Juarez v. Aguilar
666 F.3d 325
5th Cir.2011Background
- Juarez was hired as BISD Chief Financial Officer on August 12, 2008 under a one-year contract and recommended AAG for Stop Loss Insurance; tension arose with the BISD Board over that bid.
- A grievance alleging Juarez lied to the Board was filed by Whittemore and tied to board discussions on the AAG recommendation; Juarez alleges it was a pretext to target him.
- Juarez recorded conversations and recounted discussions suggesting BISD bidding irregularities and discussed grievances with powers and Brito-Hatcher prior to a hearing.
- Juarez informed the FBI of potential improprieties and later filed a grievance; he then sought reinstatement as CFO, which was not renewed after January 20, 2009 proceedings.
- Juarez alleged retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment protected activity (reporting illegal activity), naming Appellants in official and individual capacities.
- The district court denied summary judgment on retaliation claims and on some due-process aspects, while granting summary judgment on others; this interlocutory appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellants violated Juarez's First Amendment rights | Juarez claims retaliation for reporting to law enforcement and for protected speech. | Disputes material facts; actions may not be causally linked to protected speech. | Genuine issues of material fact exist; not resolved on appeal. |
| Whether a formal vote is required for an adverse employment decision by a school board | Adverse action requires formal board action (vote). | Informal decisions can constitute adverse employment actions under § 1983. | Informal decisions can be adverse employment decisions; no formal vote is required. |
| Whether Appellants are entitled to qualified immunity | Retaliation clearly violates First Amendment rights; immunity not warranted. | No clearly established right or fair notice given particular informal conduct. | No qualified immunity; conduct violated clearly established rights; fair notice given. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinney v. Weaver, 367 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2004) (collateral-order review of qualified-immunity denial; two-step analysis)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. 1987) (objective-reasonableness and fair warning in qualified immunity analysis)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity standard for government officials)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-step approach to qualified immunity and clearly established law)
- Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158 (U.S. 1992) (purpose of § 1983 to deter state actors from depriving rights)
- James v. Texas Collin County, 535 F.3d 365 (5th Cir. 2008) (informal policy and lack of formal vote can still support liability)
- Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 1997) (informal governmental policies can establish § 1983 liability)
- Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1996) (review of legal significance of facts in qualified-immunity context)