Doctor Awanna Leslie v. Hancock County Board of Education, 720 F.3d 1338

Leslie and Richardson, Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent of Hancock County School District, publicly criticized the Tax Commissioner over tax collection and revenue projections.
A new Hancock County Board of Education elected in 2010 terminated Leslie in Jan 2011 and demoted Richardson in Apr 2011, allegedly in retaliation for their speech.
Leslie and Richardson filed a § 1983 suit against the Board and individual members in their official and personal capacities, alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment retaliation.
Defendants moved to dismiss; Board members argued qualified immunity and speech unprotected under employment duties; district court denied the motion.
The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the Board’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction but reversed the denial of qualified immunity for the individual Board members.
The court held Leslie and Richardson were policymakers under Georgia law, and that the law governing retaliation for policy-related speech was not clearly established for policymakers.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board and officials appeal is before the court	Leslie/ Richardson: Board appeal intertwined with immunity ruling	Board: no jurisdiction to review combined non-appealable issues	Board appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether individual Board members are entitled to qualified immunity	Leslie/Richardson: rights clearly established; speech protected	Officers acted within discretionary authority; rights not clearly established	Individual members entitled to qualified immunity
Whether the law clearly establishes that policymakers can be retaliated against for policy speech	Right to speak on policy should be protected under Pickering balance	Balance not clearly established; government interest may prevail	No clearly established law prohibiting retaliation in this context
Whether Leslie and Richardson qualify as policymaking or confidential employees under Georgia law	Leslie as alter ego of Board; policymaking	No prejudice; analysis unresolved	Leslie and Richardson are policymakers; qualified immunity discussed accordingly

Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1976) (political affiliation/Belief dismissal limits)
Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (U.S. 1980) (political affiliation as job-qualification factor)
O’Hare Truck Serv., Inc. v. City of Northlake, 518 U.S. 712 (U.S. 1996) (distinction between policy and speech in retaliation context)
Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (U.S. 1987) (context of speech relevance to Pickering balance)
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (balancing test for public employee speech)
Vila v. Padron, 484 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2007) (retaliation requires burden-shifting analysis)