Santer v. Board of Education
13 N.E.3d 1028
NY2014Background
- On March 2, 2007, 16 Woodland Middle School teachers (EMTA members) parked along a narrow public street in front of the school with picket signs in car windows to protest stalled collective-bargaining negotiations; they parked legally and left curb cuts open.
- Because cars lined both sides of Wenwood Drive, parents could not pull to the curb and instead dropped children into the middle of the street, causing traffic congestion and children to walk between cars in the rain. No child was injured.
- School administrators observed the backup, called police, arranged coverage for tardy teachers, but did not ask the protestors to move their cars during the incident.
- The District brought disciplinary proceedings under Education Law § 3020-a alleging the teachers created a health-and-safety risk; arbitrators found misconduct and fined petitioners.
- Supreme Court denied petitions to vacate the arbitration awards; the Appellate Division reversed, holding the discipline chilled protected First Amendment speech under Pickering.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division: it held the activity was protected speech on a matter of public concern but that the District met its Pickering burden because the manner, time, and place of the protest created a potential substantial risk to student safety and actual disruption to school operations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Was the parking demonstration "speech" protected by the First Amendment? | Santer/Lucia: yes — parked cars displayed signs and were intended to communicate about collective bargaining. | District: conduct was intentionally disruptive and not entitled to First Amendment protection. | Court: yes — peaceful picketing/expressive conduct; demonstrators intended a particularized message and audience. |
| 2) Did the speech address a matter of public concern (Pickering step 1)? | Santer/Lucia: protest about collective bargaining is a public concern. | District: (not contested at length) focused on disruption. | Court: yes — labor dispute and public-school operations are matters of public concern. |
| 3) Did the District meet its burden to show discipline was justified under Pickering balancing (Pickering step 2)? | Santer/Lucia: disruption was not substantial (no injuries; administrators didn’t intervene; parking was legal); discipline chills protected speech. | District: manner, time, and place created traffic congestion, potential substantial risk to children, and actual operational disruption (tardy teachers, calls from parents, coverage needed). | Court: District met its burden — potential substantial safety risk and actual disruption outweighed First Amendment interest in this manner of protest. |
| 4) Should the arbitration awards be vacated under CPLR 7511 public-policy review? | Santer/Lucia: awards violate public policy by chilling constitutionally protected speech. | District: awards supported by record and not contrary to public policy. | Court: awards confirmed — no showing they violated a strong public policy, were irrational, or exceeded arbitrator power. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (speech by public employees balanced against government employer interests)
- Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (public employees retain First Amendment rights subject to balancing)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (test for whether employee speech addresses matter of public concern)
- Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (expressive conduct analysis: intent and likely understanding)
- United States v. National Treasury Employees, 513 U.S. 454 (government may limit employee speech in certain contexts)
- Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (deference to government employers’ reasonable predictions of disruption)
- Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143 (Second Circuit on government burden to show speech likely to interfere with mission)
- Melzer v. Board of Education, 336 F.3d 185 (Second Circuit on diminished employee speech rights in schools)
- Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (public concern standard and public audience/context analysis)