Retaliation Claim Failed Because Speech Didn't Touch On A Matter Of Public Concern
Stotter sued the public employer, asserting (among other things) a 1st Amendment retaliation claim. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. The 5th Circuit affirmed as to this claim.
Stotter's claim was based on the assertion that he engaged in "mixed speech." A "mixed speech" claim is based on speech wherein an employee speaks on a matter of public concern but has a personal interest as well. Various panels within the 5th Circuit have taken inconsistent approaches to mixed speech cases. The court adopted the approach that "even a mere scintilla of speech regarding a matter of public concern is sufficient to treat the entire communication as mixed speech." Applying that approach, the court concluded that Stotter's claim failed. The court reasoned, "[i]n short, Dr. Stotter is attempting to take a personal grievance about his wages and turn it into a First Amendment retaliation claim based on some vague reference to a previously-raised issue regarding his benefits."
Stotter v. Univ of Texas
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction includes Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi.
This abstract was provided by LawMemo.Com, publisher of the popular Employment Law Memo email service. Editor Ross Runkel can be reached at Ross@LawMemo.Com or 1-877-399-8028.