Nagle v. Marron, 663 F.3d 100

Nagle, a tenure-track special education teacher in the Mamaroneck union district, faced a non-renewal and termination decision in March 2007 after being informed by school officials that Fried would not recommend tenure.
Two acts formed the basis of her First Amendment retaliation claim: (i) a January 2007 alleged forgery of Nagle's signature on a teaching-observation report and (ii) a Virginia report of abuse Nagle made in 2002-2003 regarding a different teacher.
The district court held the forgery speech unprotected and the Virginia abuse report unprotected due to protocol violations and obsolescence, and also held that the district would have reached the same employment decision regardless of the protected conduct.
The district court granted Castar and Fried qualified immunity on the basis that Nagle’s protected speech was not clearly established as protected, and did not address municipal Monell liability.
Nagle appealed, and the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s summary judgment ruling, remanding for further proceedings, including the potential application of a cat's paw theory of liability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Nagle's forgery report was First Amendment protected	Nagle argues the forgery report addressed a matter of public concern	Appellees contend the forgery report involved non-public concerns and personal issues	Forgery report not protected speech (not a matter of public concern)
Whether Nagle's Virginia abuse report was First Amendment protected	Virginia speech was protected when uttered	District argued speech violated protocols/was obsolete	Virginia abuse report protected; not foreclosed by protocol or obsolescence
Causation: did protected speech cause the adverse employment action	Protected Virginia speech was a substantial factor in the tenure decision	Decision based on other factors; causation lacking or unclear	Questions of causation factual; summary judgment inappropriate at this stage
Whether Castar and Fried are entitled to qualified immunity	Protected speech violates clearly established rights; immunity not available	Speech protection not clearly established at the time; immunity warranted	Court held Castar and Fried are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage
Whether district Monell liability or cat's paw theory applies	District may be liable via policy/custom or cat's paw	No clear policy or cat's paw theory established	Remand advised on Monell/cat's paw issues for district court to determine

Reuland v. Hynes, 460 F.3d 409 (2d Cir.2006) (public employee First Amendment protection and public concerns guidance)
Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (balance between speech and employer efficiency; protected public-commentary)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (U.S. 1983) (public concern standard for speech by public employees)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (speech as part of official duties not protected)
Weintraub v. Bd. of Educ., 593 F.3d 196 (2d Cir.2010) (speech as employee-related concerns about duties; not protected)
Cioffi v. Averill Park Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 444 F.3d 158 (2d Cir.2006) (public concerns and causation in retaliation cases)
Morris v. Lindau, 196 F.3d 102 (2d Cir.1999) (three-factor standard for retaliation; causal link)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. 1987) (reasonableness of official conduct in qualified immunity)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-step test for qualified immunity (clear rights))