Teresa Buchanan v. F. Alexander
919 F.3d 847
| 5th Cir. | 2019Background
- Dr. Teresa Buchanan, a tenured LSU associate professor in an early childhood teacher-education program, faced multiple complaints from students and a local superintendent about profanity, sexually explicit comments, and inappropriate classroom behavior.
- LSU’s HR investigated; Director Reinoso found violations of LSU sexual-harassment policies (PS-73 and PS-95) and reported inappropriate communication style; a Faculty Senate Grievance Committee later recommended censure after a hearing.
- Despite the Committee’s censure recommendation, LSU President Alexander recommended dismissal for cause; the LSU Board of Supervisors terminated Buchanan in June 2015.
- Buchanan sued individual LSU officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging: (1) as-applied First and Fourteenth Amendment violations (free speech/academic freedom), (2) procedural and substantive due process violations, and (3) a facial challenge to LSU’s sexual-harassment policies seeking reinstatement and injunctive/declaratory relief.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; on appeal the Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the as-applied First Amendment claim and qualified immunity for defendants, and vacated/dismissed the facial claim because Buchanan sued improper parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Buchanan’s classroom speech was protected as a matter of public concern | Buchanan argued her classroom speech was academic and thus protected academic freedom | Defendants argued the profanity and sexual remarks were not germane to training Pre-K–3 teachers and were unprotected | Held: Speech was not a matter of public concern; no First Amendment protection (as-applied claim fails) |
| Whether LSU sexual-harassment policies are facially overbroad | Buchanan argued policies were vague/overbroad and could chill protected academic speech | Defendants argued policies were lawful and properly enforced | Held: Facial challenge dismissed because Buchanan sued individual officials, not the Board (proper defendant); district court ruling vacated on that basis |
| Whether individual defendants are personally liable for First Amendment retaliation | Buchanan argued recommending officials caused her termination and thus are liable | Defendants invoked qualified immunity and that they lacked final decision authority | Held: Defendants entitled to qualified immunity; at the time liability for nondecisionmakers was not clearly established |
| Whether Buchanan was denied procedural due process in dismissal | Buchanan claimed procedural defects in the dismissal process | Defendants maintained procedures (investigation, Faculty Committee, Board action) satisfied due process | Held: District court’s conclusion that no due-process violation occurred is affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (Supreme Court 1983) (speech-protection depends on whether it touches matters of public concern)
- Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (Supreme Court 1968) (balancing public employee speech interests against employer interests)
- Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (Supreme Court 1967) (academic freedom is a special First Amendment concern)
- Martin v. Parrish, 805 F.2d 583 (5th Cir. 1986) (professor’s profane classroom speech not a matter of public concern)
- Sims v. City of Madisonville, 894 F.3d 632 (5th Cir. 2018) (clarified liability and qualified immunity for nondecisionmaker officials under § 1983)