Opinion

W. Thomas Jackson, M.D. v. Richard Leighton

  • 168 F.3d 903
  • 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 2653
  • 1999 WL 79381
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Filed
Feb 22, 1999
Status
Published
Author
Moore
On the bench
Daughtrey, Moore, Cohn
Cited by
69 cases

holding that an employee’s statements about a proposal to merge the state medical college with a public hospital constituted a public concern because “the continued existence of [the medical college] was important to the locality due to the fact that [the medical college] provide[d] health care to area residents” and further reasoning that the “ ‘quality, availability, and cost of health care are among the most important and debated issues of our time’ ”

How later courts described this case

  • holding that an employee’s statements about a proposal to merge the state medical college with a public hospital constituted a public concern because “the continued existence of [the medical college] was important to the locality due to the fact that [the medical college] provide[d] health care to area residents” and further reasoning that the “ ‘quality, availability, and cost of health care are among the most important and debated issues of our time’ ”
  • holding that a physician-employee’s comments relating to a proposed merger between his employer-medical college and a hospital addressed a matter of public concern, but that his interest in speaking on this issue was outweighed by the interest of the college and its administrators
  • holding that the state hospital employee’s statement advocating “that a letter be sent to the Board of Trustees declaring the lack of confidence with [the administrator] was nothing more than an example of the ‘quintessential employee beef of incompetent management”
  • finding that medical college’s interest in efficient and effective administration of programs outweighed physician’s interests where physician’s comments “created internal conflict resulting in a departmental upheaval’ ”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

MOORE, Circuit Judge,

concurring in the result.

I concur in the result reached by the majority. I would affirm solely for the reasons stated in Part II.D. of the majority opinion. *913 Jackson failed to meet his burden of pointing to evidence showing that his protected speech was a substantial and motivating factor in the non-renewal decision.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.