Was the right at issue clearly established for qualified immunity purposes? | Satter | Slattery | Not clearly established; Slattery entitled to immunity |
| Did Satter's resignation constitute a constructive discharge? | Satter | DOE/Slattery | Resignation voluntary; no constructive discharge |
Key Cases Cited
- Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (contextual balancing for public employee speech)
- Moran v. Washington, 147 F.3d 839 (9th Cir. 1998) (qualified immunity depends on clearly established rights; balancing is context-specific)
- Molsness v. City of Walla Walla, 928 P.2d 1108 (Wash. App. 1996) (voluntary resignation presumption; burden to rebut)
- Sneed v. Barna, 912 P.2d 1035 (Wash. App. 1996) (intolerable conditions; voluntariness of resignation; two-option scenario)