253 F. Supp. 3d 812
E.D. Pa.2017Background
- William LaTorre worked as an armed school resource officer and, beginning late September 2014, was contracted through his company LaTorre Consulting, Inc. (LCI) as the Downingtown Area School District’s (DASD) Chief Security Officer (CSO).
- On Sept. 30, 2014, police investigated an attempted theft; Detective Jones provided stills identifying a student as a suspect and informed LaTorre, who learned a TV reporter (Neilon) believed there was a student with weapons and was dispatching news vans.
- Concerned about a false active-shooter story and media presence near the police station, LaTorre called the reporter and urged him to "kill the story; there’s nothing there," after which the reporter pulled the news vans.
- Superintendent Lawrence Mussoline learned LaTorre had contacted the reporter, became concerned about the source of the false tip and whether LaTorre had been the original leak, and suspended LaTorre the next day.
- After investigating, Mussoline (citing loss of confidence and solicitor advice) terminated the DASD contract with LCI on October 6, 2014. Plaintiffs then sued for First Amendment retaliation. Both sides moved for summary judgment; the court denied both motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LaTorre spoke as a citizen or as an employee | LaTorre acted independently and the media call was not within his ordinary job duties | The call arose from information and duties he acquired/was performing as CSO, so it was within job scope (Garcetti) | Genuine dispute of material fact; jury could find either way, so summary judgment denied |
| Whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern | Speech concerned false reports of a school shooting — plainly public concern | Speech was private/for district interest and therefore not public concern | Court: speech did involve public concern as a matter of law |
| Whether the District had adequate justification to treat him differently as employer | No adequate justification; call reduced public disruption and aligned with district interest | District needs control over communications; unauthorized media contact could disrupt internal operations and confidence | Genuine dispute of material fact; jury must resolve whether employer interests outweigh LaTorre’s speech interest |
| Whether speech was a substantial or motivating factor in termination | The media call precipitated suspension and contract termination; it was a motivating factor | Termination was motivated by loss of confidence and suspicion that LaTorre was the original leaker; call was tangential | Genuine dispute of material fact remains; jury must decide causation; summary judgment denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (public-employee speech made pursuant to official duties is not protected)
- Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228 (2014) (distinguishing speech as citizen vs. employee; scope-of-duty inquiry)
- Dougherty v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 772 F.3d 979 (3d Cir.) (First Amendment retaliation framework elements)
- Gorum v. Sessoms, 561 F.3d 179 (3d Cir.) (factors for whether speech falls within job duties)
- Munroe v. Central Bucks Sch. Dist., 805 F.3d 454 (3d Cir.) (public concern test for employee speech)
- Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987) (consideration of form, context, and motivation in public-concern analysis)