Alexander v. Eeds (2004)

See Alexander, 392 F.3d at 143 (“The form of these questions was clearly private, as they were not leaked to a reporter or sent to an elected state official.”).

Factual controversies are resolved in favor of the nonmovant “only when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.” Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

“Matters of pub- lic concern are those which can be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.” Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

Excessiveness Because we are deferential to a jury’s damages verdict, that verdict may be disturbed only if it is so grossly excessive that it shocks the judicial conscience, William A. Graham Co. v. Haughey, 646 *392 F.3d 138, 142 (3d Cir. 2011) (Graham II), or if it is unconstitutionally excessive because it is predicated on an impermissible basis, Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688, 715-18 (3d Cir. 2010).

Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 144 (5th Cir.2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

First, we examine “whether a plaintiffs allegation, if true, establishes a violation of a clearly established right.” Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 144 (5th Cir.2004) (quotation omitted).

Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir.2004).

DISCUSSION To establish a § 1983 claim for employment retaliation related to speech, a plaintiff-employee must show: (1) he suffered “an adverse employment action,” Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir.2004); (2) he spoke “as a citizen on a matter of public concern,” Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 , 126 S.Ct. 1951, 1958 , 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006); (3) his interest in the speech outweighs the government’s interest in the efficient provision of public services, Pick…

Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir.2004). 10 .

See, e.g., id. at 147 (“Reporting serious police misconduct or corruption is an activity with well-established protections.”); Branton, 272 F.3d at 744 (concluding in 2001 that “for at least thirty-four years, it has been settled that a state cannot condition public employment on a basis that infringes the employee’s constitutionally protected interest in freedom of expression”).

Qualified Immunity Standard The qualified immunity defense serves to shield government officials sued in their individual capacities and performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”77 The Fifth Circuit has explained that “a district court must first find ‘that the plaintiff’s pleadings assert facts which, if …

“In Connick, the Supreme Court taught that ‘when a public employee speaks . . . as an employee upon matters only of personal interest, absent the most unusual circumstances, a federal court is not the appropriate forum in which to review the wisdom of a personnel decision taken by a public agency allegedly in reaction to the employee’s behavior.’” Alexander v. Eads, 392 F.3d 138, 142-43 (5th Cir. 2004).

However, factual controversies are resolved in favor of the non-movant “only when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.” Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

However, factual controversies are resolved in favor of the non-movant “only when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.” Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

However, factual controversies are resolved in favor of the non-movant “only when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.” Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

See Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 147 (5th Cir. 2004) (“Reporting serious police misconduct or corruption is an activity with well-established protections.”).

Factual controversies, however, are resolved in favor of the non- movant only when “both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.” Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir. 2004) (quotation omitted).

However, factual controversies are resolved in favor of the non-movant “only when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.” Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

Doc. 40 at pp. 26-27. known.”101 Once raised, it is a plaintiff’s burden to overcome a defendant’s defense of qualified immunity.102 “Thus, a plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must plead specific facts that both allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the harm he has alleged and that defeat a qualified immunity defense with equal specificity.”103 The Fifth Circuit has explained that “a district court must first find ‘t…

Factual controversies, however, are resolved in favor of the non-movant only when “both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.” Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir. 2004) (quotation omitted).

However, factual controversies are resolved in favor of the non-movant “only when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.” Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

However, factual controversies are resolved in favor of the non-movant “only when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.” Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

The Court considers them separately because Defendants raise separate objections for each claim. 17 Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir. 2004). 18 Breaux v. City of Garland, 205 F.3d 150, 157 (5th Cir. 2000) (cleaned up). 19 Id. at 160 (cleaned up). 4 . . . criticism,” “investigations,” and “false accusations” don’t constitute adverse employment actions.20 To begin, the Whistleblowers’ allegations about negative remarks and rude behavior don’t rise to the level of …

The Fifth Circuit has enumerated four elements required to establish a First Amendment retaliation claim: To establish a § 1983 claim for employment retaliation related to speech, a plaintiff-employee must show: (1) he suffered “an adverse employment action,” Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir. 2004); (2) he spoke “as a citizen on a matter of public concern,” Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 , 126 S.Ct. 1951, 1958 , 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006); (3) his interest in th…

However, factual controversies are resolved in favor of the non-movant “only when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.” Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

However, factual controversies are resolved in favor of the non-movant “only when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.” Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

However, factual controversies are resolved in favor of the non-movant “only when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.” Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

However, factual controversies are resolved in favor of the non-movant “only when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts[,]” Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation and quotation marks omitted), and here Defendants have failed to submit evidence of contradictory facts.

However, factual controversies are resolved in favor of the non- movant “only when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.” Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

“Matters of public concern are those which can be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.” Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Branton v. City of Dallas, 272 F.3d 730, 739 (5th Cir. 2001) (internal quotations omitted)).

Factual controversies, however, are resolved in favor of the non-movant only when “both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.” Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir. 2004) (quotation omitted).

However, factual controversies are resolved in favor of the non-movant “only when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.” Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

The second prong involves two inquiries: “whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident; and, if so, whether the conduct of the defendants was objectively unreasonable in the light of that then clearly established law.”95 A right is clearly 90 Id. at 20-21. 91 Id. at 8. 92 Backe v. LeBlanc, 691 F.3d 645, 648 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 93 Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 144 (5th…

To establish a § 1983 claim based on a government employer allegedly terminating an employee in violation of the First Amendment, a plaintiff “must show: (1) they suffered an adverse employment action; (2) the speech at issue involved matters of public concern; (3) [the] Plaintiff[’s] interest in the speech outweighs the government’s interest in efficiency; and (4) the speech precipitated the advetse employment action.” A/exander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir. 2004).

However, factual controversies are resolved in favor of the non-movant “only when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.” Alexander v. Feds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (Sth Cir. 2004) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

To establish a Section 1983 claim for employment retaliation related to speech, a plaintiff-employee must show: (1) she suffered “an adverse employment action,” Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir. 2004); (2) she spoke “as a citizen on a matter of public concern,” Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 418 , 126 S. Ct. 1951 , 164 L.

E.g., Lane v. Franks, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2369, 2382-83 , 189 L.Ed.2d 312 (2014) (holding that Eleventh Circuit precedent had not clearly established that “subpoenaed testimony concerning information acquired through public employment is speech of a citizen entitled to First Amendment protection”); Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 147 (5th Cir.2004) (denying qualified immunity because it was clearly established that “Reporting serious police misconduct or corruption” was pro…

Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir.2004) (quoting Branton, 272 F.3d at 739 ).

Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir.2004).

Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir.2004). .

However, factual controversies are resolved in favor of the non-movant “only ‘when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.’ ” Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir.2004) (quoting Olabisiomotosho v. City of Houston, 185 F.3d 521, 525 (5th Cir.1999)).

Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir.2004) (quoting Olabisiomotosho v. City of Houston, 185 F.3d 521, 525 (5th Cir.1999)). .

However, factual controversies are resolved in favor of the non-movant “only ‘when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.’ ” Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir.2004) (quoting Olabisiomotosho v. City of Houston, 185 F.3d 521, 525 (5th Cir.1999)).

Federal courts have recognized that “‘[e]xposure of offi cial misconduct, especially within the police department, is generally of great consequence to the public.’” Jackler, 658 F.3d at 236 (quoting Branton v. City of Dallas, 272 F.3d 730, 740 (5th Cir.2001)); see Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 425 , 126 S.Ct. 1951 (“governmental ... misconduct is a matter of considerable significance”); Robinson v. York, 566 F.3d 817, 822 (9th Cir.2009) (“As a matter of law, ‘the competency of the …

Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir.2004) (quoting Olabisiomotosho v. City of Houston, 185 F.3d 521, 525 (5th Cir.1999)). 27 .

To establish a Section 1983 claim for employment retaliation related to speech, a plaintiff-employee must show: (1) he suffered “an adverse employment action,” see Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir.2004); (2) he spoke “as a citizen on a matter of public concern,” see Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 , 126 S.Ct. 1951, 1958 , 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006); (3) his interest in the speech outweighs the government’s interest in the efficient provision of public services, s…

However, factual controversies are resolved in favor of the non-movant “only ‘when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.’ ” Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir.2004) (quoting Olabisiomotosho v. City of Houston, 185 F.3d 521, 525 (5th Cir.1999)).

However, factual controversies are resolved in favor of the non-movant “only ‘when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.’ ” Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir.2004) (quoting Olabisiomotosho v. City of Houston, 185 F.3d 521, 525 (5th Cir.1999)).

Although the facts are to be reviewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, factual controversies are resolved in favor of the non-movant “only ‘when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.’ ” Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir.2004) (quoting Olabisiomotosho v. City of Houston, 185 F.3d 521, 525 (5th Cir.1999)).

“Matters of public concern are those which can be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.” Alexander v. Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir.2004).