Mercer v. State of Alabama Department of Transportation

Steven Mercer, a former maintenance supervisor for the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT), was terminated after he spoke to a television news reporter about alleged fraud and mismanagement in a federally funded paving project. Mercer filed a lawsuit against ALDOT and individual officials John R. Cooper and William Patty, claiming retaliation in violation of his First Amendment rights and state law. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit ruled on September 18, 2018, that Mercer’s statements to the media constituted speech as a citizen on a matter of public concern, and the individual defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity at the early pleading stage. However, the court affirmed dismissal of monetary claims against ALDOT based on sovereign immunity. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the First Amendment retaliation claim against the individual defendants and remanded the case, holding that Mercer had plausibly alleged protected speech. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against ALDOT on sovereign immunity grounds.

Whether Mercer’s speech was protected by the First Amendment as a citizen speaking on a matter of public concern rather than as an employee performing official duties; whether individual state officials were entitled to qualified immunity; and whether the Alabama Department of Transportation was immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

The decision reinforced protections for public employees who disclose government misconduct, clarifying that speech to the media about public corruption can be protected under the First Amendment. It highlighted the balance between holding state officials accountable and the limits of sovereign immunity, serving as a significant precedent in whistleblower retaliation cases within the Eleventh Circuit.