Opinion ID: 812329
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Protected Statements

Text: Spencer argues that her statements to the KDLA and to the reporter from the Ashland Daily Independent were constitutionally protected and that Hunt terminated her in retaliation for making those statements. In response, the City and Hunt contend that the statements were not protected speech because they were blatantly false and made with reckless disregard for the truth. Because there is no factual dispute as to the content of Spencer’s statements, the district court determined as a matter of law that Spencer’s statements were protected speech. Westmoreland, 662 F.3d at 718. Specifically, the district court found that Spencer’s statements addressed a matter of public concern because her speech was in reference to allegedly missing records that the City was required by law to keep and that the purpose of Spencer’s speech was to shed light on potential misconduct. Spencer v. City of Catlettsburg, Ky., 2011 WL 1430237, at  (E.D. Ky. Apr. 14, 2011). The district court also found that because the statements were in reference to legitimate community concerns and the Defendants failed to show that the statements interfered with Spencer’s ability to perform her job, Spencer met her required burden of production. Id. at  (citing Pickering v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Dist. 205, 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968)). In order to classify speech as protected in this context, the speech must be on a matter of public concern; if it is, the citizen’s interest in making the statement must outweigh the State’s interest, as an employer, “in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568. The speaker must be speaking as a citizen and not pursuant to her official duties. Westmoreland, 662 F.3d at 718-19. -6- No. 11-5832 Susan Spencer v. City of Catlettsburg, et al. In determining whether a plaintiff’s First Amendment interests outweigh the defendant’s interests in efficiency in the workplace, this court has found the following factors relevant: [Whether the speech was] related to an issue of public interest and concern; was likely to foment controversy and disruption; impeded the department's general performance and operation; affected loyalty and confidence necessary to the department's proper functioning; subverted department discipline; was false and the employer could not have easily rebutted or corrected the errors; and was directed toward a person whom the speaker normally contacted within the course of daily work. See v. City of Elyria, 502 F.3d 484, 493 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Solomon v. Royal Oak Twp., 842 F.2d 862, 865 (6th Cir. 1988)). Spencer’s statements were on a matter of public concern and, given her recent promotion to City Clerk, her investigation into the missing records was certainly necessary to the department’s proper function. Moreover, the statements were not false; the bank statements from 2006, although easily replaceable, were in fact missing. Although the statements created controversy, the Defendants did not show that the statements or the resulting controversy interfered with Spencer’s ability to perform her job as Clerk. As to whether Spencer’s statements were made as a citizen, nothing in the record suggests that Spencer was required to tell the KDLA or the Daily Independent that she suspected the City might be missing some records. In fact, as the district court pointed out, Hunt insisted that Spencer’s duties with regard to providing the newspaper information were confined solely to relaying the -7- No. 11-5832 Susan Spencer v. City of Catlettsburg, et al. Council’s agenda. This suggests that even Defendants do not believe Spencer’s statements were part of her official job responsibilities, despite their argument to the contrary. Accordingly, the district court properly concluded that Spencer’s statements were constitutionally protected.