Stanley Penley v. McDowell County Board of Ed.
876 F.3d 646
4th Cir.2017Background
- Penley, a longtime McDowell County High School civics teacher who also worked on political campaigns opposing NC Rep. Gillespie, was suspended in April 2013 after making an inappropriate in-class remark and after an investigation uncovered an inappropriate Facebook exchange and other conduct.
- Gillespie had previously told school officials he wanted Penley terminated and avoided entering Penley’s classroom; Penley alleges this political animus motivated disciplinary actions.
- Superintendent Martín, principal Gouge, and interim superintendent Garrett conducted and expanded the investigation; Martín issued a Notice of Intent to Recommend Dismissal; an administrative hearing rejected termination and Garrett reinstated Penley at a different school.
- Penley sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation, civil conspiracy, state constitutional free-speech claims, tortious interference, and malicious prosecution; district court granted summary judgment for all defendants; Penley appealed.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding Penley failed to produce non-speculative evidence linking his protected political activity as the but-for cause of the adverse employment actions and that defendants would have taken the same actions based on the admitted misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment retaliation (causation) | Penley: disciplinary actions were retaliatory for his campaign work opposing Gillespie (temporal proximity and circumstantial evidence) | Defendants: no causal facts linking political speech to investigatory/suspension decisions; actions were justified by student complaint and corroborating evidence | Affirmed: Penley failed to raise non-speculative evidence of but‑for causation; temporal gap (8–9 months) and evidence insufficient |
| Municipal liability (Board) | Penley: Martín was final policymaker so Board is liable for her decisions | Board: personnel decisions were within superintendent’s discretion; Board had no role or notice | Affirmed: no municipal liability—Board did not participate in or condone the actions and lacked final review authority |
| Civil conspiracy (§ 1983) | Penley: circumstantial links (acquaintances, comments by board members, text messages) show a joint plan to retaliate | Defendants: no meeting of the minds, no overt act linking defendants to a common conspiratorial objective | Affirmed: evidence was rank speculation; no specific circumstantial proof of a mutual unlawful agreement |
| Mt. Healthy affirmative defense | Penley: if prima facie established, defendants still liable | Defendants: even if protected activity motivated them, preponderance shows they would have acted the same absent speech because of admitted misconduct and corroborating circumstances | Affirmed: defendants met burden — actions would have occurred regardless of political speech |
Key Cases Cited
- Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (single decision by policymaker can create municipal liability in limited circumstances)
- Love-Lane v. Martin, 355 F.3d 766 (4th Cir. rule limiting municipal liability where superintendent has discretion)
- McVey v. Stacy, 157 F.3d 271 (test for public-employee First Amendment retaliation)
- Bland v. Roberts, 730 F.3d 368 (plaintiff’s burden and two-step causation framework; need more than speculation)
- Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (employer may avoid liability by showing it would have made same decision absent protected conduct)
- Grutzmacher v. Howard Cty., 851 F.3d 332 (summary-judgment standard and view of facts for nonmoving party)
- Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (temporal proximity alone must be very close to establish causation)
- Hinkle v. City of Clarksburg, 81 F.3d 416 (civil conspiracy § 1983 requires specific circumstantial evidence of a meeting of the minds)