Opinion ID: 171452
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Are Mr. Edwards and Mr. Ketchum Entitled to Qualified Immunity?

Text: Finally, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Ketchum argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. We have already concluded that Mr. Thomas's speech was constitutionally protected and that it is a matter for a jury whether this speech was the cause of his termination. The remaining question under the qualified immunity analysis is whether Mr. Edwards and Mr. Ketchum violated clearly established law by terminating Mr. Thomas. Our statement in Casey, which involved similar circumstances, is sufficient to rebut this contention: Finding that Ms. Casey's right to be free from retaliatory employment action based on her protected First Amendment activities was potentially violated, we must still ask whether the right Ms. Casey asserts was clearly established in law such that it put defendants on notice of the impropriety of their alleged retaliation. This we have little difficulty in doing. It has long been established law in this circuit that when a public employee speaks as a citizen on matters of public concern to outside entities despite the absence of any job-related reason to do so, the employer may not take retaliatory action. Casey, 473 F.3d at 1333-34. Accordingly, we do not affirm judgment for Mr. Edwards and Mr. Ketchum on the basis of qualified immunity.