Geaniece D Carter v. Warren Consolidated School District
332706
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 10, 2017Background
- Plaintiff, a substitute teacher, allegedly made a racially charged comment to students at Carleton Middle School on Nov. 13, 2015 and thereafter received fewer assignment offers from the district’s staffing agency (Edustaff).
- School principal John Bernia allegedly told plaintiff she would not receive further assignments at Carleton; principal Corey Tremmel provided negative performance feedback to Edustaff after a December 2015 classroom incident at Harwood Elementary.
- Plaintiff sued Warren Consolidated School District for defamation and later sought to add Bernia and Tremmel individually; the record is unclear whether the amended complaint and individual service were properly completed.
- The trial court granted summary disposition for the district under MCR 2.116(C)(7) on the basis of governmental immunity (GTLA); the court did not rule explicitly on claims against Bernia and Tremmel.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed: (1) the district is immune because staffing, supervising teachers, giving feedback, and staffing decisions are governmental functions; (2) Bernia and Tremmel have qualified immunity as principals for the alleged intentional torts; (3) no First Amendment violation; and (4) no judicial bias.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Governmental immunity (GTLA) for district | District’s communications and staffing caused reputational and income harm; immunity should not bar suit | Staffing, monitoring teacher performance, giving feedback, and staffing decisions are governmental functions immune under MCL 691.1407 | Affirmed: district immune under GTLA; no exception applies |
| Individual liability of principals (qualified immunity) | Bernia and Tremmel are individually liable for defamation/intentional torts | As lower-ranking public officials, principals are entitled to qualified immunity if acts were within scope, in good faith, and discretionary | Affirmed: qualified immunity applies; acts were within scope, discretionary, and no evidence of malice |
| First Amendment retaliation | Plaintiff’s classroom comment is protected speech; reduction in assignments was retaliatory | Comment was made while acting as a teacher to students, not as private citizen; not a matter of public concern; district’s interest in efficient public education outweighs plaintiff’s interest | Affirmed: no First Amendment violation—speech was not private-citizen speech on public concern and district’s interest prevailed |
| Judicial bias | Trial judge showed bias against self-represented plaintiff | Trial judge’s rulings reflect legal reasoning, not bias; adverse rulings alone do not prove partiality | Affirmed: no evidence of judicial bias; presumption of impartiality stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (establishes de novo review of summary disposition and standards for MCR 2.116)
- Patterson v. Kleiman, 447 Mich 429 (treatment of well-pleaded allegations and documentary contradictions on C(7) motions)
- Dextrom v. Wexford Co., 287 Mich App 406 (legal question of immunity is for the court when facts undisputed)
- Genesee Co. Drain Comm’r v. Genesee Co., 309 Mich App 317 (test for what constitutes a "governmental function")
- Odom v. Wayne Co., 482 Mich 459 (qualified immunity for lower-ranking governmental employees and the three-part test)
- Shirvell v. Dep’t of Attorney Gen., 308 Mich App 702 (application of Pickering framework to public-employee free-speech claims)
- Pickering v. Bd. of Ed., 391 US 563 (framework balancing public-employee speech and government interest)