# Walker v. Schwalbe

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 15, 1997 · 112 F.3d 1127

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415299

## Case

- **Full name:** Michael WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert SCHWALBE, Individually, and in His Official Capacity; Darrell Dean, Individually and in His Former Official Capacity; Roy Parrish, Individually and in His Official Capacity; David Evans, in His Official Capacity Only, Defendants-Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** May 15, 1997
- **Citations:** 112 F.3d 1127; 1997 WL 212239
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Roney
- **Judges:** Birch, Roney, Farris
- **Cited by:** 57 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415299

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- noting that “the government’s state of mind is a critical element in First Amendment” retaliatory claims
- noting a question of fact as to whether the policy under which the employee was allegedly fired was in effect at the time of the conduct in question

## Opinion text

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,

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415299. Public record. Not legal advice.