Robert Roybal v. Toppenish School District
871 F.3d 927
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Roybal was a Toppenish School District principal (2005–2012); after reassignment he retained a protected principal salary under Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.405.230.
- Roybal received a poor 2012–13 performance evaluation, disagreed, and retained counsel; the attorney’s letter angered Superintendent Cerna.
- The District served May 2 and May 15, 2014 notices reassigning Roybal to a teacher position for 2014–15 and listing reasons; the May 15 notice stated the new base salary.
- Roybal, represented by counsel, met with the school board on May 22; the board issued a June 2, 2014 letter upholding the reassignment and salary reduction.
- Roybal sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for (1) procedural due process (salary reduced) and (2) First Amendment retaliation; the district court found a due process violation as a matter of law, granted summary judgment for Roybal on due process, and denied qualified immunity to Cerna.
- The district appealed interlocutorily; the Ninth Circuit limited review to the due process claim and denial of qualified immunity as to that claim, and declined interlocutory review of the First Amendment qualified immunity denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Roybal had a constitutionally protected property interest in his principal salary | Roybal: § 28A.405.230 gave a vested entitlement to principal salary after three years, so reduction deprived a protected property interest | District: Roybal was an assistant principal at time of reassignment so statute’s protection did not apply | Held: Roybal had a protected property interest once he served three years as principal; title change later did not strip the vested interest |
| Whether federal due process was violated by District’s procedures | Roybal: District failed to provide the predeprivation probable-cause hearing required by state law, so federal due process was violated | District: Federal due process requires only notice and an opportunity to be heard; District provided notice and a board meeting | Held: No federal due process violation; state-law procedures exceed federal requirements and Roybal received the process due under Loudermill |
| Whether failure to follow Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.405.300 establishes a § 1983 due process violation | Roybal: Violation of state statutory hearing rule demonstrates deprivation without due process | District: Federal due process is distinct; compliance with state statute is not determinative | Held: Court erred to rely on state-law noncompliance; federal Mathews balancing controls and state procedures provided greater protections than federal minimums |
| Whether this court has interlocutory jurisdiction to review denial of qualified immunity on First Amendment retaliation claim | Roybal: n/a | District: denial of qualified immunity as to retaliation claim is reviewable | Held: Court lacks interlocutory jurisdiction to review factual dispute-based denial of qualified immunity for First Amendment claim; that claim proceeds in district court |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (property interests are defined by state law)
- Loudermill v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ., 470 U.S. 532 (pretermination due-process minima: notice and opportunity to respond)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (three-part balancing test to determine process due)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (interlocutory review of qualified immunity is limited; factual disputes are not reviewable)
- Eng v. Cooley, 552 F.3d 1062 (Ninth Circuit: denial of qualified immunity based on factual disputes is categorically unreviewable interlocutorily)
- Brewster v. Board of Educ., 149 F.3d 971 (procedural due process framework for public-school employees)
- Lovell v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 90 F.3d 367 (state-created protections beyond federal floor do not expand § 1983 federal due-process requirements)