Eng v. Cooley

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that whether a plaintiff spoke on a matter of “public concern” is a legal question that this Court reviews de novo
• holding that we have jurisdiction to decide the legal question whether the defendants merit qualified immunity, assuming the truth of the plaintiffs’ version of the facts
• noting that “the question of the scope and content of a plaintiffs job responsibilities is a question of fact” (internal quotation- marks omitted)
• holding that an employer’s retaliation against an employee by “systematic investigations, prosecution, suspensions, and demotion” after the employee’s protected conduct demonstrated that the conduct was a “substantial or motivating factor in the adverse employment action”
• holding that an employer’s retaliation against an employee by “systematic investigations, prosecution, suspensions, and demotion” after the employee’s protected conduct demonstrated that the conduct was a “substantial or motivating factor in the adverse employment action”
• holding that Eng’s version of the facts plausibly showed that he spoke as a private citizen because, although he learned about the subject matter of his speech in the course of his work, he had no official duty to complain about it to the relevant agency

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).