Opinion ID: 1248286
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Mt. Healthy But-For Causation

Text: Rather than addressing Pickering, the Defendants argue that they would have reached the same [adverse employment] decision even in the absence of [Eng]'s protected conduct. Thomas, 379 F.3d at 808 (quoting Ulrich, 308 F.3d at 976-77). They assert, for example, that Eng's suspensions would have been approved regardless of his protected speech because they were in fact due to the information gathered from three separate internal investigations involving separate and independent allegations of misconduct. This argument ignores Eng's allegations that the investigations and apparently baseless charges were themselves motivated by his exercise of his First Amendment rights. The Defendants further assert that Eng's performance on a promotability review undermines a but-for connection between his speech acts and his having been passed over for promotion. But Eng alleges he received a low score on the promotion review in part because his record contained accusations of sexual harassment and misuse of office computers accusations themselves motivated by his exercise of his First Amendment rights. Taking Eng's version of the facts as true, the Defendants have therefore not met their burden to show that Eng's protected speech was not a but-for cause of the adverse employment actions taken against him. In sum, Eng has properly alleged a violation of his constitutional rights.