NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0003n.06 F iled: Janu ary 2, 2008 No. 06-4461 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
CH ARLES A . Z ERM AN JR .; CH RI STOP HER J. NEIBERDING; N EIL P. ROZ MAN, Plaintif fs-Appellee

s , v. CI TYOF STR ON G SVI LLE, OHI O , Defendant and P AU L HA NE Y , named in his individual and of fi c ia l c a pa c iti e s, Defendant-

Appellant
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPE A L F RO M THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STRI CT CO UR T F OR

T H EN O R T H ERN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

O P I N I O N

BEF ORE: M ERRI TT, CO LE, and G RI F F IN , C ir c uitJudg e s. R. G UY COLE, JR . Plaintiffs-Appellee s, firef ighte rs for the City

of Strong sville, broug ht a § 1983 ac tion ag ainst Defe ndants, City of Strong sville and Fire C h i ef P au l Hane y , for a lleg ed reta liation in violation of their First Amendment rights of fre edom of association, fr eedom of speec h, and the r ight to petition the g overnme nt for re dress. Spec ifically , P l ai n t iffs-Appe llees cla im that De fe nd ants wr ongful ly

pa sse d th e m ov e r f

or a pr omo tio n b e c a

us e of the ir un ion a c tiv iti e s, the ir
c omp la int s and

dis c ussi ons a

bo ut c e rt a in F ir e De pa

rtme nt p oli c ie s and

pr a c tic e s, and

the ir endorse ment of a Strong sville mayoral c andidate. A dditionally , Plaintiffs-Appellee s claim thatNo. 06-4461

Ze rm an v . Ci ty

of S tro ng sv ille

- 2 - followingthe denial of

the prom otion, they

wer e subjec ted to reta liation after the ir union filed an unfair la bor pra ctice c harg e base d on the Fir e De partment’s pr omotion process. Fire Chief Hane y

moved for summar

y judge ment based on the aff irmative def

ense of qu a lif ie d immun ity . T he dis tr ic t c ourt c on c lud e d th at H ane y

is not e nti tle d to the de fe ns e be c a us e (1) Plaint iffs-Appe llees’ F irst Amendment rights were clea rly established at the time they wer e passed ove r for

promotion, and (2) the re a re g enuine issu es o f m at er ial fac t as to whether such
a dv e rs e a c tio n w a s mo tiv ate d, at le a st in p art , b y Pla int if f- Ap pe lle e s’ e xer c ise of

the ir c le arl y
e sta bli sh e d c on st it ut io nal ri g hts . H ane y no w b ri ng s th is i nte rl oc uto ry a pp e a l a sk ingus to r e ve rs e the district court’s conclusion. He claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law beca use Plaintiffs-Appe llees’ a ctivities are not pr o t ec ted by the Fir st Amendment, they did not
e xpe ri e nc e an a dv e rs e a c tio n, and in t he a lte rn ativ e , th e law i s n ot e st abl is hed c le arl y so tha t a
rea sonable public off

icial would know that such activities constitute a First Amendment violation. Al tho ugh “ [a] d e nia l of summa ry jud g me nt is g e ne ra lly no t a fi na l ju dgme nt” a

pp e a la ble to this Court, a denial of summary judgme nt “may

be appe aled a s [a] collater al orde r[] wher e (1) the defe ndant is a public off

icial asser ting the de fense of qualified immunit y , and (2) the i ssue appe aled
conce rns not which fac ts the parties might be able to pr ove but whethe r ce rtain alleg ed fa cts ref lect a violation of cle arly

established law.” Hoove r v. Radabaugh , 307 F.3d 460, 465 (6th Cir. 2002);

se e als o Mi tc he ll v . F

or sy th , 472 U. S. 511 , 530 (1 98 5) . Wh e re the re is d isa g re e me nt a bo ut t he fa c ts on appea l, we must view the e vidence in the light most favor able to the plaintiff, takingall infere nces in his favor. Swiecick

i v. Delgado , 4 6 3 F. 3 d 4 8 9 , 4 9 7 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( ci t i n g Champion v . Outloook Nashville Inc. , 3 80 F .3 d 8 93 , 9 00 (6 th C ir . 2 00 4) ). Th eref or e , o n a pp e a l, H ane y

is l imi te d toNo. 06-4461

Ze rm an v . Ci ty

of S tro ng sv ille

- 3 - challeng ing the district court’s leg al conc lusions and cannot re litigate f actua l issues. Applying a

de novo standa

rd of r eview, as we must, W ill iam s v . M

e hra , 186 F.3d 685, 689 (6th Cir. 1999) (e n banc) , we c onclude that the district court’s we ll-rea soned opinion supports the denial of qua li f

ie d immu n it y an d th at t h e is s u an c e o f

a d e ta il e d wr itte no p in io nf

r o m t h is Co urt
wo uld be repe tit iou s. Ac c or din g ly , th e jud g me nt r e nd e red by the Ho no ra

ble Kathl e e n M c Do na ld O’Malley is affirme d on the basis of the rea soning set forth in the September 28, 2006 opinion and order
.