Bruno Mpoy v. Michelle Rhee
411 U.S. App. D.C. 94
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- Mpoy, a DCPS special education teacher, alleges termination in 2008 for an email to the chancellor; district court held email unprotected or, alternatively, officials entitled to qualified immunity.
- Email described classroom problems, misconduct by teaching assistants, and alleged misrepresentation of student assessments; Mpoy claimed a single sentence about misrepresentation protected as citizen speech.
- Most of the email content concerned Mpoy’s reporting that conduct interfered with his ability to educate, i.e., his official duties; Mpoy argued the misrepresentation sentence was citizen speech.
- District court granted Rule 12(c) judgment; Mpoy appealed challenging the First Amendment classification and immunity ruling.
- This court applied Garcetti’s two-step framework to determine whether Mpoy spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern, and whether immunity applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mpoy spoke as a citizen on a public concern | Mpoy argues the misrepresentation sentence was citizen speech | Defendants contend the email was within official duties | Email primarily employee speech; not protected |
| Whether the email was protected under Garcetti’s framework | Mpoy maintains some portions are citizen discourse | Court should treat most as job-related speech | Unprotected employee speech under Winder/Garcetti |
| Whether Lane v. Franks undermines Winder’s application | Lane supports protection for outside ordinary duties | Lane does not directly control Winder’s context here | Lane does not negate Winder; qualified immunity remains |
| Whether defendants had qualified immunity | Mpoy seeks damages against officials | Defendants reasonably believed speech unprotected | Qualified immunity affirmed; defendants could reasonably rely on law as understood pre-Lane |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (two-step test for public employee speech; role matters first)
- Winder v. Erste, 566 F.3d 209 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (speech report interferes with job duties; often unprotected)
- Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369 (S. Ct. 2014) (protects truthful sworn testimony outside ordinary duties; affects immunity analysis)
- Thompson v. District of Columbia, 530 F.3d 914 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (example of Garcetti-based determination of official duties)
- Wilburn v. Robinson, 480 F.3d 1140 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (analysis of Garcetti-based official duties context)