holding that, as indi-viduais placed in law enforcement such as police academy instructors "are often in the best position to know” about issues of public concern related to law enforcement, these individuals should be able to speak out freely
How later courts described this case
- holding that, as indi-viduais placed in law enforcement such as police academy instructors "are often in the best position to know” about issues of public concern related to law enforcement, these individuals should be able to speak out freely
- holding that, in an interlocutory appeal, “we lack the power to review the district court’s decision that a genuine factual dispute exists”
- stating that the court may “consider only whether the district court erred in assessing the legal significance of the conduct that the district court deemed sufficiently supported for purposes of summary judgment”
- holding that it is the existence of the power to affect employment — rather than “mere labels describing governmental relationships” — that determine whether an adverse employment action has occurred
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge,
Dissenting:
I respectfully dissent and agree with Judges Jones and Barksdale that the defendant law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity and should be released from personal liability. It seems disingenuous to hold that the law is clearly established when it takes 20,467 words to explain, and when six United States Court of Appeals judges sharply disagree about it. To my way of reasoning, the majority has turned the words, and the doctrine, of “clearly established” on its head when it denies immunity in this novel case.