Sean Gschwind v. Linda Heiden, 692 F.3d 844

A public school sixth-grade math teacher in Harvard, Illinois, resigned under compulsion after reporting a threat made by a student and considering filing a criminal complaint.
Plaintiff contends the resignation was retaliation for exercising his First Amendment right to speak about the threat and to report it to authorities.
The student sang a class song containing violent lyrics; the plaintiff sought to report this as disorderly conduct, which led to criminal charges against the student.
The school administrators initially supported the complaint but feared parental backlash, while the superintendent ultimately informed that district policy allowed principals to make disciplinary decisions subject to board approval.
Illinois law requires immediate reporting of threats or battery in schools; the district’s supervisory structure allowed potential unconstitutional terminations despite this requirement.
The district court granted summary judgment on the notion that the criminal complaint was a private concern; the Seventh Circuit reversed on First Amendment public-concern grounds and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the filing of a public school disorderly-conduct complaint protected speech?	Gschwind argues the complaint about a classroom threat publicizes a matter of public safety.	The district contends the act was private, personal to Gschwind.	No; speech involved a public-interest concern.
Can the school district be held liable for termination under a policy allowing supervisors to decide terminations?	The district policy facilitates unconstitutional terminations by supervisors.	Discretion is not per se unconstitutional; liability requires a policy or custom of discrimination.	District liability may attach if policy condones unconstitutional terminations.
Are the individual defendants entitled to qualified immunity?	Unclear, but the claim involves established free-speech protections.	The rights asserted are not novel; immunity should apply only to clearly established constitutional rights violations.	No; the principles are well settled, making immunity unlikely.

Gazarkiewicz v. Town of Kingsford Heights, 359 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2004) (public-issue speech retained if motive includes informing the public)
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) (Pentagon Papers and public-interest protections)
Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975) (First Amendment protects disclosure despite state secrecy laws)
Brandt v. Board of Education of City of Chicago, 480 F.3d 460 (7th Cir. 2007) (judicial forbearance in academic discipline; limits on discretion)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (discretionary supervisor decisions can undercut commonality; not dispositive for individual liability)
Cornfield by Lewis v. Consolidated High School District No. 230, 991 F.2d 1316 (7th Cir. 1993) (policy-based liability for unconstitutional terminations)