Massey v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 10 August 2006
• Docket Number: No. 05-2975.,05-2975.
• Parties: Michael MASSEY and Mickey Mills, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Mable JOHNSON, Dean of Vincennes University Aircraft Technology Center, in her individual and official capacities, James Messmer, Vice President of Vincennes University, in his individual and official capacities, and Gazella Summitt, Human Relations Director of Vincennes University, in her individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

457 F.3d 711

Michael MASSEY and Mickey Mills, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Mable JOHNSON, Dean of Vincennes University Aircraft Technology Center, in her individual and official capacities, James Messmer, Vice President of Vincennes University, in his individual and official capacities, and Gazella Summitt, Human Relations Director of Vincennes University, in her individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-2975.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued April 12, 2006.

Decided August 10, 2006.

Richard L. Steagall (argued), Nicoara & Steagall, Peoria, IL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

H. Brent Stuckey, Daniel L. Siewers (argued), Hart Bell, Vincennes, IN, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before POSNER, RIPPLE and MANION, Circuit Judges.

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge.

Michael Massey and Mickey Mills, while employed at the Vincennes University Aircraft Technology Center, wrote letters to the Indiana legislature complaining about their superiors. In the aftermath of the letters, both Mr. Massey and Ms. Mills were discharged. They then brought this federal civil rights action, see 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against three University administrators, alleging that they were harassed and terminated in retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights. The defendants moved for and were awarded summary judgment. For the reasons set forth in the following opinion, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

I BACKGROUND

A. Facts

The Aircraft Technology Center (the "ATC"), a branch of Indiana's Vincennes University, opened in the mid-1990s to offer degrees in aviation science, technology and maintenance. Built adjacent to the Indianapolis International Airport, the campus consists of hangar-style classrooms in which students receive hands-on training in airplane repair. The defendants in this action were, at all times relevant to this appeal, ATC and Vincennes University administrators. Mable Johnson served as Dean of the ATC, commencing her tenure in 2000. Working out of an office at the ATC campus, she was in charge of the ATC faculty and operations staff. The other two defendants, Gazella Summitt and James Messmer, are administrators at the Vincennes University main campus, located approximately 100 miles from the ATC in Vincennes, Indiana. Ms. Summitt is the Human Relations Director of Vincennes University; Mr. Messmer is the University's Vice President of Statewide Services.

Until he was terminated, the plaintiff Michael Massey was employed by the ATC as a janitor. He was hired in 2000 by the custodian supervisor Mike Hare, with the approval of Dean Johnson. By most accounts, Mr. Massey was a dependable janitor; he worked the night shift, rarely took sick leave and received positive performance evaluations from his superiors. The other plaintiff in this action, Mickey Mills, worked for the ATC as an evening shift librarian until her termination.

The events of this controversy began in February 2002, when Mr. Massey authored a letter detailing a number of very personal and serious accusations against Dean Johnson. Among the letter's allegations were charges that Dean Johnson had hired her boyfriend and her daughter for positions within the ATC, in violation of the University's anti-nepotism policy. In addition, the letter alleged that Dean Johnson had mistreated a disabled employee and had obtained her graduate degree through academic fraud. The letter also noted that internal grievances to Ms. Summitt, the University's human relations director, had gone ignored. Mr. Massey mailed this letter to the president of Vincennes University and to each member of the Indiana legislature.

Upon learning of the letter, Mr. Messmer and Ms. Summitt investigated Mr. Massey's complaints and concluded that they were unfounded; they reported these findings to the university president. Dean Johnson, understandably upset by Mr. Massey's accusations, instructed Mr. Massey's supervisor to fire him, but the supervisor, Mike Hare, refused. Shortly thereafter, Steve LaRoche, a custodian supervisor at the main campus, became Mr. Massey's official supervisor. Hare, who worked at the ATC full-time, evidently remained Mr. Massey's direct supervisor, but he took frequent telephone instructions from LaRoche concerning day-to-day custodial operations at the ATC. Ultimately, two months after Mr. Massey sent his letter, he was fired. According to LaRoche, who made the decision, he discharged Mr. Massey for attempting to justify a period of sick leave by using what appeared to be falsified doctors' notes. When LaRoche attempted to discuss these notes with Mr. Massey, LaRoche was unable to locate him, and he concluded that Mr. Massey was avoiding him.

After his termination, Mr. Massey remained in contact with Mickey Mills, the other plaintiff in this action. Prompted by her discussions with Mr. Massey, Ms. Mills authored a letter of her own supporting Mr. Massey's previous accusations against Dean Johnson and reporting that, in the aftermath of the Massey letter, university officials conducted a sham investigation to cover up the wrongdoing. She mailed this and similar letters to Indiana legislators and to the Federal Aviation Administration; her last letter was sent on September 22, 2003. Ms. Mills also showed one of her letters to her supervisor, who in turn showed it to Dean Johnson. Once Dean Johnson learned of the letter, Ms. Mills allegedly was ostracized by her fellow employees and began to receive an unprecedented stream of reprimands, assignment changes and negative evaluations. In August 2003, her full-time evening shift position was cut to part-time when the ATC's library changed its closing time from midnight to 9 p.m. Finally, in November 2003, and approximately two months after the date of her last letter, Ms. Mills was terminated. As its reason for discharging her, the ATC cited reduced enrollment and elimination of the school's evening program. Notably, Dean Johnson, the accused wrongdoer in the plaintiffs' letters, also had her position eliminated as a result of these factors.

B. District Court Proceedings

On April 16, 2004, Mr. Massey and Ms. Mills joined in filing a one-count complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that they were harassed and terminated in retaliation for exercising their First Amendment right to free speech. After almost one year of discovery, Dean Johnson, Mr. Messmer and Ms. Summitt moved for summary judgment. In deciding the defendants' motion, the district court first addressed the allegations related to Mr. Massey's termination. At the outset, the court noted that the decision to fire Mr. Massey was made directly by Steve LaRoche, a supervisor operating within a chain of command that did not include Dean Johnson. Therefore, in the court's view, even if there were direct evidence of retaliatory animus on the part of Dean Johnson, this evidence could not be attributed to LaRoche, the true decision maker involved in Mr. Massey's termination. As for circumstantial proof, the court concluded that Mr. Massey had not presented anything other than his subjective belief that LaRoche's reason for firing him—the fake doctor's notes—was pretext. According to the court, the undisputed evidence showed that the notes were indeed suspicious and that Mr. Massey never had made himself available to provide LaRoche with an explanation. This, in the court's view, was a valid reason for firing Mr. Massey, and one that had not been rebutted as false.

Similarly, the court determined that Ms. Mills' evidence did not suggest directly that the individuals involved in her termination were motivated by retaliation. Most notably, the court discounted evidence of a meeting in which the defendant, Mr. Messmer, became visibly angry at Ms. Mills for writing her letters. According to the court, proof that Mr. Messmer was angered by Ms. Mills' protected speech was insufficient to prove retaliation; "`rather, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the challenged action would not have occurred but for his constitutionally protected conduct.'" R.66 at 13 (quoting Love v. City of Chicago Bd. Educ., 241 F.3d 564, 569 (7th Cir.2001)). Alternatively, the court held that, even if retaliation was a partially motivating factor, the defendants had offered a legitimate and persuasive justification for firing Ms. Mills—reduced enrollment and budget cuts—that Ms. Mills had not rebutted as pretext.

II DISCUSSION

We review the district court's summary judgment ruling de novo, resolving facts, and inferences reasonably drawn from those facts, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 456, 112 S.Ct. 2072, 119 L.Ed.2d 265 (1992). Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). When the non-moving party fails to establish "the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial," Rule 56(c) mandates entry of summary judgment against that party because "a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548.

Government retaliation tends to chill an individual's exercise of his First Amendment rights, and this principle applies with equal force in the context of public-sector employment. See Vargas-Harrison v. Racine Unified Sch. Dist., 272 F.3d 964, 970 (7th Cir.2001) ("[A] public employee does not shed his First Amendment rights at the steps of the government building."). Public employers, as a general rule, may not respond to their employees' protected activity with actions aimed to deter that activity. See Garcetti v. Ceballos,...