Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendants-city officials’ motion for summary judgment in section 1983 action alleging that defendants violated plaintiff-company and company owner’s First and Fourth Amendment rights, when defendants terminated contract that plaintiffs had with city to supply information technology services in retaliation for owner’s letter accusing city administrator and city Director of Information Technology of “unseemly conduct.” Under Garcetti, 547 U.S. 410, instant letter, which essentially protested co-workers’ alleged misconduct, was not protected by First Amendment. Similarly, owner’s adverse statements made to investigator, as well as owner’s criminal complaint against city official, were not clearly protected by First Amendment, and thus defendants were entitled to qualified immunity as to said statements to extent said statements played role in contract termination. Also, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim arising out of defendants’ procurement of information that plaintiff was storing on city’s servers, since: (1) Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches made by instant “private” actors; and (2) case authority did not clearly establish that private search is treated as governmental search when public and private actors had only friendship type of relationship. (Partial dissent filed.)
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
First Amendment