NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 08a0221n.06 Filed: Apr il 24, 2008 No. 07-1444 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
LEA H M ILLS , Plain tif f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. P ATRICIA W I L L I AM S ; CHE RYL AU B UC H O N; CO UR T NE Y M CA NU FF; AND SUSAN P ATALIN, De fe nd an ts- Ap pe lle es. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI S TRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN
OP IN ION

BEF OR E: RY AN , SI LER , a nd C OLE, Ci r c uitJudg e s. P ER CURIAM . Plaintiff-Appellant, L eah Mills, a former customer se rvice repr esentative at the Ea stern Michig an Univer sity (“EMU ”) A cade mic Advis i n g C en t er ( “AAC” ), appe als the district court’s g rant of summar y judgme nt to Defe ndants-Appe llees, Patricia Williams, Director of the AAC; Cheryl Aubuchon, a Super visor at EMU’s L ivonia campus; Courtney McAnuff , EMU’s Vice- President for E nrollment Servi ce s ; and Susan Patalin, EMU’s Dire ctor of E mploy ment Re c ru iti ng and Human Re so ur c e s, on he r c la im of re ta liatio n un de r the F ir st Am endme nt. Specifica lly , Mills arg ues that De fenda nts-Appellee s reta liated ag ainst her f or eng ag ing in va

rious pr ote st a nd sp e e c h a c tiv iti e s th ro ug h p re te xtua l e lim inatio n o f h e r p os iti on a t E MU ’s Yp sil a nti campus, for ced tr ansfe r to a less conve nient and less pre stigious position at EMU’s satellite campusNo. 07-1444

Mi lls v . W

ill iam s, e t al

.

- 2 - in L ivonia, subsequent ostrac ism at and isolation from the Ypsilanti campus, blac klisti ng from jobs
acr oss campus, and dispar agin g remarks about her to pare nts of students at EMU with whom she worke d closely
. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

g ra nte d s umm ary

jud g me nt to d e fe nd ants -a pp e lle e s, c on c lud ingthat, althoug h M i l l s eng ag ed in protec ted ac tivity under the First Amendme nt, she neither suf fer ed an adver se ac tion nor pro ff er ed suff icient evidenc e of a

causa l connec tion between he r protec ted
c on du c t and any a lle g e d a dv e rs e e mpl oy me nt a c tio n. On

a pp e a l, M ill s urg e s th is C ourt to r e ve rs e the district c ourt’s g rant of summary judgme nt to Defe ndants-Appe llees bec ause ( 1) it discounted this Court’s prece dent in Leary v. D aeschne r , 349 F.3d 888 (6th Cir. 2003), which, in her e stimation, clea rly establishes that she suff ere d an adve rse em p loy

ment action, and ( 2) there is sufficient evidenc e to demonstrate a ca usal conne ction betwee n her pr otected spe ech a ctivities and the alleg ed adver se ac tion she suffer ed. We r e v ie w a d is tr ic t c o u rt’ s g r an t o f a mo ti o n f o r s u mm ar

y ju d g ment under ade novo standard. Mi lle r v. Ad

mi n. Of fic e of t he Cou rts , 4 48 F .3 d 8 87 , 8 93 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) . Amov ingpa rt y is e nti tle d to a

g ra nt o f its m oti on

fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt “ if

the ple a din g s, de po sit ion s, ans we rs to interrog atories, a

nd admissions on file, toge ther with the aff idavits, if a

ny , show that there is no issue
a s to any ma te ri a l f

a c t and that th e mov ingpa

rt y is e nti tle d to jud g me nt a s a ma tte r of law. ” F e d. R. Civ . P. 56 (c ); see also Ande rson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). Ultimately , the proper inquiry is whether the state of the e vidence is such t h at a rea sonable jury could re turn a verdic t for the non-moving pa rty
. Anderson , 47 7 U. S. at 25 2; Stromback v . New Line Ci nema , 384 F.3d 283, 292 ( 6th Cir. 2004). Additionally , “the mer e exis tence of a scintilla of evidenc e in supportNo. 07-1444

Mi lls v . W

ill iam s, e t al

.

- 3 - of Pla int if f’ s p os iti on

wi ll b e ins uf

fi c ie nt; the re mus t be ev ide nc e on wh ic h th e jur

y c ou ld r e a so na

bly find for the Plaintiff.” Anderson , 477 U. S. at 25 2; Com pu war e Cor

p. v . M oo dy ’s In v esto rs S

e rv ic es, Inc. , 499 F.3d 520, 525 ( 6th Cir. 2007). A ca use of a ction for F irst Amendment re taliation entails three c omponents. The e mploy ee
mus t e sta bli shthat: “ (1 ) h e e ng a g e d in c on sti tut ion a lly

pr ote c te d spe e c h or co nd uc t; (2 ) a n a dv e rs e
a c ti o n w a s t a k e n a g a i n s t h i m t h a t w o u l d d e t e r a p e r s o n o f o r d i n ar y f i r m n e s s f r o m c o n tin uin g to
e ng a g e in t

hat c on du c t; a

nd (3 ) the re is a c a

us a l c on ne c tio n b e tw e e n e le me nts on e and tw o - that is , the adverse action was motivated at least in part by his protected c onduct.” Scarbrough v. M organ County Bd. of Educ. , 470 F.3d 250, 255 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Ap ply ingthi s st and ard , th e dis tr ic t c ourt pr oc e e de d b y

fi nd ing th at Mi ll s had

e ng a g e d in
c on sti tut ion a lly

pr ote c te d a c tiv ity . T ur

nin g to t he a dv e rs e -a c tio n p ro ng , th e c ourt div ide d the ha

rm s Mills allege dly

suffe red into three cate gories: “( 1) the e limination of P laintiff’s job and
corr esponding transfe r to L ivonia, (2) the a lleg ed ‘bla cklistin g’ of Plaintiff from positions on the Ypsilanti campus, and ( 3) construc tive discharg e of Plaintiff from employ ment with EMU.” (JA 38- 39.) Addre ssing the first alleg edly adver se action, namely the termination of Mills’s position at the AAC and subseque nt transfe r to the L ivoni a ca mpus, the district court foc used on “the objective nature of the inquiry ” and he ld that “a r easona ble per son would not f

ind a transfe r to a job with the
sam e pay and be ne fi ts o nly an e xtra 20 mil e s awa

y su ff ic ie nt t o d e te r t

he ir e xer c ise of

the ir F ir st Amendment rig hts.” (JA 40.) Although r ecog nizi ng that the need for a pare nt to tend to children is a fac tor that may

be ac counted f

or in the adve rse- action inquiry , the cour t ultim ately

found that Mills’s failure t o p ro v i d e objec tive evidenc e of the heig htened pr estig e assoc iated with the AACNo. 07-1444

Mi lls v . W

ill iam s, e t al

.

- 4 - position, along with the fa ct t hat her inability to attend Ypsil anti City Council meeting s due to the schedule at the L ivonia position was not a cog nizable injury , trumped the for mer. (JA 39-40.) Turning to the s ec o n d al leg edly adver se ac tion, the supposed blacklisting of Mills from positions on t he Ypsilanti campus, the court noted that “ the entire ty of P laintiff’s evidence that she was blac klisted rests upon the testimony of [Ty rone] Wil son that Defe ndant Will iams told them she knew how to blac klist som eone f rom campus jobs . . . and that Plaintiff did not obtain any jobs on the Ypsilanti campus whe n she applied f or seve ral.” (JA 40.) Si nce Mills had not proff ere d any
e vid e nc e su g g e sti ng th at any of the de fe nd ants ha d a c tua lly c on ta c te d o ff

ic ia ls o n th e Yp sil a nti campus to pre clude their

hiring of her , the cour

t found this claim to be fac tually unavailing . (JA 41.) Wit h respe ct to the third alleg edly adver se ac tion, Mil ls’s constructive discha rg e, the c ourt fo un d th a t Mi lls ’s fa ilure to qui t her job ult imate ly pr e c lud e d suc h a cla im. (JA 41 .) B e c a us e Mil ls soug ht to preser

ve her job a t the AAC by extending her le ave time, she never actua lly quit, which is a requisite e lement for a constructive disc harg e. On the e le me nt o f c a

us a tio n, the c ourt e xpla ine d that a log ic a l pr e re qu isi te to c a us a tio n is a showing that defe ndants, in fac t, were awa re of Mills’s poli tical eng ag ements. (JA 42.) Ba sed on the re cord, how ever , the court was only able to disce rn evide nce that defe ndants knew of the Mills’s participation in a Town and Gow n event commemorating Martin L uther King Da y , but not any

of he r o the r p oli tic a l a c tiv iti e s, su c h a s h e r atte nd anc e at and pa rt ic ipatio n in

Yp sil anti Ci ty

Counc il meeting s. (

Id .) Due to the two-y ear

g ap between the Martin L uther King Da y incident and Mills’s subs eq u en t termination, the cour t found this tim e per iod “too attenuate d” to support a f inding ofNo. 07-1444

Mi lls v . W

ill iam s, e t al

.

- 5 - causa tion. (

Id
. ) A c c o r d in g ly , th e c o u rt g r an te d s u mm ar y ju d g me n t t o d e f

e n d an ts o nth e is s u e of
causation as well. B e c a us e the pe rsu asi ve reas on ingthat su pp or ts the jud g me nt i n f

a vo r o f t he De fe nd a nts
Appellee s has been clea

rly articulated by the district c ourt in its compre hensive Opinion and O rder , our issuance of a de tailed written opinion would be unduly duplicative. Ac cording ly , we a ffirm the judgme nt r e n d e r e d b y th e H o n o r a b le Jo h n F e ik e n s o n F e b r u ar y 2 6 , 2 0 0 7 o n th e b a s is of the
rea soning c ontained in that document.No. 07-1444

Mi lls v . W

ill iam s, e t al

.

- 6 - RY A N , Ci r c u it Ju d g e , c o n c u r

r in g . I con c u r in th e d e c is io n to a f f irm the district court’s judg ment beca

use I ’m satisfied that the plaintiff suffe red no adver se employ ment action of the kin d th a t c ou ld t

ri gg er a jus tic ia

ble F ir st A me ndme nt r e ta liatio n c la im a g a ins t th e de fe nd a nts
. See Scar broug h v. Morg an County Bd. of Educ., 470 F .3d 250 (6th Cir. 2006).