UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ SEAN DECRANE, │ Plaintiff-Appellee, │ > No. 20-3620 │ v. │ │ EDWARD ECKART, in his official and individual │ capacities; CITY OF CLEVELAND, OHIO, │ Defendants-Appellants. │ ┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland. No. 1:16-cv-02647—Christopher A. Boyko, District Judge.

Argued: April 29, 2021

Decided and Filed: September 1, 2021

Before: GUY, DONALD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: David R. Vance, ZASHIN & RICH CO., L.P.A., Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellants. Subodh Chandra, THE CHANDRA LAW FIRM LLC, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: David R. Vance, Jon M. Dileno, ZASHIN & RICH CO., L.P.A., Cleveland, Ohio, William Menzalora, CITY OF CLEVELAND, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellants. Subodh Chandra, Donald Screen, Patrick Haney, THE CHANDRA LAW FIRM LLC, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee. _________________

OPINION _________________

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Someone in the City of Cleveland’s fire department leaked embarrassing information to the media about its chief’s insufficient training hours. No. 20-3620 DeCrane v. Eckart, et al. Page 2

Sean DeCrane, the director of the Fire Training Academy, was not that person. But, according to DeCrane, Edward Eckart thought he was. DeCrane alleges that Eckart facilitated several harmful personnel actions against him because of this mistaken belief—all in violation of the First Amendment. Eckart’s response? He argues that the First Amendment does not protect speech made as part of an employee’s government job, see Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 421–22 (2006), and that DeCrane would have leaked the information pursuant to his job duties as the training director. The district court denied Eckart qualified immunity on this argument, holding that our precedent clearly established that DeCrane would have tipped off the media as a private citizen rather than a public employee. We agree and affirm this part of the court’s decision. We dismiss Eckart’s other two arguments for lack of jurisdiction in this appeal’s interlocutory posture.

I

Given this case’s procedural posture, we recite the facts (many of which are disputed) in the light most favorable to DeCrane. See Beck v. Hamblen County, 969 F.3d 592, 598 (6th Cir. 2020). DeCrane started as a firefighter with the City of Cleveland’s Division of Fire in the 1990s, eventually working his way up to battalion chief. In August 2012, DeCrane became the director of training at the city’s Fire Training Academy.

The same year, DeCrane applied to be the chief of the Division of Fire. He went through a two-step interview process—an interview with a panel followed by one with the mayor. The panel included Eckart, an assistant director in the Department of Public Safety that oversees the Division of Fire. After the panel rated DeCrane second behind Daryl McGinnis, the mayor chos