Wayne Savoy v. Frank Bishop
706 F. App'x 786
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Wayne Savoy, a wheelchair-bound inmate, filed ARP grievances alleging ADA violations and later additional ARPs alleging retaliation by prison officials after his grievances.
- After a housing-unit transfer on July 7, 2013, Savoy lost a laundry job tied to his former housing assignment and filed an ARP alleging retaliatory transfer.
- On July 13, 2013, Savoy sustained a burn using a microwave he alleges was mounted at an inaccessible height and filed an ARP claiming an ADA violation.
- Savoy sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliation and under the ADA for inaccessible placement of the microwave; defendants moved for dismissal or summary judgment, which the district court granted.
- The district court held that filing grievances was not protected First Amendment activity and that the microwave satisfied ADA design standards; Savoy appealed.
- The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded: it held filing grievances is protected activity and found genuine factual disputes on both the retaliation causation/adverse-effect issues and on the appropriate ADA standard for microwave height.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing prison grievances is protected First Amendment activity for § 1983 retaliation | Savoy: filing ARPs is protected speech and immune from retaliation | Defendants: no constitutional right to participate in grievance procedures | Court: filing grievances is protected; district court erred in holding otherwise |
| Whether defendants’ actions constituted adverse action and causal connection (retaliation) | Savoy: transfer and job loss shortly after grievances show adverse effect and causation | Defs: transfer part of legitimate housing reshuffle to accommodate a program (Savoy ineligible) | Court: genuine disputes of material fact exist as to deterrent effect, timing, and whether defendants’ reasons were pretextual; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether microwave placement violated the ADA (proper statutory standard & reasonableness of 40-inch height) | Savoy: microwave is a work/dining surface and ADA §902 (28–34 in) governs; 40 in is unreasonable | Defs: ADA Standards §308 (forward reach limits up to 48 in) controls; 40 in complies | Court: a material factual dispute exists about which ADA provision applies and whether 40 in is reasonable; summary judgment improper |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on record presented | Savoy: disputed facts require further factfinding | Defs: argued alternative grounds to affirm (no adverse effect/causation; compliance with ADA Standards) | Court: cannot resolve factual disputes on appeal; vacated district court judgment and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Booker v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 855 F.3d 533 (4th Cir. 2017) (prisoner retaliation for filing grievances violates clearly established rights)
- Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239 (4th Cir. 2017) (elements of § 1983 retaliation claim)
- Dreher v. Experian Info. Sols. Inc., 856 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2017) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard; ‘‘so one-sided’’ test)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (when reasonable minds could differ, summary judgment improper)
- Laird v. Redwood Trust LLC, 392 F.3d 661 (4th Cir. 2004) (ADA liability depends on reasonableness of design or placement)
- Ridpath v. Bd. of Governors Marshall Univ., 447 F.3d 292 (4th Cir. 2006) (but-for causation standards and inference from temporal proximity)