holding that a salary reduction along with a demotion was an adverse action
How later courts described this case
- holding that a salary reduction along with a demotion was an adverse action
- rejecting assertion of qualified immunity on grounds that defendants' proffer of non-retaliatory reason created factual dispute as to "true reason" for the adverse action and did not defeat claim for violation of clearly established right against retaliatory action
- clearly established law informed reasonable government officials in 1991 that public employee could not be punished for his First Amendment speech, noting “core concern of First Amendment is protection of whistle blower attempting to expose government corruption”
- noting that “the government’s state of mind is a critical element in First Amendment” retaliatory claims
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RONEY, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur. When the defendants first moved for qualified immunity, the district court denied it as untimely. On appeal, a panel of this Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the district court to rule prior to trial on defendants’ defense of qualified immunity. The district court responded by deciding that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this record. It seems to me that we have jurisdiction and the responsibility to decide, prior to trial, whether the district court properly denied that motion. Even if we do not, no harm is done. The trial would continue either way. I understand Judge Farris’s opinion as deciding only an issue of law, squarely presented by the motion for qualified immunity, and although evidentiary and factual issues may have been argued on this appeal, the affirmance by this Court does not hinge on a resolution of those factual issues.
BIRCH, Circuit Judge,