Linda DeVooght v. City of Warren, Michigan; William Dwyer

Topics

Practice areas

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Sixth Circuit had interlocutory jurisdiction to review the denial of qualified immunity on legal issues concerning the alleged adverse action and clearly established law.
2. Whether DeVooght alleged legally cognizable adverse actions for purposes of a First Amendment retaliation claim.
3. Whether Dwyer's lack of final policymaking authority defeated DeVooght's individual-capacity claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
4. Whether the court could review appellants' challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting causation at the interlocutory stage.
5. Whether Dwyer was entitled to qualified immunity because the asserted First Amendment right was not clearly established.
6. Whether the court should exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over DeVooght's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act claims.

Holdings

1. An interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity is reviewable only to the extent it presents a legal issue; factual disputes and evidence-sufficiency challenges ordinarily fall outside appellate jurisdiction.
2. DeVooght adequately alleged adverse actions because termination, demotion, a corresponding pay cut, unpaid suspension, and temporary ineligibility for promotion are actions likely to deter a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in protected speech.
3. Dwyer's alleged lack of final policymaking authority is irrelevant to DeVooght's individual-capacity claim, although it could matter to municipal liability against the City.
4. The court lacked interlocutory jurisdiction to decide whether the evidence was sufficient to establish causation because causation in a First Amendment retaliation claim presented a factual dispute that was not blatantly contradicted by the record.
5. A public employee's right to engage in constitutionally protected speech without retaliation was clearly established, including when protected speech was only one motivating factor among other legitimate reasons for discipline.
6. The court declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over DeVooght's state-law claims because resolution of Dwyer's qualified-immunity defense did not necessarily resolve the claims against Dwyer or the City.

Key quotations

Factual background

Linda DeVooght was a civilian police dispatcher for the City of Warren whose duties required female dispatchers to conduct pat-down and strip searches of female arrestees, a practice to which she and other female dispatchers objected. In 2020, DeVooght and five other dispatchers sued the City for sex discrimination. Eleven days later, the Department opened an Internal Affairs investigation after learning that DeVooght was asking another dispatcher whether she would join the lawsuit; the investigation ultimately led to discipline based on DeVooght's personal use of the Department's CLEMIS system, including termination followed by a settlement reinstating her with a demotion, pay cut, unpaid suspension, and temporary promotion ineligibility. DeVooght alleged that the investigation and discipline were motivated, at least in part, by retaliation for her lawsuit.

Procedural history

DeVooght sued the City of Warren and Police Commissioner William Dwyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, alleging retaliation for filing a gender-discrimination lawsuit. The district court granted summary judgment to the City on the federal retaliation claim for lack of municipal liability but denied summary judgment to Dwyer in his individual capacity, concluding that genuine factual disputes existed concerning causation. Dwyer and the City filed an interlocutory appeal. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity, dismissed the appeal insofar as it challenged factual issues outside interlocutory jurisdiction, and declined pendent appellate jurisdiction over the state-law claims.