RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206

File Name: 11a0304p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________

RON WESTMORELAND,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DEBORAH L. SUTHERLAND, individually and

in her official capacity as Mayor of the City

of Bay Village, Ohio; CITY OF BAY VILLAGE,

OHIO,

 Defendants-Appellees.

X

-

-

-

-

>

,

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

N

No. 10-3766

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.

No. 08-02581—Patricia A. Gaughan, District Judge.

Argued: November 18, 2011

Decided and Filed: December 6, 2011 

Before: MARTIN, GUY, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Avery S. Friedman, FRIEDMAN & ASSOCIATES, Cleveland, Ohio, for

Appellant. Keith A. Savidge, SEELEY, SAVIDGE, EBERT & GOURASH CO., LPA,

Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Avery S. Friedman, FRIEDMAN &

ASSOCIATES, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Keith A. Savidge, Gary A. Ebert, Eric

D. Baker, SEELEY, SAVIDGE, EBERT & GOURASH CO., LPA, Cleveland, Ohio, for

Appellees. 

_________________

OPINION

_________________

RALPH B. GUY, JR., Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Ron Westmoreland, a firefighter,

appeals from the entry of summary judgment in favor of his employer, the City of Bay

1
No. 10-3766 Westmoreland v. Sutherland, et al. Page 2

Village and its Mayor Deborah L. Sutherland, with respect to his claim that he was

unlawfully disciplined in retaliation for having exercised his First Amendment rights.

See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court found that plaintiff’s speech was not protected

by the First Amendment because, although he had spoken as a private citizen regarding

matters of public concern, his comments included intentionally or recklessly false

statements attributing the drowning of a seven-year-old boy to the elimination of the Bay

Village Fire Department’s Dive/Rescue Team. See Westmoreland v. Sutherland, 718 F.

Supp. 2d 884 (N.D. Ohio 2010). With respect to his individual capacity claim, the

district court found that the Mayor was entitled to qualified immunity because it was at

least reasonable to believe that the statements were intentionally or recklessly false. For

the reasons explained below, we reverse the judgment and remand for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I.

The City of Bay Village, located west of Cleveland along Lake Erie, operated a

Fire Department with roughly twenty-four firefighters. Budget concerns in the spring

of 2008 led to the adoption of changes that substantially reduced overtime for

firefighters. In addition, Fire Chief James Sammon, a firefighter for more than thirty

years, recommended that the dive team be eliminated. His recommendation was adopted

by Mayor Sutherland and approved by the Bay Village City Council. Chief Sammon

explained by way of affidavit that the dive team had been used an average of less than

once per year, had never actually rescued anyone, and had cost between $10,000 and

$12,000 in overtime annually. Also, he determined that between 1999 and 2007, the

City had purchased a total of more than $26,000 in diving gear and equipment from

plaintiff’s for-profit dive business.

When the dive team was officially disbanded in June 2008, Chief Sammon

distributed a memorandum to all personnel outlining new procedures for the use of

mutual aid dive teams from the Cleveland Metroparks Rangers and the adjacent cities

of Rocky River and Avon Lake. Tragically, two drowning incidents in or near Bay

Village followed. Plaintiff was not working when a twelve-year-old boy drowned at
No. 10-3766 Westmoreland v. Sutherland, et al. Page 3

1

The City prepared a narrative transcription of plaintiff’s commentary, the accuracy of which is

not disputed. A transcript of the audio recording also in the record is incomplete, with many places noted

as “inaudible,” but is generally consistent with the City’s transcription.

Columbia Beach on August 9, 2008, but plaintiff responded to the scene where a sevenyear-old boy drowned at Huntington Beach on September 1, 2008. Huntington Beach,

part of the Cleveland Metroparks, is located within the City of Bay Village.

Two weeks later, on September 15, 2008, plaintiff spoke for a total of about eight

minutes during the public comment segment of a regular Bay Village City Council

meeting.1 Plaintiff, off duty and not in uniform, identified himself as a sixteen-year

veteran of the Bay Village Fire Department, a former member of its disbanded dive

team, an international public safety diving trainer, and an expert in public safety diving.

Plaintiff had been the instructor of the Bay Village dive team, and had instructed

firefighters from other area communities. The district court characterized the speech as

follows:

The thrust of plaintiff’s speech [was] directed at the City’s decision to cut

funding for certain safety services and the outcomes resulting from those

decisions. Throughout his speech, plaintiff mentions not only the dive

team, but cuts to training for safety personnel and difficulties resulting

from the “shuffling of ambulances.” These are undoubtedly matters of

public concern.

Westmoreland, 718 F. Supp. 2d at 891. Plaintiff also spoke pointedly about the

drowning on September 1, asking, “how many children have to die before Council and

the administration understands,” and claiming that they had been warned that it would

be “not if, but when” there would be a loss of life because of the cuts.

Defendants took particular umbrage at the following highlighted statements,

quoted in context:

“You keep rolling the dice, hoping everything will be alright. You cut

our manning, you cut our training, and you cut money in various places,

which is not my responsibility. But my responsibility lies with the

citizens of Bay Village. . . . They pay the taxes that pay all of our

salaries. Now a seven year old kid is dead, that last year would have

been found in about twenty minutes by the Bay Village Dive Team. It is
No. 10-3766 Westmoreland v. Sutherland, et al. Page 4

my personal opinion, this Council, this administration is partly

responsible for condemning that child to death. . . . I was in charge of the

first responding vehicle at the drowning. My first call was the Avon

Lake Fire Department and Rocky River Dive Teams. They weren’t

going to get there in time. Ignorance is bliss. . . . That child never had a

chance. I knew I was watching a seven year old boy being condemned

to death because we had no dive team. We could not go get this kid. We

had two helicopters flying around. We had two Jet Skis sailing around.

We had two boats going around. Let me make something clear. The

child was on the bottom. Divers have to go and get him. . . . Bay Village

Firemen placed themselves at great personal risk that day, many of them,

without proper training, without proper equipment, and refused to give

up. . . . That’s my personal opinion. You don’t care. That’s why I am

speaking today. I am here for the safety of the people here. The citizens,

the firemen, the policemen, the park rangers, the people that come into

this city and spend money to go to your beaches. We were the

responding crew to that beach. The rangers know they can’t get there in

time. We can. That is in our city but we did nothing to help these

people. The citizens need to know that their safety is jeopardized by the

cuts in the manpower and the funding for the safety forces. . . . I don’t

know where you put your money and I really don’t care but when people

are dying I hope you will start to take some kind of notice. In closing,

what price did you put on a child’s life? How much did you save? Did

you save enough that it was worth letting a seven year old die? I know

you won’t answer me. I hope you answer the mother some day, because

I know you will be hearing from her again. . . . When you go home

tonight I hope you tell your kids and your spouse that you did a good job.

A little boy had to die but you guys saved some money. You saved some

money. Is there going to be a third one before you guys wake up?”

(Emphasis added.) Plaintiff ended his address, saying that the citizens needed to be kept

more informed, that the firefighters were doing what they could, but that “what happened

that day on the beach, we couldn’t do the job because we didn’t have our tools. We

couldn’t do our job because we didn’t have our manpower. You were warned it’s not

if, it’s when. It’s going to happen again.” Plaintiff’s comments were immediately

followed by the City Council President’s statement that, as an elected official, he would

defend plaintiff’s right to express his opinion, although that did not mean he necessarily

agreed with him.

On October 9, 2008, Mayor Sutherland, who was a candidate in a contested

election for County Commissioner, ordered plaintiff to serve a three-tour unpaid
No. 10-3766 Westmoreland v. Sutherland, et al. Page 5

suspension—the equivalent of three twenty-four hour shifts—on the grounds that

plaintiff’s statements at the City Council meeting constituted insubordination,

malfeasance, misfeasance, dishonesty, failure of good behavior, and conduct

unbecoming of an officer. The Notice of Disciplinary Action explained that plaintiff

made numerous statements that were “misstatements, fabrications, insulting and

inciteful,” and none of which were “supported by the facts.” The suspension was

imposed pursuant to the progressive discipline policy because plaintiff had previously

received a letter of reprimand for making inappropriate comments to a group of juveniles

at a community diversion program.

After a third-step grievance hearing held on October 22, 2008, the Mayor

affirmed plaintiff’s suspension in a written decision dated November 5, 2008. Plaintiff’s

claim that his speech was protected by the First Amendment was rejected on the grounds

that his “statements contained many falsehoods about the operation of the Fire

Department and the circumstances surrounding the September tragedy at Metroparks

Huntington Beach.” The Mayor also found that plaintiff was aware that his statements

were false “[d]ue to internal communications from Chief Sammon regarding the backup

for the Dive Team.”

Plaintiff filed this two-count complaint while awaiting decision on his grievance,

and requested binding arbitration once the grievance was denied. An arbitrator upheld

the suspension in July 2009, finding that the speech was not constitutionally protected.

Defendants successfully moved to dismiss plaintiff’s procedural due process claim,

which is not at issue in this appeal. In March 2010, defendants moved for summary

judgment on the remaining First Amendment claim, and plaintiff filed a response that

also sought summary judgment in his favor. Affidavits and exhibits were submitted by

plaintiff and the defendants. For the reasons set forth in the opinion and order entered

on June 11, 2010, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. This

appeal followed.
No. 10-3766 Westmoreland v. Sutherland, et al. Page 6

II.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the

factual evidence and all the reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Bishop v.

Children’s Ctr. for Developmental Enrichment, 618 F.3d 533, 536 (6th Cir. 2010).

Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact in

dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P.

56(a).

In a § 1983 action, the plaintiff must demonstrate a deprivation of a right secured

by the Constitution or laws of the United States caused by a person acting under color

of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). To establish a First

Amendment retaliation claim, the plaintiff must show that he engaged in constitutionally

protected speech; that he suffered an adverse action likely to chill a person of ordinary

firmness from continuing to engage in protected speech; and that the protected speech

was a substantial or motivating factor in the decision to take the adverse action. See

Pucci v. Nineteenth Dist. Court, 628 F.3d 752, 768 (6th Cir. 2010). This appeal

concerns only the question of whether plaintiff, a public employee, engaged in speech

protected by the First Amendment, or whether a reasonable official would have believed

that plaintiff had not. There being no factual dispute regarding what was said, this court

treats the question of whether a public employee’s speech is protected as a question of

law. Fox v. Traverse City Area Pub. Sch. Bd. of Educ., 605 F.3d 345, 350-51 (6th Cir.),

cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 643 (2010); Farhat v. Jopke, 370 F.3d 580, 589 (6th Cir. 2004).

“[T]he First Amendment protects a public employee’s right, in certain

circumstances, to speak as a citizen addressing matters of public concern.” Garcetti v.

Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 417 (2006); see also Connick v. Meyers, 461 U.S. 138, 143

(1983). To establish that his speech was constitutionally protected, a public employee

must show that he was speaking as a private citizen, rather than pursuant to his official

duties; that his speech involved a matter of public concern; and, if so, that his interest as

a citizen in commenting on the matter outweighed “‘the interest of the State, as an
No. 10-3766 Westmoreland v. Sutherland, et al. Page 7

employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its

employees.’” Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 417 (quoting Pickering v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High

Sch. Dist. 205, 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968)).

A. Speaking as Private Citizen on a Matter of Public Concern

Defendants renew their unsuccessful argument that plaintiff did not speak “as a

citizen” nor on a “matter of public concern.” We find that the district court made no

error in this regard.

Garcetti clarified what it means to “speak as a citizen” by holding that “when

public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are

not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not

insulate their communications from employer discipline.” Id. at 421. Although plaintiff

identified himself as a public employee, he appeared off duty, out of uniform, and at a

public meeting to address the Mayor and City Council during the public comment

period. Nothing in the record supports the claim that plaintiff’s expression was made

pursuant to a task that was within the scope of his official duties. See, e.g., Weisbarth

v. Geauga Park Dist., 499 F.3d 538, 544 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding statements made to a

consultant hired by employer to evaluate workplace issues were made within the scope

of employee’s official duties).

Connick instructed that speech involves a matter of public concern when it can

fairly be considered to relate to “any matter of political, social, or other concern to the

community.” Connick, 461 U.S. at 146. “Whether an employee’s speech addresses a

matter of public concern must be determined by the content, form, and context of a given

statement, as revealed by the whole record.” Id. at 147-48. Nor is it necessary for the

entire expression to address matters of public concern, as long as some portion of the

speech does. Id. at 149. While motive for the speech is a relevant factor, this court has

explained that “the pertinent question is not why the employee spoke, but what he said.”

Farhat, 370 F.3d at 591.
No. 10-3766 Westmoreland v. Sutherland, et al. Page 8

Defendants argue that, although plaintiff’s speech was couched in terms of

concern about the drowning death, it was motivated by plaintiff’s financial loss of

overtime and business, and communicated “nothing more than ‘the quintessential

employee beef: management has acted incompetently.’” Fox, 605 F.3d at 349 (quoting

Haynes v. City of Circleville, 474 F.3d 357, 365 (6th Cir. 2007)). Plaintiff denied that

his speech was motivated by financial or personal interest, claiming that he “never

advocated for overtime or equipment for [him]self as a priority over safety and security

of the citizens [of Bay Village].” Plaintiff stated that his business earned only $600 to

$700 in profits annually from sales to Bay Village—although neither party has indicated

how much plaintiff may have lost in overtime pay—and attested that, as “the highest

credentialed dive rescue official in Bay Village, [he] wanted to state to [the] city council

in the strongest terms the public concern over the detrimental effect of removing dive

rescue capacity.” (Doc. 42-2, p. 2.)

Although plaintiff’s comments were highly critical of the Mayor and City

Council, the “focus,” “point,” or “communicative purpose” of plaintiff’s speech was to

express his opinion, as an expert in public safety diving, that the cuts to the Fire

Department, especially the elimination of the dive team, had jeopardized public safety

and hamstrung the rescue effort on September 1. See Farhat, 370 F.3d at 591. Nor can

plaintiff’s speech be said to have addressed “matters only of personal interest.” Connick,

461 U.S. at 147. That the comments were made publicly to the City Council, rather than

in a memo sent solely to his superior, supports this conclusion. Cf. Haynes, 474 F.3d at

364 (holding that officer’s memo addressed solely to his superior and expressing

discontent about financial cutbacks and changes to a program he directed was not

protected speech). As the district court found, the substance of plaintiff’s expression

undoubtedly involved matters of public concern.

B. Knowingly or Recklessly False Statements

In Pickering, a teacher wrote a letter to a local newspaper criticizing the school

board and the superintendent’s handling of past bond issue proposals, which included

both substantially correct and erroneous statements of fact. See Pickering, 391 U.S. at
No. 10-3766 Westmoreland v. Sutherland, et al. Page 9

2

The Court declined “to pass upon the additional question whether a statement that was

knowingly or recklessly false would, if it were neither shown nor could reasonably be presumed to have

had any harmful effects, still be protected by the First Amendment.” Id. at n.6.

564. The Court held that the teacher’s erroneous statements, which were critical of his

employer but did not impede the teacher’s performance or interfere with the school’s

operation, could not serve as the basis for his dismissal. Id. at 572-75. The Court

explained that, “in a case such as this, absent proof of false statements knowingly or

recklessly made by him, a teacher’s exercise of his right to speak on issues of public

importance may not furnish the basis for his dismissal from public employment.” Id. at

574 (emphasis added).2

 Plaintiff argues that the district court erred in finding: (1) that

the Pickering balancing is inapplicable when an employee made knowingly or recklessly

false statements; and (2) that plaintiff’s statements were knowingly or recklessly false.

First, as the district court observed, other courts have divided over whether

intentionally or recklessly false statements fall outside the protection of the First

Amendment, or whether such falsity is to be weighed as part of the Pickering balancing.

Westmoreland, 718 F. Supp. 2d at 892 (discussing cases). Although this court has not

explicitly addressed the issue, the district court found that our discussion in See v. City

of Elyria, 502 F.3d 484, 492-93 (6th Cir. 2007), “strongly implie[d] that where an

employee intentionally or recklessly makes false statements, the speech is not a matter

of public concern and, as such, the Pickering balancing test is inapplicable.”

Westmoreland, 718 F. Supp. 2d at 893.

See outlined the showing required for a public employee to state a First

Amendment retaliation claim, explaining that “it does not matter if the employee’s

suspicions were subsequently shown to be correct, as long as the statements were of

public concern and not false statements deliberately or recklessly made.” See, 502 F.3d

at 492 (emphasis added). After discussing the factors to be analyzed in performing the

Pickering balancing, this court explained that:

[A]lthough the truthfulness of the employee’s statements is not relevant

in determining whether the speech involves a matter of public concern

(unless, of course, the employee intentionally or recklessly made false
No. 10-3766 Westmoreland v. Sutherland, et al. Page 10

statements), the truthfulness of such statements may be relevant . . . in

striking the appropriate balance between the employee’s right to free

speech and the employer’s interest in efficient administration.

Id. at 493 (emphasis added). Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion on appeal, See cannot be

disregarded or distinguished merely as a qualified immunity case. Moreover, the only

reasonable implication of this language is that Pickering balancing is not required if it

is determined that the employee made statements with knowledge of, or reckless

indifference to, their falsity. See also Williams v. Commonwealth of Ky., 24 F.3d 1526,

1535 (6th Cir. 1994) (describing Pickering as “declin[ing] to extend protection to false

statements that are knowingly or recklessly made”).

Second, we have specifically held that “[a] public employee is not required to

prove the truth of his speech in order to secure the protections of the First Amendment.”

Chappel v. Montgomery Cnty. Fire Prot., 131 F.3d 564, 576 (6th Cir. 1997). Rather, “it

is the defendants’ burden to establish that [plaintiff] knew or was recklessly indifferent

to the fact that his speech was false.” Id.; see also Farhat, 370 F.3d 591. Plaintiff

contends that the district court overlooked or ignored evidence that contradicted Chief

Sammon’s assertion that plaintiff made intentionally or recklessly false statements.

Plaintiff disputes the defendants’ claim that the primary function of the dive team

was not rescue, but recovery, emphasizing that the vehicle was marked “DIVE/RESCUE

UNIT” and that its stated purpose was “underwater search and rescue or body recovery

of drowning victims.” The efforts made to revive the child once found, as well as

airlifting him to a hospital for further treatment, supported plaintiff’s claim that it was

a rescue effort. The district court found that “even if a question of fact exists as to the

nature of the dive team, this does not alter the fact that in this particular case divers were

available but not utilized.” Westmoreland, 718 F. Supp. 2d at 894.

Obviously relying on Chief Sammon’s affidavit, the district court concluded that

“plaintiff, at a minimum, was reckless in attributing the death of the child to the lack of

a dive team.” Id. In particular, the district court emphasized that plaintiff was present

and aware of the details of the rescue effort; that approximately twelve divers responded
No. 10-3766 Westmoreland v. Sutherland, et al. Page 11

but none were deployed because the child was found in three feet of water using the

“human chain” approach; that the dive team had never rescued anyone; and that, because

it took 30 minutes to establish control of the scene, it would not have been possible for

the Bay Village dive team to “save the child within ‘twenty minutes.’” Id. The district

court characterized these facts as undisputed and found plaintiff had “offer[ed] no

evidence or argument as to how the existence of a Bay Village dive team would have

had any impact whatsoever on saving the child’s life.” Id. at 893.

The record reflects, however, that plaintiff did offer evidence to support his belief

that the lack of a dive team meant that the child did not have a chance of being rescued.

Plaintiff explained by way of affidavit that, although there were twelve divers on the

scene, those divers did not arrive until more than one hour after the 9-1-1 call, “making

them ineffective for a rescue.” Also, although Huntington Beach is under the

jurisdiction of the Metroparks, plaintiff stated that Bay Village Fire Department

responded to the scene and “3 minutes after being dispatched, two [former] rescue

divers, [plaintiff] being one, were at the scene and, as the highest ranking fire official,

[plaintiff] was in command under Ohio Fire Code 104.11.” Plaintiff disputed the

assertion that it took thirty minutes to establish command, stating instead that it took

thirty minutes for a captain to arrive and take over command from him. Plaintiff also

stated that he could have had a dive team in the water within twenty minutes since he

had done so previously in training. Moreover, plaintiff stated that the “‘human chain’

explanation [was] also misleading because the child was found in 3 feet of water one and

one half hours later in five foot waves” and had been “washed in significantly after the

rescue effort started.” Finally, plaintiff explained that his statement about the child

being found in about twenty minutes meant “he would have been found earlier and

therefore had a chance.”

Keeping in mind that plaintiff is not required to prove that his statements are true

and that defendants must prove that the statements were not only false, but were made

with intentional or reckless disregard for the truth, it was error to conclude on this record

that plaintiff made intentionally or recklessly false statements. Plaintiff presented
No. 10-3766 Westmoreland v. Sutherland, et al. Page 12

3

We recognize that the district court did not reach and the parties did not address the extent to

which some of the statements may be protected opinion. See Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S.

1, 20 (1990) (“a statement of opinion relating to matters of public concern which does not contain a

provably false factual connotation will receive full constitutional protection” and protection extends to

statements that cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts).

evidence that he had reason to believe that, if not disbanded, the Bay Village

Rescue/Dive Team would have responded sooner, could have found the child in the

water sooner, and might have given the child a chance of surviving. Nor is an

intentional or reckless disregard for the truth shown by the fact that the divers who

arrived later were not deployed before the child was found. Despite plaintiff’s

inflammatory rhetoric that the budget cuts were “partly responsible for condemning that

child to death,”3

 defendants have not shown that it was intentionally or recklessly false

for plaintiff to claim that the rescue effort was hamstrung because Bay Village no longer

had a dive team.

Since this was the basis for concluding that plaintiff’s speech was not protected,

that the Pickering balancing weighed against plaintiff, and that a reasonable official

would believe the speech was not protected, the decision granting summary judgment

to the defendants is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion, including, but not limited to, whether the challenged

statements were, in fact, false; whether any false statements were knowingly or

recklessly made; whether a reasonable official would have believed any false statements

were knowingly or recklessly made; and, if necessary, whether—taking into account any

falsity—plaintiff’s interest in speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern

outweighed the defendants’ interest in promoting the efficiency of the public services

it performs through its employees.