William v. May v. Kevin Sasser, 666 F. App'x 796

William V. May, a firefighter in the Destin Fire Control District, was terminated and sued the District and Chief Kevin Sasser under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment retaliation.
May spoke at a public Board of Fire Commissioners meeting expressing fear of imminent termination.
Evidence showed the defendants had planned to terminate six less-senior firefighters (including May) before the meeting.
The district court granted summary judgment for Sasser and included a footnote suggesting the complaint failed to allege a policy or custom sufficient to hold the fire district liable.
The district court declined to sua sponte dismiss or give May leave to amend; it treated the official-capacity claim as redundant with the entity defendant and declined reconsideration.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Sasser but vacated and remanded the judgment as to the fire district for failure to address whether the complaint stated a claim or should be amended.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether May's meeting remarks were protected public concern speech	May: remarks about threatened termination implicated public-interest in district operations	Defendants: remarks were personal employment gripes about his own termination	Held: Remarks were personal, not public concern; First Amendment claim fails
Whether Sasser is individually liable for retaliation	May: Sasser retaliated for protected speech	Sasser: no retaliation for protected speech (and asserted qualified immunity)	Held: No First Amendment violation found; summary judgment for Sasser affirmed (qualified immunity not reached)
Whether the complaint adequately alleged municipal liability against the fire district (policy/custom)	May: complaint names the fire district; sought opportunity to argue municipal liability	Defendants: complaint lacks allegation that a policy or custom caused constitutional harm	Held: District court erred by effectively dismissing the district without allowing amendment; vacated and remanded for reconsideration
Whether district court properly denied reconsideration based on new evidence comparing treatment of another firefighter	May: new evidence showed disparate treatment undermining defendants' proffered reasons	Defendants: not material because speech was not on public concern	Held: Court declined to consider later-stage causation because May failed the threshold public-concern inquiry

Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir. 2004) (summary judgment standard)
Bryson v. City of Waycross, 888 F.2d 1562 (11th Cir. 1989) (four-stage First Amendment public-employee analysis)
Carter v. City of Melbourne, 731 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2013) (public-concern inquiry)
Boyce v. Andrew, 510 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2007) (personal grievance cannot be transformed into public concern)
Ferrara v. Mills, 781 F.2d 1508 (11th Cir. 1986) (limits on converting personal grievances into public concern)
Maggio v. Sipple, 211 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2000) (qualified immunity/clearly established rights)
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (plaintiff as master of the complaint)