Hara v. Pennsylvania Department of Education
492 F. App'x 266
3rd Cir.2012Background
- Hara was the Superintendent of the Scranton State School for the Deaf, employed by the Pennsylvania Department of Education.
- She published an article in the Scranton Times Tribune on April 20, 2009 criticizing the Department's plan to cut funding and to transfer SSSD to a private nonprofit.
- On May 12, 2009, Hara was summoned for a meeting with the Department's officials, told she would be suspended and reassigned, and she resigned.
- On May 29, 2009, Hara filed a federal complaint alleging First Amendment retaliation; state-law claims were dismissed by the District Court, and the federal claim was dismissed as to the Department.
- The District Court later granted summary judgment on the remaining federal claim against Tommasini and Brennan, and this appeal followed.
- The court reviews a summary-judgment ruling de novo and applies the Pickering/Garcetti balancing framework to First Amendment retaliation claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Hara's article protected speech under the First Amendment? | Hara spoke as a citizen about a matter of public concern. | The article caused potential disruption; not protected. | Not protected due to detrimental impact and adequate justification. |
| Did the article have a deleterious impact on close working relationships or the Department's operations? | The article did not impair relationships or operations to a actionable extent. | The article harmed relationships and interfered with the transition. | The article had potential to disrupt and justify treating Hara differently. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (speech must be evaluated for potential impact on official duties)
- Pickering v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Dist. 205, 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (balancing government interests in employee speech)
- Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 455 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 2006) (test for protected speech includes public concern and government justification)
- Garcetti, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (see Garcetti clarification on speech in official duties)
- Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (U.S. 1987) (speech impact on public employment and loyalty)
- Sprague v. Fitzpatrick, 546 F.2d 560 (3d Cir. 1976) (status of superior-subordinate relationship in assessing impact)
- Borough of Duryea, Pa. v. Guarnieri, 131 S. Ct. 2488 (S. Ct. 2011) (balancing First Amendment rights against governmental interests)