Wurzelbacher v. Jones-Kelley
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6177
6th Cir.2012Background
- Wurzelbacher, an Ohio resident and former plumber, gained national attention after asking questions of President Obama on Oct 12, 2008.
- Following the encounter, he spoke to media about Obama’s tax plan and later received numerous media requests to comment on his views.
- Three Ohio officials at the Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS) allegedly authorized/ordered searches of Wurzelbacher’s name in confidential databases (SETS, CRIS-E, OJI) on Oct 16, 2008.
- The searches were allegedly for political reasons related to his interactions with Obama and not for official agency functions, according to the complaint.
- The Ohio Inspector General later found no legitimate agency purpose for the searches and found improper authorization and use of state resources for political activity; governors suspended the officials, with resignations/termination following.
- Wurzelbacher sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation and violation of informational privacy; the district court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants, which the Sixth Circuit affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the alleged database searches constitute an adverse action against First Amendment rights | Wurzelbacher's name searches deterred him from protected conduct | Any adverse action was inconsequential and did not deter ordinary firmness | Adverse action deemed inconsequential; no First Amendment retaliation |
| Whether the informational privacy claim implicates a fundamental liberty interest | Wurzelbacher's privacy rights were violated by improper searches | No fundamental privacy interest implicated; searches were not disclosed or harmful | Informational privacy claim foreclosed; no fundamental liberty interest identified |
Key Cases Cited
- Mezibov v. Allen, 411 F.3d 712 (6th Cir.2005) (pleading must show adverse action deters protected conduct)
- Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378 (6th Cir.1999) (en banc; standard for retaliation claims)
- Fritz v. Charter Twp. of Comstock, 592 F.3d 718 (6th Cir.2010) (adverse actions in First Amendment cases include harassment or publicizing damage to reputation)
- Bell v. Johnson, 308 F.3d 594 (6th Cir.2002) (whether an action deters a person of ordinary firmness is a factual question; de minimis actions insufficient)
- Bloch v. Ribar, 156 F.3d 673 (6th Cir.1998) (public disclosure of private information can support retaliation claims; disclosure level matters)
- Mattox v. City of Forest Park, 183 F.3d 515 (6th Cir.1999) (generalized emotional injury must be tied to concrete personal injury)
- Lambert v. Hartman, 517 F.3d 433 (6th Cir.2008) (informational privacy requires a fundamental interest to be cognizable)
- Center for Bio-Ethical Reform v. Napolitano, 648 F.3d 365 (6th Cir.2011) (data-gathering activity alone does not create constitutional liability)
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) (fundamental privacy interests are limited to matters related to intimate personal rights)
- Reynolds-Bey v. Harris, 428 Fed.Appx. 493 (6th Cir.2011) (single search/unpublished actions may be insufficient to deter rights)
- Mills v. Williams, 276 Fed.Appx. 417 (6th Cir.2008) (severity of action must be evaluated for deterrence)
- Poppy v. City of Willoughby Hills, 96 Fed.Appx. 292 (6th Cir.2004) (conduct like reviewing records or security measures must deter rights to be cognizable)