concluding that the plaintiff’s evidence of the causal connection between speech and retaliation was sufficient even though it was "thin and circumstan- tial"
How later courts described this case
- concluding that the plaintiff’s evidence of the causal connection between speech and retaliation was sufficient even though it was "thin and circumstan- tial"
- observing that “Jenkins is confusing, at best” when applied to a slightly different context than that at issue in the case
- “Only infrequently will it be ‘clearly established’ that a public employee’s speech on a matter of public concern is constitutionally protected, because the relevant inquiry requires a ‘particularized balancing’ that is subtle, yet difficult to apply, and not yet well defined.” (quotation omitted)
- adopting Judge Hamilton’s reasoning
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BROADWATER, District Judge,
concurring in the judgment.
I agree with Judge Niemeyer’s opinion insofar as his opinion concludes that the district court’s judgment should be reversed. However, I agree with the reasoning of Judge Hamilton’s concurring in the judgment opinion, which correctly explains why Sheriff Osborne was entitled to qualified immunity.