McArdle v. Peoria School District No. 150
705 F.3d 751
7th Cir.2013Background
- McArdle was hired as Lindbergh Middle School principal in August 2008 under a two-year contract that allowed termination after one year with severance.
- Mary Davis, the district's Academic Officer and McArdle's immediate supervisor, allegedly engaged in improper use of school funds and other improper practices.
- McArdle reportedly notified authorities and questioned Davis about the improprieties, prompting Davis to become implicated in oversight and governance concerns at Lindbergh.
- In February 2009, McArdle was placed on a performance improvement plan; in April 2009, the district considered early termination of her contract and informed her of impending action.
- On April 27, 2009, the district board voted 4–1 to terminate McArdle at the end of the school year; Davis supported the termination recommendation.
- McArdle alleged the termination was orchestrated by Davis to prevent her from publicizing the misconduct; the district and Davis moved for summary judgment on First Amendment and contract claims, which the district court granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McArdle's speech was protected by the First Amendment. | McArdle argues speech about Davis's misconduct was protected. | Speech was as part of McArdle's official duties and thus unprotected. | Unprotected; speech was as a public employee. |
| Whether the district's termination breached the contract via bad-faith/fair-dealing. | Termination motivated by improper motive violated implied covenant. | Contract allowed termination after one year with severance; no breach. | No breach; no independent implied covenant liability. |
| Whether Davis tortiously interfered with McArdle's contract. | Davis induced termination through improper motive. | No show of breach by the district; Davis's involvement insufficient to sustain claim. | Dismissed; no tortious interference. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (speech as employee not protected when within official duties)
- Chaklos v. Stevens, 560 F.3d 705 (7th Cir. 2009) (threshold determination of protected speech for public employees)
- Renken v. Gregory, 541 F.3d 769 (7th Cir. 2008) (speech related to area of responsibility treated as employee speech)
- Vose v. Kliment, 506 F.3d 565 (7th Cir. 2007) (employee speech about misconduct within responsibility area is protected as employee speech)
- Abcarian v. McDonald, 617 F.3d 931 (7th Cir. 2010) (morality of motives and protected status consistent with district actions)
- Spiegel v. Hull, 481 F.3d 961 (7th Cir. 2007) (analysis of protected status of speech)
- Goodman v. National Security Agency, Inc., 621 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing summary judgment rulings)