Opinion ID: 2675964
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cherokee Ballard

Text: The district court correctly granted summary judgment for Ballard. Trant alleged that Ballard participated in the creation of a press release issued by state Representative Randy Terrill that accused Trant of stealing OCME property. The district court correctly determined that there was no record evidence of Ballard’s participation. Trant notes that he was unable to provide specific evidence for his allegations because the district court did not rule on his motion to compel Terrill 5 Ballard and Jordan were Trant’s subordinates. We have never held that true subordinate employees may be liable for First Amendment retaliation claims. The Fifth Circuit has expressly rejected the notion that true subordinates can be liable for an employer’s retaliation—only final decisionmakers may be liable. See, e.g., Johnson v. Louisiana, 369 F.3d 826, 831 (5th Cir. 2004). Because Trant’s claims do not satisfy the Worrell test, it is not necessary to decide whether true subordinates may be liable for retaliation claims. -20- to provide testimony by the time Trant had to respond to the summary judgment motion, but Trant does not allege the court erred in denying the motion. Trant also alleged that Ballard participated in reporting to the media that Trant had stolen OCME property. But Trant mischaracterizes Ballard’s statements. Ballard merely responded to inquiries at a press conference initiated by Trant’s attorneys regarding missing OCME property. She explained that records indicated that Trant had checked out certain items and had not returned them. She never referred to the items as stolen. Further, there is no evidence that her statements were substantially motivated by Trant’s protected speech.