## Facts

- Crystal Dixon, an African-American woman, served as interim Associate Vice President for Human Resources at the University of Toledo, with duties that included handling grievances, issuing discipline and corrective action, supervising staff, administering employee benefits, and addressing compensation and workplace matters.
- In April 2008, Michael Miller, editor-in-chief of the *Toledo Free Press*, published a column comparing the civil-rights movement and the gay-rights movement and faulting the University for not providing health-insurance benefits to same-sex couples.
- Dixon responded with an op-ed in the same paper rejecting the comparison, stating that those “choosing the homosexual lifestyle” were not comparable to Black Americans in the civil-rights movement, and grounding parts of her argument in religious views about “divine order.”
- In the op-ed, Dixon also defended the University’s benefits arrangements, asserting that employees had different benefits packages and disputing that the structure reflected bias.
- Dixon did not sign the piece with her HR title, but she identified herself as a University employee (and alumnus) and the publication used her University photograph.
- The University placed Dixon on paid administrative leave shortly after publication.
- University President Lloyd Jacobs published a response in the *Toledo Free Press* stating Dixon’s views did not reflect the University’s values and referencing the University’s equal-opportunity policy that barred discrimination based on sexual orientation.
- The University held a disciplinary hearing in early May 2008.
- The University terminated Dixon on May 12, 2008; the termination letter stated her public statements were in direct conflict with University policies, procedures, and core values tied to its strategic plan.
- Dixon sued the University and officials (including Jacobs and HR Vice President William Logie) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First Amendment retaliation and a Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection (disparate-treatment) claim. The district court entered summary judgment for defendants, and Dixon appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Dixon’s op-ed, written as a citizen on a matter of public concern, was nonetheless unprotected under the First Amendment because the University’s interests as employer outweighed her speech interests under the *Pickering* balance.
2. Whether Dixon proved a Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection violation by showing she was treated differently than a similarly situated University administrator who spoke publicly on LGBT-related issues.
3. Whether the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants.
- The court accepted that Dixon spoke as a private citizen and addressed matters of public concern, but held that the *Pickering* balance favored the University because Dixon held a high-level HR role connected to equal-opportunity compliance and workplace fairness.
- The court concluded the University could reasonably view Dixon’s published statements as impairing her effectiveness in HR—particularly her credibility in administering workplace policies for LGBT employees and others—and as risking disruption and loss of confidence in HR processes.
- The court rejected the equal-protection claim because Dixon did not identify a similarly situated comparator; the referenced administrator was not comparable in role and circumstances, and the substance of the comparator’s speech was not shown to create the same workplace and policy-execution concerns.
- Because no constitutional violation was established, the claims against individual defendants failed; the court also indicated that, in any event, the officials would be protected by qualified immunity because the asserted right was not clearly established in this setting.

## Legal Principles

- Public-employee speech claims generally ask whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern and, if so, whether the employee’s speech interests outweigh the government employer’s interest in efficient operation and effective delivery of public services (*Garcetti*/*Pickering* framework).
- Even when speech is made as a citizen on a public matter, an employer may prevail where the speech reasonably threatens workplace functioning, working relationships, or public trust in the employee’s ability to carry out assigned duties.
- The government employer’s interests carry added weight where the employee is a senior official whose duties include administering or enforcing workplace rules; public statements that conflict with those rules can justify discipline when they cast doubt on the official’s ability to apply the rules fairly.
- Equal-protection disparate-treatment claims in the public-employment setting require proof that the plaintiff was treated less favorably than a truly similarly situated comparator in relevant respects (position, responsibilities, and circumstances), not merely that others spoke controversially without discipline.
- Qualified immunity protects individual officials unless existing precedent placed the constitutional question beyond debate at the time of the challenged action.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that although Dixon’s op-ed addressed public issues and was written in her capacity as a citizen, the University’s interest in maintaining confidence in a senior HR official charged with administering equal-opportunity and workplace policies outweighed her speech interests; it therefore affirmed summary judgment rejecting her First Amendment and equal-protection claims and leaving the individual defendants protected from liability.


Dixon v. University of Toledo, 702 F.3d 269 (2013)