Opinion ID: 2975066
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Bessent’s First Amendment Retaliation Claim

Text: Bessent argues that she was retaliated against for exercising her First Amendment rights because Dr. Bowyer terminated her employment with DSCC due to her vocal pre-merger opposition 3 In her response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Bessent notified the district court that she was voluntarily dismissing with prejudice the substantive due process claim and the procedural due process claim based on deprivation of property. -4- No. 06-5305 Bessent v. Dyersburg St. Cmty. Coll. et al. to the DCLP/DSCC merger and her post-merger comments about the merger’s negative impact on donations. She claims that these comments clearly implicate a public concern because, by providing Dyer County residents with adult educational services, “it would seem obvious that a well-founded and efficient literacy program would be a matter of public concern.” To establish a prima facie case of First Amendment retaliation, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she was engaged in constitutionally protected speech; (2) she was subjected to an adverse action or was deprived of some benefit; and (3) the protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse action. Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888, 897 (6th Cir. 2003). Public employees must meet additional standards to prove that the speech at issue is constitutionally protected. Id. Supreme Court precedent has established a three-step inquiry. First, the court must decide whether the speech at issue addressed a matter of public concern. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 143 (1983). Second, if the speech does address a matter of public concern, the court must balance the employee’s interest in commenting on matters of public concern and the state’s interest in promoting efficient public services it provides through its employees. Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968). Lastly, the court must decide whether the employee’s speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse action. Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287 (1977). The initial inquiry, whether the speech at issue touches on a public matter, is a question of law for the court. See Barnes v. McDowell, 848 F.2d 725, 733 (6th Cir. 1988). “Whether an employee’s speech addresses a matter of public concern must be determined by the content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record.” Connick, -5- No. 06-5305 Bessent v. Dyersburg St. Cmty. Coll. et al. 461 U.S. at 147-48. Speech addresses a matter of public concern if it relates to “any matter of political, social, or other concern in the community,” id. at 146, and “involves issues about which information is needed or appropriate to enable the members of society to make informed decisions about the operation of their government.” Farhat v. Jopke, 370 F.3d 580, 590 (6th Cir. 2004). However, “when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.” Garcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 1960 (2006). Bessent’s First Amendment retaliation claim fails because her statements opposing the DSCC/DCLP merger are not entitled to constitutional protection since they were made pursuant to her official duties. See id. At oral argument, Bessent’s counsel conceded as much. In rebuttal, counsel admitted that “Ms. Bessent well had the obligation as the Executive Director of the corporation, of a non-profit corporation, to speak out on the functioning of that program.” Later, the court asked counsel, “So this was part of her job?” Counsel responded, “Yeah - to make these suggestions, to make sure the program is functioning properly, to make sure most – more people are being reached.” Again, the court enquired, “So your position, if I understand it, is that the statements for which she was fired were an integral part of her job,” to which counsel stated “I think that, yes . . . .” Therefore, Bessent’s statements were made as part of her official duties and do not receive constitutional protection.