Court Opinion

ID: 9474114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:48:35.676728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:54.885665
License: Public Domain

WELLFORD, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I am entirely in accord with Judge Kennedy’s extensive treatment and discussion of the initial three day suspension issue. In addition, I believe that initial suspension was de minimis property deprivation not deserving of due process consideration. See Carter v. Western Reserve Psychiatric Habilitation Center, 767 F.2d 270 (6th Cir. 1985).
With respect to the additional two day suspension, making a total of five days, I would conclude that the entire suspension was not de minimis, and that the impact of the added time deserves further consideration. The additional suspension came about because Boals responded to the initial three day penalty:
“Wait a minute. If this is the way it’s going to be, I want the union representative, a lawyer. I want somebody here with me.”
Prior to that response there was no mention and no indication that Gray was aware of any union activity or that union adherence or interest of Boals’ had any part whatever in opposing the initial three day suspension for a clear parking violation.
I am not prepared to reach a decision as to whether this response indicating a desire for union representation touched on a matter of public concern rather than merely a matter of interest personal to Boals. Since neither the parties nor the District Court took notice of the importance of this distinction, I would remand for consideration of this question. See Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983).
*698The proposed remand would involve a consideration only of whether the response in question was “indicative of speech or association touching on a matter of public concern.” It would be concerned only with the validity of the additional two day suspension.
I further agree with Judge Kennedy’s disposition of the punitive damage award, and her holding that O.R.C. § 124.34 has not been demonstrated to be unconstitutional on its face or in its application.