COLE, Circuit Judge. After Latherian Harris called 911 to report that a store clerk had pulled a gun on him, four officers arrived on scene. Believing Harris lied about the assault, the officers arrested Harris for allegedly filing a false felony report. Harris spent 18 days in jail as a result. Harris later sued the officers, the detective who submitted the police report, and the City of Saginaw for false arrest and imprisonment. He also sued the City for failure to train and supervise the arresting officers. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court denied Harris’s motion in full, denied qualified immunity to the officers, granted qualified immunity to Detective Busch, and dismissed Harris’s failure-to-train and failure-to-supervise claims. Because there is a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the on-scene officers arrested Harris without probable cause, but no dispute as to Detective Busch or the City of Saginaw’s actions, we affirm.

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. This case involves a lawyer, Gerald Morgan, whose alleged anti-Muslim tweets led to termination of his employment as Disciplinary Counsel for the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee (the Board). The tweets occurred before Morgan took the job, but they came back to haunt him in that position. In a state-court appeal of a disciplinary order of the Board, a litigant cited the tweets as grounds to disqualify Morgan from appearing as the Board’s counsel in the appeal. Following Morgan’s withdrawal from that appeal, an internal investigation ended with the Board firing him.

Morgan then sued the Board and Sandra Garrett, the Board’s Chief Disciplinary Counsel, for injunctive relief based on alleged violation of his First Amendment right to free speech and for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on alleged wrongful termination. The district court dismissed without prejudice Morgan’s request for injunctive relief against the Board as barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and because part of that request was moot. As for the request for damages, the district court also dismissed based on the Board’s sovereign immunity, as well as a determination that Garrett was entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity. For reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Morgan’s claims against the Board. But we REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of Morgan’s request for monetary relief against Garrett based on absolute quasi-judicial immunity and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.