Trant v. Medicolegal Investigations
754 F.3d 1158
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- Collie Trant was hired in 2009 as Oklahoma Chief Medical Examiner; the OCME was recovering from prior scandals, lost accreditation, and faced unresolved sexual-harassment matters.
- Trant discovered and forwarded emails he believed showed improprieties in a grand jury investigation; he told the Board he would retain counsel and report alleged wrongdoing to outside authorities.
- The Board reorganized OCME administration, creating a CAO (Tom Jordan); conflicts between Trant and Jordan escalated and Board members met with both.
- After Trant disclosed the grand-jury–related emails and spoke in executive session, the Board placed him on paid administrative leave for alleged misconduct and later terminated him, citing multiple reasons (including alleged sexual-harassment remarks, contact with staff in violation of leave terms, insubordination, and poor management).
- Trant sued in state court asserting federal and state claims (including First Amendment retaliation, OMA violation, breach of implied contract); the case was removed to federal court. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on First Amendment claims, dismissed the OMA declaratory claim for lack of standing, and dismissed breach of implied contract; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment retaliation (Board) | Trant: his statements about hiring counsel/reporting grand-jury improprieties were protected speech and motivated his termination | Board: statements were either unprotected or, even if protected, the Board would have fired Trant anyway for independent, legitimate reasons (insubordination, sexual-harassment conduct, poor management) | Affirmed for Board: court assumed speech was public concern but held Board proved it would have terminated Trant absent protected speech (Mt. Healthy burden met) |
| First Amendment retaliation (non-employees: Ballard, Jordan, Balzer) | Trant: these individuals acted retaliatorily in response to his protected speech | Defendants: their actions were based on performance/management concerns predating speech or lacked retaliatory motive or causal connection | Affirmed for each: no evidence their adverse acts were substantially motivated by protected speech; summary judgment proper |
| Oklahoma Open Meetings Act (declaratory relief / standing / sovereign immunity) | Trant: Board violated OMA (notice, executive session exclusion, closed February 5 meeting); seeks declaratory judgment that termination was invalid and related relief (potentially back pay) | Defendants: district court said reinstatement impossible (position filled) and monetary relief barred by sovereign immunity/reservation at removal | Reversed dismissal and remanded: state waived immunity from suit by consenting to removal, but may retain immunity from liability under state law; whether monetary relief (back pay) is available depends on Oklahoma law — issue remanded; district court to reassess supplemental jurisdiction |
| Breach of implied contract based on OMA | Trant: OMA or related procedures created implied contractual procedural rights and entitles him to relief for breach | Defendants: OMA is a public-rights statute for public benefit, does not create individual contractual rights; no authority that OMA creates implied employment contract | Affirmed dismissal: OMA does not create an implied contract for employee procedural rights; breach-of-implied-contract claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (framework for when public-employee speech is or is not protected)
- Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (balancing public-employee speech against employer interests)
- Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) (burden-shifting when protected conduct is a motivating factor)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (public concern and disruption analysis in public-employee speech cases)
- Lapides v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, 535 U.S. 613 (2002) (removal can waive state immunity from suit in federal court)
- McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co., 513 U.S. 352 (1995) (employer may prevail if lawful reason alone would have justified firing)
- Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) (states retain sovereign immunity under federal structure)
- Brammer-Hoelter v. Twin Peaks Charter Academy, 492 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2007) (applying Garcetti/Pickering in the Tenth Circuit)
- Couch v. Board of Trustees of Memorial Hospital of Carbon County, 587 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2009) (affirming Mt. Healthy analysis at summary judgment)
- Anemone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 629 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary-judgment Mt. Healthy analysis where undisputed misconduct justified termination)