Bradley v. West Chester University of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education
880 F.3d 643
| 3rd Cir. | 2018Background
- Colleen Bradley, WCU Director of Budget and Financial Planning, raised concerns internally that PASSHE-directed changes to WCU’s BUD Report artificially converted a surplus into a deficit and described the practice as "political" and potentially illegal.
- Bradley presented an alternative budget at an internal Enrollment Management Committee (EMC) meeting on October 29, 2014, after being asked to assist; she responded to a committee member’s question and circulated a memorandum documenting earlier budget concerns.
- Shortly thereafter, Bradley’s supervisor, VP Mark Mixner, told her she was not a "cultural fit" and that her contract would not be renewed; her contract later expired and she sued.
- Bradley filed a § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim (and state-law claims), naming WCU, PASSHE, Mixner, and others; the district court dismissed claims against WCU/PASSHE on Eleventh Amendment grounds and granted summary judgment for Mixner on qualified immunity grounds after concluding Bradley’s speech was protected.
- The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of WCU/PASSHE based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, but disagreed with the district court’s conclusion that Bradley’s EMC speech was protected — holding instead her EMC remarks were made pursuant to official duties and therefore not First Amendment speech; the court affirmed summary judgment for Mixner on that alternative ground.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bradley’s EMC statements were "speech as a citizen" for First Amendment protection | Bradley: her comments exposed governmental impropriety and thus were protected public‑concern speech as a citizen | Mixner/WCU: she spoke pursuant to her employment duties (budget review/analysis) and therefore not speaking as a citizen under Garcetti | Held: Court: speech was made pursuant to official duties and not protected; no First Amendment claim |
| Whether Mixner is liable individually (qualified immunity) | Bradley: Mixner retaliated by nonrenewing contract for protected speech | Mixner: even if there was a violation, he is entitled to qualified immunity | Held: affirmed in favor of Mixner — court rested on lack of First Amendment violation (so no clearly established right violated) |
| Whether WCU and PASSHE are subject to suit in federal court (Eleventh Amendment) | Bradley: institutions should be reanalyzed under modern Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence and may not be arms of the State | WCU/PASSHE: are arms of the Commonwealth and entitled to sovereign immunity | Held: PASSHE and WCU are arms of the State under Fitchik factors and entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity; § 1983 claims dismissed in federal court |
| Proper balancing of Fitchik factors (funding, state‑law status, autonomy) | Bradley: reduced state funding and separate incorporation undermine immunity | Defendants: statutory framework, governance, reporting, and state control show arm‑of‑state status | Held: two factors (state‑law status, autonomy) strongly favor immunity; funding factor favors plaintiff but is not dispositive; overall immunity affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (statements made pursuant to official duties are not protected by the First Amendment)
- Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (framework balancing public employee speech and employer interests)
- Skehan v. State Sys. of Higher Educ., 815 F.2d 244 (3d Cir. 1987) (treating PASSHE and its universities as arms of the State for immunity analysis)
- Maliandi v. Montclair State Univ., 845 F.3d 77 (3d Cir. 2016) (articulating Fitchik factors as co‑equal and evaluating arm‑of‑state status)
- Gorum v. Sessoms, 561 F.3d 179 (3d Cir. 2009) (applying Garcetti framework to university professor’s duties)
- Dougherty v. School Dist. of Philadelphia, 772 F.3d 979 (3d Cir. 2014) (distinguishing citizen speech from official‑duty speech where employee spoke to press)
- Regents of the Univ. of California v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425 (1997) (guidance on Eleventh Amendment arm‑of‑state analysis)