FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCT 18, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 15 77 0

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 00 22 7- CV-W-N LARRY CAMP , Dr., SABRI NA MARTINDALE, Pl ai nt iff s- App el le es , ve rs us CORREC TIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC ., et al ., RUTH NAGLICH, in he r of fic ia l an d in di vi du al cap aci ti es as Ass oc ia te Co m

m is si on er, LAURA FERRELL, in he r of fic ia l an d in di vi du al cap aci ti es as Med ic al Sy st em s Ad m in is tra to r, Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Oct ob er 1 8, 2 01 0)Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andREAVLEY, Cir cu itJu dg es . * PER CURI AM: Laura Fe rrel l an d R

ut h Nag li ch , who workinadm in is tra ti ve po si ti on s fo r th e Alaba m a Dep art m en t o f Co rrec ti on s, were su edin th ei r in di vi du al cap aci ti es by a pri so n d en ti st , Dr. Larry Cam p, an d ade nt al ass is ta nt , Sab rin a Ma rti nd al e. Ferr el l an d Nag li chfil eda m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t o n qua li fie d i m m un it y gr ou nd s, wh ic h t he di st ric t co urt g ran te d i n p artan d d en ie d i n p art . The cl ai m s in vo lv edinth is ap pe al are Fi rs t Am en dm en t re ta li at io n c la im s b ro ug htun de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 b y

Cam p a ga in stFerre ll an d Nag li ch , andby Marti nd al e ag ai ns t Nag li ch . Ferrel l an d Nag li ch co nt en d t ha t the y are en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y on th os e cl ai m s. W e rev ie w de n ov o adi st ric t co urt’s d eci si on de nyin g s umm ary jud gm en t on qu al ifi edimm

un it y gro un ds . Mon to ut e v . Carr, 1 14 F.3d18 1, 1 83 (11 th Cir
. 19 97 ). “ Inex erci si ng ou r in te rlo cu to ry rev ie w juri sd ic ti onin qu al ifi edimm un ity cas es , we are n otrequi redto m ak e o urown de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts forsu m m ary jud gm en t p ur

po se s; we ha ve di sc ret io n t o a ccep t the di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in gs , if th ey are ad equa te .” Co tt rel l v . Cal dwe ll , 85 F.3d14 80 , 14 86 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). In

Honora ble Thomas M. Reavle y , United States Circuit J udg e for the Fif th Circuit, sit ting * by designation. 2th e p res en t ca se , we do acce ptth e fac ts th atare s etou t i n t he di st ric t co urt’s

op in io n, an d we a gr ee wi th th e res ul t tha t the di st ric t co urt re ach ed
. One asp ectof t he reas on in g i n the di st ric t co urt’s o pi ni on warran ts cl ari fic at io n. Onth e is su e o f whe th er cl earl y est ab li sh edlaw p utFerre ll an d Nag li ch onno ti ce tha t the y were v io la ti ng Cam

p’s an d M art in da le ’s Firs t Am en dm en t ri gh ts , th e d is tri ctco urt s umm ari ly con cl ud ed : “ The re ca n b e n o se rio us di sp ut e th atth e la w pro hi bi ti ng st at e o ffi ci al s fr om ret al ia ti ng ag ai ns t em pl oyees wh o e ng ag e in pro te ct edsp eech is ‘ cl earl y est ab li sh ed .’ ” (ci ti ng W al ke r v. Sc hwa lb e, 11 2 F .3d11 27 , 11 33 (11 thCir . 19 97 ) (“ At the ti m e th e de fen da nt s ac te d i n 1 99 1, cl earl y est ab li sh edlaw i nf

orm edreas on ab le go ve rn m en t of fic ia ls th atW al ke r co ul d n otbe pu ni sh edfor hi s Fi rs t Am en dm en t s pe ech .”). InHop e v . Pel zer, 5 36 U.S. 73 0, 7 41 , 12 2 S .Ct. 2 50 8, 2 51 6 (2 00 2) , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t ea rli er p rece de nt ia l d eci si on s d o n otne ces sa ril y have to be “ m at eri al ly sim il ar” t o t he cas e atha ndinord er t o g iv e fai r warn in g fo r qu al ifi edimm

un it y pu rp os es . The Co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t “ of fic ia ls canst il l b e o n no ti ce tha t the ir c on du ctvi ol at es est ab li sh edlaw ev enin no ve l fa ctua l ci rcu m st an ces ” as lo ng as t he re i s p rece de ntth atgi ve s the off ic ia ls “ fai r warn in g” th atth ei r co nduc t i s u nc on st itut io na l. Id . Evenaft er Ho pe , ho wev er, i t i s n ot en ou gh to de feata qu al ifi edimm un it y de fen se th atun de r th e fac ts of t he cas e th e 3Pi ck eri ng ba la nc e ti lt s i n fa vo r of th e p la in ti ff’s fre e sp eech . Ins te ad , th e b al an ce 1
m us t t il t d eci de dl y

in fav orof the pl ai nt iff’s sp eech in ord er fo r th e d efen da nt s t o ha ve fai r an d c le ar n ot ic e th atth ey were v io la ti ng th e p la in ti ff’s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. See Co okv. Gwin ne ttCn ty. Sch . Dis t., 4 14 F.3d13 13 , 13 20 (11 th Cir
. 20 05 ) (“ Thu s, u nd er the fact s as fou ndby the di st ric t co urt atsu m m ary jud gm en t, [th e p la in ti ff’s] int eres ts in pro m ot in g s afet y an d i m pr ov in g t he co m

pe te nc y , m an ag em en t, an d o rg an iz at io n o f di st ric t b us dri ve rs fa r o utwei gh ed th e sc an t ev id en ce tha t the di st ric t p ro ffer edin supp ort o f it s wo rk pl ace e ffi ci en cy arg um en t. We th eref

or e co nc lu de th atth e Pi ck eri ng ba la nc e ti lt ed co nc lu si vel

y in fav orof [ th e p la in ti ff] su ch th atth e d efen da nt s h adfai r an d c le ar warn in g t ha t th ei r act io ns were u nc on st itut io na l.”) (em ph as is ad de d)
. Befo re the 20 02 Hop e d eci si on , we reco gn iz edth atwhen a publ ic em pl oyee cl ai m s t ha t h is em

pl oyer ha s v io la te d h is Fir stAm en dm en t ri gh ts , itwil l b e a rar e cas e in whi ch th e Pi ck eri ng ba la nc e wil l t il t s o o bv io us ly in the pl ai nt iff’s fav or
See Pickering v. B d. of Educ. of Township High Sch. Dist. 205, 391 U.S. 563, 88 S . Ct. 1 1731 (1968). “ In Pickering , the landmar k case conce rninga public employee’ s [F] irst [A] mendment rights, the Supreme Court held that a public e mploy ee’ s interests ar e limited by the state’s ne ed to pre serve eff icient g overnme ntal functions.” B ry son v. City of Waycross, 888 F .2d 1562, 1565 (11th Cir. 1989). “We must consider se vera l fac tors in balancing the state’s inter est in effic ient provision of public servic es ag ainst [a plaintiff’s] speech intere st, including: (1) whether the spee ch at issue impede s the g overnme nt’s ability to perfor m its dut ies eff

iciently , (2) the manner , time and place of the spee ch, and ( 3) the c ontextwithin which the spee ch wa s made.” I d. at 1567. 4th ata de fen da ntwil l l os e th e sh ie ldof qua li fie d i m m un it y . See Ola de in de v. Ci ty of Birm in gh am , 96 3 F .2d14 81 , 14 87 (11 thCir . 19 92 ) (“ [I]n fre e-s pe ech cas es , be cau se no bri gh t-l in e st an da rdpu ts th e rea so nabl e p ub li c em pl oyer on no ti ce o f a
co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n, t he em pl oyer is en ti tl edto imm

un it y ex cep t i n the
ex tra or di na ry

cas e whe re the ba la nc in g t es t fr om Pic ke rin g (f

ree- sp eech in te res t o f
em pl oyee m us t b e wei gh edag ai ns t em pl oyer’s in te res t i n p erfo rm in g p ub li c se rv ic es effi ci en tl y), wou ldlea d t o the in ev it ab le co nc lu si onth atth e ret al ia to ry act io n was un la wfu l.” ( ci ta ti on , qu ot at io n m ark s, an d a lt erat io ns om it te d) ); s ee al so Ch es se r v. Sp ark s, 2 48 F.3d11 17 , 11 24 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (s am e); Sta nl ey v. Ci ty of Dal to n, Ga., 2 19 F.3d12 80 , 12 98 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (“ Bec au se Pic ke rin g requi res a ba la nc in g o f co m pe ti ng in te res ts on a cas e-b y -cas e b as is , ou r de ci si on s ti ltst ro ng ly in fa vo r of

imm un it y by recog ni zi ng th aton ly in the rare stof c as es wil l re as on ab le go ve rn m en t o ffi ci al s t ru ly kno w th atth e te rm in at io n o r di sc ip li ne of a publ ic em

pl oyee vi ol at edcle arl y

est ab li sh edfed eral rig ht s.”) (qu ot in g Han se n v. So ld en wag ne r, 19 F.3d57 3, 5 76 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ) (al te rat io n a ndqu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). The Ho pe de ci si onha s ch an ge d t ha t fo rm ul a so m ewh at , bu t n ot as m uc h a s t he st at em en t i n t he di st ric t co urt’s o rd er (quo te d, i ro ni cal ly eno ug h, fro m ou r ownpre -Ho pe de ci si onin W al ke r) m ig htin di cat e. The p ro bl em with th e st at em en t fr om

th e Walke r de ci si on is th atitco nf la te s t he Pic ke rin g m eri ts 5is su e wit h t he cle arl y est ab li sh edlaw i ss ue th atgo ve rn s t he qu al ifi edimm un it y de fen se . Evenaft er the Hop e d eci si on , th ere wi ll be cas es in whi ch ret al ia ti on for sp eech vi ol at es th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t ri gh ts of t he pl ai nt iff bu t qua li fie d i m

m un it y pr ot ect s t he de fen da nt s fr om a m on et ary jud gm en t ag ai ns t the m . There is a di ffer en ce b etweenth e Pi ck eri ng ba la nc e m erel y ti lt in g i n fa vo r of

th e p la in ti ff
an d i t t il ti ng co nc lu si ve ly in h is fav or ; i t i s the di ffer en ce b etweenth e in te res ts fu rth eredby the pl ai nt iff’s sp eech m erel y ou twei gh in g t he de fen da nt ’s in te res ts in
res tri ct in g i t an d h is in te res ts far o ut weig hi ng th em . If a ca se with a na lo go us fact s i s n eed ed , th e Aki ns cas e is clo se en ou gh
. See Ak in s v . Ful to n C nt y ., Ga., 42 0 F .3d12 93 , 13 08 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Ther e th e pl ai nt iff s wer e th ree p ub li c em

pl oyees; two of t he m

work edforth e co un ty pu rch as in g d ep art m en t as co nt ract in g o ffi cers ; the th irdwas t he ir i m m ed ia te supe rv is or . Id. at12 98 . The thr ee o f th em co m pl ai ne d abo utbi dd in g i rreg ul ari ti es to th e co un ty comm is si on er. Id . They al le ge d t ha t af te r th ey sp ok e o utab ou t th os e b id di ng irr eg ul ari ti es , th ei r bo ss , who was t he di rect orof t he co un ty pu rch as in g d ep art m en t, re ta li at edag ai ns t the m in vi ol at io n o f th ei r Fi rs t Am en dm en t ri gh ts . See i d. at12 98 –9 9. We hel d i n Ak in s n oton ly tha t a reas on ab le fact fin de r co ul d c on cl ud e th atth e d ire ct orha d v io la te d t he two co nt ract in g o ffi cers ’ Fi rs t Am en dm en t ri gh ts , id . at 1 30 1, 1 30 5, b utals o t ha t the 6res ul t o f th e Pi ck eri ng ba lanc in g was cle ar an d p red ic tabl e en ou gh to de feata

m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t b as edon qu al ifi edimm un it y . Id. at13 08 . The
sa m e is tru e h ere. The pl ai nt iff

s i n t he pre se ntcas e d idno t re po rt b id di ng irr eg ul ari ti es , bu t th ey di d fo rm al ly com

pl ai n abo utDr. W es t’s al le ge d m is co nduc t t o t h e S t a t e B o a r d
o f D e n t a l Exa m in ers , a ne ut ral th irdpa rty char ge d wi thov ers eei ng th e li cen si ng an d p ract ic e o f de nt is ts in Alab am a. See Al a. Co de § 3 4- 9- 2 (“ The Legi sl atur e he reb y de cl ares th atth e p ract ic e o f de nt is try affect s t he publ ic he al th , saf ety , and welf are a ndsh ou ldbe subjec t t o re gu la ti on . It i s fu rth er d ecl aredto be a m at te r of publ ic in te res t an d c on cern th atth e d en ta l p ro fes si on m eri t an d re cei ve th e co nf id en ce o f th e p ub li c an d t ha t o nl y qu al ifi edde nt is ts be pe rm it te d t o p ract ic e de nt is try in t he Sta te of Al ab am a. All pro vi si on s o f th is ch ap te r rel at in g t o t he pr act ic e o f de nt is try andde nt al hygie ne sh al l b e li be ral ly con stru edto carry ou t th es e o bjec ts an d p ur

po se s.”) The Den ta l Bo ardha s t he au th or it y to di sc ip li ne a de nt is t wh o “ [w]ill fu ll y

or n eg li ge nt ly vio la te s t he rul es of t he Sta te Depa rtment o f Heal th or o f th e b oardreg ard in g s an it at io n.” Id. § 34 -9 -1 8( a)(8 ). The Bo ard
ex erci se d t ha t au th or it y

when itsan ct io ne d Dr. Westforth e m is co nduc t tha t the pl ai nt iff s re po rte d. A fac tfi nd er co ul d re as on ab ly findfro m th e ev id en ce tha t Cam p a ndMart in da le were ac ti ng as wh is tl eb lo wers by repo rti ng un sa ni ta ry , 7da ng ero us , andbru ta l d en ti st ry pra ct ic es to th e Den ta l Bo ard
. 2 The im po rtantpubl ic in te res ts furth eredby the pl ai nt iff s’ rep orts far
ou twei gh an y

in te res ts th e d efen da nt s h adin tak in g the act io n t he y di d a ga in stth e pl ai nt iff s, an d t he Pic ke rin g b al an ce t il ts “ co nc lu si ve ly in fa vo r of [th e p la in ti ffs ]
su ch th atth e d efen da nt s h adfai r an d c le ar warn in g t ha t the ir a ct io ns were un co ns ti tu ti on al .” Co ok , 41 4 F .3dat 1 32 0. Th e m an ne r, ti m e, an d p la ce o f th e pl ai nt iff s’ com pl ai nt s t o t he Dent al Bo ardwere ap pr op ria te an d n otun du ly di srup ti ve of t he Sta te ’s pro vi si on of p ub li c se rv ic es . Thei r sp eech bro ug htto th e Den ta l Bo ard ’s att en ti on all eg edvi ol at io ns of B oa rdrul es an d C DC in fect io n co nt ro l p ol ic ie s t ha t m ig htno t h av e b een ad dr es se d h adth ey refra in edfro m co m pl ai ni ng ou t o f fea r of

ret al ia ti on .
Fe rre ll and Nag lich argue that Camp wa s require d to report to the De ntal Boa rd as pa rt 2 of his profe ssional responsibiliti es as a licensed de ntist, so under Garc etti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 126 S. Ct . 1951 (2006), c omplaining to the B oard w as simply part of Camp’s officia l job duties, and his speec h was not protec ted. See id. at 421, 126 S. Ct. at 1960 (holding that “when public employees make stateme nts pursuant to their offic ial duties, the employees a re not speakingas citizens for F irst Amendment purposes, a nd the Constitut ion does not insulate their communications from e mploy er discipline.” ). Alaba ma statutes may

impose on Camp a g ener al responsibility

as a me dical prof

essional to repor

t knowledg e of othe r dentists’ misconduct to the Dental B oard, but his job responsibilities as an employee f or PHS did not m ake r eportingto the Dental B oard pa

rt of his offic ial duties. Cf. Trig illo v. S nyder, 547 F .3d 826, 829 (7th Cir. 2008) (“Astatute or re gulation can he lp determine the scope of an employee’ s duties to the ext ent that it creates responsibilities for that employee’ s specific job.”). Camp’s job re sponsibili ties were to provide de ntal car e to inmates at the L imestone and St. Clair fac iliti es. The r ecord does not indicate that Camp wa s responsible for overse eingthe pra ctices of other de ntists at the prison fac iliti es. In any

event Dr . West was his supervisor, not his subordinate. As a dental assistant, Martindale w as not licensed a nd would not be subject to the same rules of professional responsibility

as Camp. See Ala . Code § 34-9-2. 8W e rea ch th es e co nc lu si on s ev enass um in g t ha t a c la im in vo lv in g o nl y Cam p’s l et te r to th e Co m

m is si on er, wh ic h re fers to in fo rm at io n t ha t M art in da le ha d s haredwith C am

p, wo ul d n otm ak e itpa stth e d efen dant s’ qu al ifi edimm un it y de fen se . W e are de ci di ng th e cl earl y est ab li sh edlaw i ss ue in th is cas e b as edon th e p la in ti ffs ’ co m

pl ai nt s t o t he Dent al Bo ard , andwe do no t d eci de if we wo ul d
reac h the same resu ltif t he pl ai nt iff s h adco m

pl ai ne d o nl y

to th e Co m

m is si on er. AFFIRMED.

9