Haught v. Mitchell

Citation: 52 F. App'x 226Docket: No. 01-3433

Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; November 20, 2002; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Plaintiff Wanda Haught, a licensed practical nurse at the Mansfield Correctional Institution (MCI), filed suit against Warden Betty Mitchell, Health Care Administrator Karen McCluney-Jackson, and investigator Joseph Masi, claiming retaliation for exercising her First Amendment rights after raising concerns about institutional practices. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, a decision that was affirmed on appeal.

Haught began her employment at MCI in 1994. In 1996, she was placed on unpaid leave pending an investigation into alleged inappropriate conduct with an inmate, which stemmed from a misunderstanding regarding her interactions with the inmate’s sister. In May 1997, she transitioned to a different work shift amid tensions with McCluney-Jackson, who Haught believed was involved in the investigation and sought to undermine practical nurses at MCI.

After a series of incidents, including writing statements regarding an inmate's murder and suicide—both of which Haught believed upset Mitchell—she suffered a herniated disc from an automobile accident in May 1998 and went on disability leave. During her absence, McCluney-Jackson became acting health care administrator, prompting Haught to initiate a letter-writing campaign to various governmental agencies, criticizing McCluney-Jackson's qualifications and practices, particularly concerning medication administration by officers.

On September 16, 1998, Haught was reassigned to a different shift, which she claimed was retaliation for her criticisms. Additionally, she experienced delays in receiving disability checks, which she attributed to the defendants’ actions against her. An investigation by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, prompted by Haught's complaints, found evidence that McCluney-Jackson had allowed officers to manage medications without proper oversight.

McCluney-Jackson faced corroborated charges leading to 'corrective' counseling, with Joseph Masi participating in the investigation. Masi informed investigative reporter Martin Yant about accusations against McCluney-Jackson and allegations of the plaintiff's inappropriate conduct with an inmate, later asking Yant to investigate the plaintiff. Although Masi retracted this request, Yant had already warned the plaintiff. On September 17, 1999, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging retaliation for exercising her First Amendment rights through various adverse actions, including a shift change, delays in disability checks, harassment instigated by Masi, and rumors of infidelity. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that the plaintiff's claims were insufficiently linked to her protected speech regarding two inmates and that the alleged retaliatory actions were not materially adverse. The court identified several weaknesses in her case, including a lack of evidence connecting the defendants to the processing of her disability check or showing that Masi's request to Yant constituted an adverse action. The court concluded that the plaintiff did not demonstrate how any alleged retaliatory actions were a result of her protected speech or how they would deter a reasonable person from speaking out. It emphasized that summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine factual disputes. The reviewing court must interpret evidence in favor of the non-moving party, with the burden on the moving party to demonstrate the absence of genuine issues for a jury to consider.

To determine the appropriateness of summary judgment, the court must evaluate evidence beyond the pleadings to identify if a trial is necessary. In retaliation claims, a plaintiff must demonstrate three elements: 1) engagement in a constitutionally protected activity; 2) the defendant’s adverse action caused an injury likely to deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing that activity; and 3) the adverse action was motivated, at least in part, by the plaintiff's exercise of constitutional rights. The court did not express an opinion on whether the plaintiff's comments regarding inmate deaths were of public concern. However, even assuming they were, the court affirmed the judgment for the defendants because the plaintiff failed to meet the second and third elements required for a retaliation claim, as detailed in the district court’s summary judgment order. The judgment is affirmed. Notably, Mitchell has transitioned to a role on the Ohio Parole Board, and Cain was McCluney-Jackson’s predecessor.