Greisen v. Hanken, No. 17-35472 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff, the former police chief, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that defendant, the former city manager, violated the First Amendment by subjecting plaintiff to adverse employment actions in retaliation for his protected speech. Plaintiff was suspicious of the city's accounting and budgeting practices and voiced his concerns to various city council members and others.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment following a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff. The panel held that plaintiff provided sufficient detail about his speech to establish that it substantially involved a matter of public concern; plaintiff spoke as a private citizen rather than a public employee; the district court properly concluded that plaintiff's retaliation claim could be based in part on defendant's own speech acts, in the form of defamatory communications to the media; defendant waived his argument that his actions were supported by an adequate justification; and sufficient evidence supported the conclusion that defendant's retaliatory actions proximately caused plaintiff's termination, and any error in instructing the jury on proximate cause was harmless. Finally, the panel held that defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity.
Court Description: Civil Rights / Employment Retaliation. The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Doug Greisen, a former chief of police for the City of Scappoose, Oregon, in his action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Jon Hanken, the former city manager, violated the First Amendment by subjecting Greisen to adverse employment actions in retaliation for his protected speech. After Greisen discussed his concerns with city council members and government officials about the city’s accounting and budgeting practices under Hanken, Hanken initiated investigations of Greisen, suspended him, placed him on an indefinite leave and prevented him from speaking publicly, even as Hanken was releasing information about the investigations to the media. After a city review committee recommended retraction of Greisen’s suspension, Hanken resigned. The panel held that: (1) Greisen provided sufficient detail about his speech to establish that it substantially involved a matter of public concern; (2) he spoke as a private citizen rather than a public employee; (3) the district court properly concluded that Greisen’s retaliation claim could be based in part on Hanken’s own speech acts, in the form of defamatory communications to the media; (4) Hanken waived his argument that his actions were supported by an
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.