Opinion ID: 171452
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Was Mr. Thomas's Speech a Motivating Factor in his Dismissal?

Text: In order to establish his claim of retaliation, Mr. Thomas must also show that his speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the city's decision to terminate him. Brammer-Hoelter, 492 F.3d at 1203. This is a question of fact, not of law. Id. In their brief moving for summary judgment, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ketchum and the City stated that part of the disruptive behavior that led to Mr. Thomas's termination was his busting into two meetings that ... Edwards was conducting, and engaging in insubordinate and disruptive behavior there, including threatening to go to the OSBI.  (emphasis added). This seems to concede that Mr. Thomas's threat to go to the OSBI was at least one motivating factor in the city's decision to terminate him three days later; at the least, it creates a genuine issue of material fact on the question. We therefore conclude it was inappropriate to issue summary judgment on this basis. A reasonable jury might well conclude that Mr. Thomas was fired not because he went to the OSBI, but because of his aggressive manner in raising the issue of the premature certificatebreaking into meetings, making the City Clerk scream, generally acting manicbut we cannot say on this record that a reasonable jury would be forced to that conclusion. The district court stated that [t]he evidence does not support any inference that, given these facts, defendants thought that plaintiff was going to report something to the OSBI or any other authority with regard to the final inspection of 1118 Houser Lane. (emphasis added). This disregards the defendants' own concession that Mr. Thomas's threat to go to the OSBI was part of the disruptive conduct that inspired his termination. For free speech purposes, it does not matter whether an employee is fired for actually reporting alleged wrongdoing to outside authorities or for threatening to do so.