Mpoy v. Fenty, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158323

Mpoy was hired in 2007 as a special-education teacher under the DC Teaching Fellows program and was terminated in 2008 after raising concerns about Ludlow Elementary School operations and requested investigations.
He complained to Chancellor Michelle Rhee about classroom conditions, inadequate materials, unresponsive administration, and pressure to falsify student assessments.
Mpoy emailed Rhee on June 2, 2008 outlining concerns and requesting an investigation; two days later Presswood threatened nonrenewal and issued a negative evaluation.
Mpoy alleged that Presswood and others ordered him to falsify records; after his objections, colleagues allegedly assisted in falsifying records.
Mpoy filed suit on June 22, 2009 asserting §1983 claims and six state-law claims; the court later dismissed TNTP from the case and there were motions for judgment on the pleadings against Rhee and Presswood.
The court later addressed law-of-the-case and Garcetti-based First Amendment analysis, found speech was made pursuant to official duties, and dismissed the §1983 claim with qualified-immunity and supplemental-jurisdiction determinations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Mpoy’s email to Rhee protected speech under the First Amendment?	Mpoy argues speech related to waste and misconduct is public-issue speech.	Garcetti framework should apply; speech made pursuant to official duties is not protected.	No; the court applies Garcetti and finds no protected First Amendment right under these facts.
Was Mpoy’s speech made pursuant to official duties, not as a private citizen?	Speech was public-employee speech, not personal grievances.	Speech was part of job duties; raised concerns about classroom conditions and administration.	Speech was within the scope of Mpoy’s official duties; not private citizen speech.
Do Defendants enjoy qualified immunity from Mpoy’s §1983 claim?	Rights were clearly established; defendants violated them.	Right not clearly established at the time; reasonable officials could have believed no violation.	Qualified immunity applies; rights were not clearly established.
Should the court retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims?	Diversity funds allow continuation in federal court.	District not diverse; should decline jurisdiction.	Declines supplemental jurisdiction; dismisses state-law claims without prejudice.

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (requires threshold inquiry: speech must be pursuant to official duties)
Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (balances citizen speech against employer’s efficiency interest)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (public-concern requirement for First Amendment protection)
Weintraub v. Bd. of Educ. of City Sch. Dist. of the City of New York, 593 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2010) (contextual, job-related speech may be within official duties)
Boyce v. Andrew, 510 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2007) (speech up the chain of command may still be employee speech)
Ross v. Breslin, 693 F.3d 300 (2d Cir. 2012) (assessing whether public-employee speech is protected)