Teresa Barry v. James O'Grady, 895 F.3d 440

Teresa Barry, a judicial administrative assistant, sued Judge James O'Grady and others under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment retaliation and Fourteenth Amendment (gender) discrimination based on a hostile work environment and adverse actions after she reported sexist comments.
Key incident: a conversation in which bailiffs sexually discussed a female lawyer; O'Grady made a remark implying the lawyer was "good at what she does." Barry posted about the incident on Facebook and told the lawyer.
After Barry reported the conversation, she was moved out of O'Grady's chambers and accepted a transfer to a less-desirable position; she alleges continued retaliation and mental-health harms.
District court denied O'Grady summary judgment on two claims (retaliation and gender discrimination) concluding genuine disputes of material fact remained and rejecting qualified-immunity entitlement.
O'Grady appealed the denial of qualified immunity, arguing facts did not support Barry's claims and that he was entitled to immunity as a matter of law.
The Sixth Circuit majority dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because O'Grady's arguments depended on disputed facts/inferences rather than "neat abstract issues of law," per Johnson v. Jones and related precedent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the denial of qualified immunity is appealable	Barry: district court correctly found disputed material facts precluding summary judgment	O'Grady: facts and inferences show no constitutional violation so immunity applies as a matter of law	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because appeal relied on defendant's factual version, not purely legal questions
Whether factual disputes (inferences) can be reviewed on interlocutory qualified-immunity appeal	Barry: district court inferences should stand for appealability analysis	O'Grady: appellate review should assess whether, even viewing facts for plaintiff, law favors defendant	Court: must accept district court fact inferences; appellate jurisdiction exists only for pure legal issues or narrow exceptions (concede facts or "blatantly false" findings)
Whether Barry showed First Amendment retaliatory adverse action	Barry: transfer and subsequent treatment were retaliatory after she reported misconduct	O'Grady: transfer was voluntary or not retaliatory; disputes negate claim	Not decided on merits; appellate court lacked jurisdiction to resolve factual disputes
Whether Barry showed gender-discrimination hostile-work-environment	Barry: pattern of vulgar, sex-based comments and O'Grady's conduct show hostility to women	O'Grady: record lacks evidence of hostility to women; isolated comments insufficient	Not decided on merits; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995) (denial of qualified immunity is appealable only on pure legal questions; appeals cannot rest on disputed facts)
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (qualified-immunity denial may be treated as final for §1291 in narrow circumstances)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (appellate review may reject district-court inferences where evidence objectively contradicts plaintiff's version)
Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012 (2014) (Supreme Court reviewed evidence and legal issues on interlocutory qualified-immunity appeal)
DiLuzio v. Village of Yorkville, 796 F.3d 604 (6th Cir. 2015) (appellate court cannot challenge district court's factual inferences on qualified-immunity appeal)
Austin v. Redford Twp. Police Dep't, 690 F.3d 490 (6th Cir. 2012) (exception allowing appellate overruling of district court factual determination when record shows finding is "blatantly and demonstrably false")
Phelps v. Coy, 286 F.3d 295 (6th Cir. 2002) (defendant may concede plaintiff's version of facts on appeal to present pure legal question)
Estate of Carter v. City of Detroit, 408 F.3d 305 (6th Cir. 2005) (appellate jurisdiction over qualified-immunity denials only where appeal presents purely legal issues)