Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS—N.D. Miss.: City utility manager, fired after independent investigation uncovered wrongdoing, cannot advance claims, (Oct 21, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

Although he spoke as a private citizen when he called for his reinstatement and the termination of city commissioners, his speech led to a substantial disruption in the utility’s operations.

Granting summary judgment against the First Amendment and state-law whistleblower claims brought by a former general manager (GM) of Clarksdale Public Utilities, a federal district court in Mississippi determined that the GM’s speech, even if it touched on matters of public concern, was primarily driven by private motives and had contributed to a breakdown of trust and cooperation within the public utilities commission. Further, the court agreed that two of the commission’s board members were entitled to qualified immunity, as there was substantial evidence the board had acted on the findings of an independent investigation documenting multiple violations of law and city policy, providing legitimate, non-retaliatory grounds for termination that the GM failed to rebut (Johnson v. Clarksdale Public Utilities Commission, No. 4:21-cv-00120-MPM-DAS (N.D. Miss. Oct. 20, 2025)).

Clarksdale Public Utilities (CPU) is a municipally owned utility governed by a five-member Board of Commissioners. The GM in this case was hired in June 2017 until his employment was terminated in September 2018.

Recorded phone lines. The events leading to the GM’s termination began in May 2018 when the Board discovered that CPU telephone lines had been recorded without its approval. The purchase of the recording system exceeded the statutory bidding threshold and CPU’s attorney warned that the recordings could implicate federal law. The Board referred the matter to the FBI and retained an independent investigator.

Suspension, public criticisms. On July 25, 2018, the Board unanimously voted to suspend the GM, its CFO, and its communications director. While suspended, the GM criticized the Board, publicly called for the removal of its commissioners, and contacted the State Auditor and the press. The city then ordered the Board to halt meetings concerning the suspended employees and directed the Board to appear before the mayor and the City Board. The Board and the city settled the matter the following day.

After reaching a settlement with the city and the completion of its investigation, the Board voted three to one, with one abstention, to terminate the GM. Subsequently, the GM filed this lawsuit alleging that he was suspended and terminated for his speech in violation of the First Amendment and for whistleblowing in violation of state law.

Private citizen. First addressing the GM’s free speech claim, the court found that it was undisputed that his termination constituted an adverse employment action. As to the threshold question of whether he spoke as a citizen rather than pursuant to his official duties when he called for his reinstatement, termination of the commissioners, and reported on the Board’s alleged inefficiency and incompetency, the court found that he had spoken as a private citizen.

The GM’s job description and the governing statute indicated that his responsibilities did not include reporting to outside authorities, observed the court, and his communications exceeded his defined role when he spoke directly to the press, urged the removal of the commissioners, and contacted external authorities after the Board denied his request for permission. Accordingly, the court concluded that the GM spoke as a private citizen.

Public concern. Turning to the issue of whether the content of the GM’s speech addressed a matter of public concern, the court answered this question in the affirmative. His speech called for his reinstatement, the removal of all commissioners, and 15 allegations of extortion, the abuse of power to advance sexual favors, and the misuse of public funds, among other claims.

These topics “clearly” extended beyond that of a personal employment dispute and touched on issues of public concern in the management of a municipally owned utility, said the court. “However,” continued the court, “context and form matter.” In this instance, the record showed mixed speech. That is, the GM raised issues of public significance while also advancing his personal interest in reinstatement and contract renewal.

Chronology. In addressing this issue, the court noted that the chronology of events was critical. On May 30, 2018, the Board discovered the unauthorized recording system and directed the GM to investigate. On June 21, the GM emailed the Board seeking a three-year contract offer for himself, as well as the CFO and the communications director. On July 3, he advised taking it “slow and deliberate[ly]” with reporting to law enforcement and suggested hiring a private investigator. When he was informed that the FBI had been notified, he began researching case law on wrongful termination and defamation.

Through most of July, he addressed his concerns internally in his capacity as GM. It was only at the end of the month when he was suspended that he circulated his allegations of inefficiency and incompetency, and called for his reinstatement and the removal of all of the commissioners.

In this context, the defendants argued that personal employment concerns were the predominant issue in the GM’s speech. However, the court noted that in the Fifth Circuit’s view, “even a mere scintilla of speech regarding a matter of public concern is sufficient to treat the entire communication as mixed speech.” Thus, the court acknowledged the mixed character of the GM’s speech.

Whistleblowing. Further, the court noted that the GM had brought his allegations to the press, addressed them at public meetings, and raised the possibility of reporting the matter to the Attorney General and State Auditor. In this respect, his speech resembled that of public whistleblowing rather than a personal employment dispute. As such, the court concluded that his speech addressed a matter of public concern.

Disruption. Weighing the GM’s interest in speaking against the Board’s interest in providing efficient service, the court found that the GM’s speech, even assuming it touched on matters of public concern, was primarily driven by private motives and had contributed to a breakdown of trust and cooperation within the Board.

The GM contended that any disruption was purely the Board’s fault and that if they had reported the issues he wished to report to the proper authorities when he first asked them to, no other disruption would have occurred. However, the court explained that the Pickering balancing test does not turn on which party is to blame, only on whether the employer had an adequate justification for treating an employee differently from a member of the general public.

Here, it was undisputed that substantial disruption took place within the Board’s operation, and the court concluded that the Board’s interest in preserving operational stability outweighed whatever public interest the GM’s speech may have served.

Causation. Even assuming the Pickering balancing test weighed in the GM’s favor, his First Amendment claim independently failed for lack of causation. There was substantial evidence that the Board acted on an independent report documenting multiple violations of law and policy, and that the Board formally and unanimously adopted those findings before voting to terminate the GM.

Further, even if a reasonable jury could find that one or two of the commissioners harbored a retaliatory motive, such individual animus could not be imputed to the Board as a whole, explained the court. As such, while credibility issues may exist as to individual commissioners, the absence of evidence that a majority of decisionmakers acted with retaliatory motive was fatal to the GM’s causation showing. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted against the GM’s First Amendment retaliation claims.

Qualified immunity. Having found the GM failed to establish causation, the court nevertheless addressed the qualified-immunity defense to clarify the governing law. The threshold question was whether the record would permit a reasonable jury to find that the alleged retaliatory conduct of two of the commissioners was the but-for cause of the GM’s termination. The court found the record could not support such a finding, noting that the Board had acted on the findings of an independent investigator documenting multiple violations of the law, and the GM had failed to rebut those grounds showing the commissioners had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for voting to terminate his employment.

Even assuming a factual dispute existed regarding motive, the commissioners were nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because the law in September 2018 did not clearly establish the individual liability of commissioners serving on a multi-member board, said the court. Thus, a reasonable commissioner could have believed that voting to terminate a GM based on an independent investigation was lawful.

Whistleblower claim. Finally, the court addressed the GM’s Mississippi Whistleblower Protection Act claim. Because the GM had failed to rebut each of the legitimate, non-retaliatory grounds for termination identified in the independent investigator’s report, he could not satisfy the causation element required under the statute, and summary judgment was granted against this claim.

The case is No. 4:21-cv-00120-MPM-DAS.

Judge: Mills, M.

Attorneys: Joel Frank Dillard (Law Offices of Joel Dillard) for Mark Johnson. LaToya C. Merritt (Phelps Dunbar) for George Miller, Sr., Donald Mitchell, and Clarksdale Public Utilities Commission.

Companies: Clarksdale Public Utilities Commission

Cases: IndividualRights Discharge PublicEmployees Retaliation StateLawClaims Whistleblowers MississippiNews