674 F.Supp.3d 400
E.D. Mich.2023Background
- Blick was principal of Lawton Elementary (2013–2019). Payroll review in early 2019 revealed that contract custodian Willie Johnson was being paid from the lunch-hour account for hours overlapping with his ABM custodial work.
- Blick had recommended Johnson as a lunch-period supervisor; staff reported concerns that Johnson had claimed excessive LPS hours. The District investigated in spring 2019 and placed Blick on paid administrative leave (April 26, 2019) with a letter directing her not to contact students, parents, or staff about the investigation.
- District officials warned Blick at a May 7 meeting that parent advocacy at a May 8 school-board meeting might prompt media/FOIA attention; Blick thereafter contacted parents to discourage public comment.
- The District referred the matter to outside counsel and the Ann Arbor Police Department; AAPD prosecuted Johnson (convicted of false pretenses); the District later recommended nonrenewal of Blick’s administrator contract; the Board voted not to renew in April 2021. Blick was later rehired as a tenured teacher.
- Procedural posture: after prior motions, the only claims remaining for summary judgment were §1983 claims for violation of First Amendment freedom of speech (Count II — prior restraint and retaliation) and freedom of association (Count IV). Defendants moved for summary judgment; the Court granted summary judgment for Defendants on Counts II and IV and denied Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prior restraint: Did the April 26 leave letter / directives and May 7 statements unlawfully restrain Blick's speech on matters of public concern? | Blick says the communications prevented her from speaking to parents/staff and attending/participating in school-board public comment about her leave/investigation. | District says restriction was a narrow, temporary administrative-leave limitation aimed at protecting the integrity of the internal and criminal investigation and preventing disruption. | Court: Although restricted speech implicated private-citizen speech on a public concern, Pickering balancing favors Defendants; summary judgment for Defendants on prior-restraint claim. |
| Retaliation: Did Defendants take adverse action (e.g., constructive termination / nonrenewal) motivated by Blick's protected speech? | Blick asserts she engaged in protected First Amendment conduct and Defendants retaliated by policing her communications, filing a police report, denying coaching/room-parent roles, and nonrenewing her contract. | District contends the actions were investigation-driven, nondiscriminatory, and supported by evidence (timesheets, investigation); some alleged actions were de minimis or unrelated. | Court: No protected conduct weight sufficient under Pickering; many asserted adverse acts were not legally adverse or were remedied/explainable; no but-for causation for nonrenewal; summary judgment for Defendants on retaliation. |
| Freedom of expressive (and intimate) association: Were Blick's association rights violated by restrictions on communicating with the Lawton community or accessing her children? | Blick claims Defendants prevented her associating with parents/staff on matters of public concern and interfered with parenting access at school. | District says restrictions were limited to communications about the investigation, allowed parental participation in non-investigation matters, and that any limitations on access were rational, administrative, or security-driven. | Court: Expressive-association claim fails for same Pickering reasons; intimate-association (Fourteenth Amendment) was not pleaded and, in any event, minor interferences survive rational-basis review. Summary judgment for Defendants on Count IV. |
| Monell / municipal liability and attorneys' fees: Can AAPSD/AABOE be held liable for custom/policy or failure to train; are Defendants entitled to attorney's fees? | Blick alleges policies/customs of using administrative leave as pretext and failure to train/supervise. | District argues no municipal policy/custom shown, only lawful investigatory practices; fees seek sanctions for frivolous litigation. | Court: No municipal liability — insufficient pattern, no deliberate-indifference proof; denial of attorneys’ fees — lawsuit not frivolous or objectively unreasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (balancing employee speech on public matters against employer interests)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (public-concern inquiry: content, form, context)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (speech pursuant to official duties not protected)
- Farhat v. Jopke, 370 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2004) (upholding a limited prior restraint to protect an investigation and workplace)
- Gillis v. Miller, 845 F.3d 677 (6th Cir. 2017) (employer interest in preventing employee interference with investigations)
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires official policy, custom, or deliberate indifference)
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978) (standard for awarding attorney’s fees to prevailing civil-rights defendants)
- Myers v. City of Centerville, Ohio, 41 F.4th 746 (6th Cir. 2022) (First Amendment retaliation framework)
- Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., 967 F.3d 519 (6th Cir. 2020) (discussion distinguishing informal discouragements from true prior restraints)