Robert Davis v. Wayne County, Michigan

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 25a0257n.06
No. 24-1327
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT DAVIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN; ALISHA BELL,
Chairwoman of the Wayne County Board of
Commissioners; TIMOTHY JOHNSON, Owner of
Gaukler Pointe Communications, LLC; DONN
FRESARD; CLARK HILL, PLC; GAULKER
POINTE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC; MARTHA
G. SCOTT, Wayne County Board of
Commissioners,
Defendants-Appellees.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
OPINION
Before: STRANCH, BUSH, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.
JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Robert Davis sued Martha G. Scott, a Commissioner
on the Wayne County Board of Commissioners, and her co-defendant associates under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and for conspiring to do the same. In
2022, Davis worked for Scott under a one-year contract as a legislative aide. In the middle of that
year, Davis, as a private citizen and without telling Scott, sued to have two local judges removed
from the November 2022 general election ballot. Davis claims that Scott declined to renew his
contract in retaliation for filing these suits. Davis also claims he lost his job because Scott’s co-
defendants pressured her into firing him. Lastly, Davis claims § 1983 subjects Wayne County to

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 24-1327, Davis v. Wayne County
2
municipal liability because, as alleged, Scott had unreviewable authority to set the employment
policies of her office.
The district court dismissed Davis’s suit for failure to state a claim. Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). Our review is de novo. Bickerstaff v. Lucarelli, 830 F.3d 388, 395–96 (6th Cir. 2016).
To demonstrate First Amendment retaliation, a plaintiff must show, in part, that “the
defendant took an adverse action against him.” Thomas v. Eby, 481 F.3d 434, 440 (6th Cir. 2007).
The district court dismissed all of Davis’s claims for failure to plead an adverse action, holding
that the nonrenewal of an employment contract cannot constitute an adverse action. But in
Josephson v. Ganzel, 115 F.4th 771 (6th Cir. 2024), rendered after the dismissal below, we
squarely rejected reasoning similar to the district court’s. Josephson held that “the decision to not
renew [an employment] contract . . . is a traditional example of an adverse action.” Id. at 787. The
district court’s judgment, therefore, cannot stand on the basis that Davis did not suffer an adverse
action when he lost his employment.
Because the district court provided no other grounds for dismissal and because most of the
briefing on appeal addresses this narrow question, we decline to hold anything further. We
therefore VACATE the dismissal of Davis’s suit and REMAND for further proceedings.

-- 2 of 2 --