Craig v. Rich Township High School District 227
736 F.3d 1110
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Craig self-published a sexually explicit book, It’s Her Fault, while employed as a tenured guidance counselor at Rich Central High School.
- District officials learned of the book and moved to discharge Craig; the District and Board issued charges and voted to terminate.
- Craig filed a §1983 suit alleging retaliation for protected First Amendment speech; the district court dismissed for lack of public-concern protection.
- Court granted review and affirmed dismissal on alternative grounds: the District’s interest in maintaining counseling services outweighed Craig’s speech interest.
- Craig relied on the book and district documents to support the claim, enabling the court to perform Pickering/Connick balancing despite pleadings.
- Court distinguished Roe and NTEU, concluding Craig’s linkage to his job and potential disruption justified restraint of speech.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does It’s Her Fault address a matter of public concern? | Craig argues the book concerns adult relationship dynamics of public interest. | Defendants contend the book is primarily personal and not a public concern. | Yes, it addresses a matter of public concern. |
| Are Defendants’ interests in restricting Craig’s speech outweighed by his First Amendment interest? | Craig contends his speech should be protected notwithstanding potential disruption. | Districts may restrict speech when it threatens effective public service and learning environment. | Yes, Defendants’ interests outweighed Craig’s speech. |
| Is NTEU applicable given Craig’s book linked to his employment? | NTEU supports protecting speech unrelated to employment. | Craig deliberately linked the book to his counseling role, making NTEU inapplicable. | NTEU does not apply; Connick-Pickering balancing governs. |
| Is the record adequate to perform Pickering balancing on appeal? | Plaintiff argues the pleadings suffice. | Record supports assessing potential disruption to counseling services. | Yes, pleadings and incorporated documents suffice to perform balancing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (U.S. 1983) (content, form, and context determine public concern)
- Pickering v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Dist. 205, 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (speech on public employment matters protected if balanced against school function)
- City of San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S. 77 (U.S. 2004) (public interest required for protection; not necessary to be of transcendent importance)
- Dishnow v. School Dist. of Rib Lake, 77 F.3d 194 (7th Cir. 1996) (speech need not be of great societal importance to be protected)
- NTEU v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1995) (government may restrict speech not related to employment only with strong justification)
- Chaklos v. Stevens, 560 F.3d 705 (7th Cir. 2009) (balance the employee’s speech against employer’s interest; burden on employer)
- Eberhardt v. O’Malley, 17 F.3d 1023 (7th Cir. 1994) (public-concern inquiry depends on content, form, and context)
- Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (U.S. 1987) (irrelevance of controversy’s scope to public concern; speaker’s topic relevance)
- McGreal v. Ostrov, 368 F.3d 657 (7th Cir. 2004) (balancing requires considering disruption risk and public interest)
- Crue v. Aiken, 370 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2004) (predictive disruption is a factor in balancing)