00-4200 Michael v. St. Joseph County

Listen to this article

“[T]he district court reached the right outcome regarding Michael’s First Amendment claim because Michael failed to set forth evidence that he engaged in protected speech. Indeed, there is no evidence in the record definitively establishing what he said to Linn. … [W]e are similarly in the dark regarding the context of his speech. Was his criticism part of his job duties … or merely unprotected comments made pursuant to his regular job responsibilities. … Was Michael responding to Linn’s questions or was he engaged in an unsolicited soliloquy within Linn’s earshot? Similarly, Mancuso’s letter fails to demonstrate that Michael spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. Mancuso merely complained that Michael had told outside contacts that Mancuso and Plain did not know how to run the department. The letter does not specifically refer to any matter of public interest, but instead is centered upon personnel matters and the operation of the Department (and thus outside the scope of the First Amendment).”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Sharp, J., Fairchild, J.