In a recent ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of First Amendment retaliation claims made by two firefighters against the City of Manhattan Beach. The court's decision, issued on October 21, 2026, impacts David Shenbaum and Timothy O’Brien, who alleged that the city retaliated against them for their involvement in a Vote of No Confidence against a former fire chief. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the standards for proving retaliation claims for public employees.
The case, identified as Shenbaum v. City of Manhattan Beach, docket number 25-3501, arose from two main allegations by the plaintiffs. The first claim was that the city entered into an agreement in 2020 that negatively affected their future compensation as a form of retaliation for their earlier actions. The second claim involved allegations that their failure on a promotional exam in 2023 was also retaliatory in nature. The Ninth Circuit's ruling indicates that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims.
David Shenbaum and Timothy O’Brien, both firefighters, filed their lawsuit against the City of Manhattan Beach after they participated in a Vote of No Confidence against the fire chief in early 2018. They contended that their involvement in this vote led to adverse actions against them, including changes to the Battalion Chief position's compensation structure and their failure on a subsequent promotional exam. The case was initially heard in the Central District of California, where a magistrate judge granted summary judgment in favor of the city.
The dispute reached the Ninth Circuit after the plaintiffs appealed the lower court's decision. They argued that the 2020 Agreement, which altered compensation for the Battalion Chief position, was a retaliatory measure against them for their participation in the Vote of No Confidence. They also claimed that the 2023 promotional exam was designed in a way that guaranteed their failure due to their ongoing legal actions against the city.
In its ruling, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a triable issue regarding adverse action and causation. The court stated, "Appellants cannot create a triable issue based on pure speculation on a hypothetical future position that they did not hold." This indicates that the court did not find the changes to the compensation structure to be a sufficient basis for a retaliation claim since it did not directly affect the plaintiffs' current positions.
Furthermore, the court noted that even if the 2020 Agreement could be seen as an adverse action, the plaintiffs could not show that their prior Vote of No Confidence was a substantial motivating factor behind the city's decision. The court referenced the long time gap between the Vote of No Confidence and the 2020 Agreement, stating that the plaintiffs could not establish a direct link between the two events.
Regarding the 2023 promotional exam, the court found that the use of independent panelists to assess the candidates broke any potential causation link between the plaintiffs' lawsuit and their exam results. The court concluded that the panelists, who were not aware of the lawsuit, provided non-retaliatory reasons for the plaintiffs' failure. As a result, the court affirmed the lower court's summary judgment on this claim as well.
The Ninth Circuit also addressed the plaintiffs' claims under Monell v. Department of Social Services, which involves holding municipalities liable for constitutional violations. The court ruled that since the plaintiffs' underlying constitutional claims failed, their Monell claims against the city also failed.
The impact of this ruling is significant for public employees and their rights to free speech. The court's decision reinforces the need for clear evidence when alleging retaliation based on First Amendment rights. It emphasizes that public employees must demonstrate a direct connection between their protected speech and any adverse employment actions they face.
Going forward, this ruling may deter similar claims against municipalities unless plaintiffs can provide stronger evidence linking their speech to adverse actions. It also highlights the importance of independent evaluations in employment decisions, as they can shield employers from liability in retaliation claims.
As for the next steps, the plaintiffs may consider seeking further legal recourse, but the ruling from the Ninth Circuit is a significant setback for their case. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential for appeal or related cases pending.