Utter v. Colclazier
714 F. App'x 872
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Three temporary Seminole School District teachers (Utter, Holsapple, Campbell) received excellent evaluations and were recommended for rehiring for 2015–16; the superintendent agreed.
- Three Board members (Colclazier, Cadenhead, Upton) privately decided to vote against rehiring them, urged removal of their names from the rehire slate, and then voted not to rehire at the June 11, 2015 board meeting. Two other board members voted to rehire.
- Superintendent Pritchard resigned in protest and testified the Board Members interfered with administrative functions and violated the collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
- Teachers sued asserting (inter alia) breach of the CBA, violations of the Teacher Due Process Act (TDPA), Oklahoma Open Meeting Act, § 1983 due process and First Amendment claims, an FMLA retaliation claim (Utter), and tortious interference; district court dismissed several claims and granted summary judgment on remaining federal claims, remanding some state claims.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reviewed: (a) Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of CBA breach claims; (b) denial of leave to amend; (c) summary judgment for defendants on Campbell’s First Amendment and Utter’s FMLA claims.
- Court held Teachers plausibly alleged certain CBA breaches (evaluation and required compliance with state laws unrelated to TDPA) and reversed dismissal of Campbell’s First Amendment claim; it affirmed denial of amendment as to due-process/property theories and affirmed summary judgment on Utter’s FMLA retaliation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of CBA (evaluation and compliance-with-law provisions) | CBA requires principal-based, observation-based evaluations and adherence to state laws (including non-TDPA rules); Board breached by evaluating/interfering before and at meeting | Teachers were temporary; CBA/temporary contracts gave no post-expiration rights, so Board actions could not breach | Reversed dismissal: allegations plausibly state breaches of evaluation and compliance-with-state-law (non-TDPA) provisions |
| Breach of CBA (due-process provision) | CBA’s "no suspension/demotion/termination without due process" covers nonrenewal or created property right by custom/practice | Nonrenewal of temporary contract is not suspension/demotion/termination; Oklahoma law bars due-process rights for temporary teachers; no definite promises for implied contract | Affirmed dismissal: not plausible that CBA due-process clause covers nonrenewal; no protectable property interest shown |
| Leave to amend (to add due-process/property theories) | Amend to allege implied contract/custom giving renewal right and state-constitutional due process | Amendment would be futile under Oklahoma law: temporary teachers lack continuing-contract rights; alleged historical practice is too vague | Affirmed denial: proposed amendments would be futile; no definite promises alleged to create property interest |
| FMLA retaliation (Utter) | Utter exercised intermittent FMLA leave; Board’s nonrehire was retaliatory | Board members lacked knowledge of Utter’s FMLA-protected leave, so no causal/retaliatory motive | Affirmed summary judgment: prima facie retaliation fails because decisionmakers did not know of protected activity |
| First Amendment § 1983 (Campbell) | Campbell’s public support for a bond issue was protected speech and motivated the nonrehire | Board claims job-performance reasons (lateness, disorganization) justified votes; no clear constitutional violation | Reversed summary judgment: disputed facts allow jury to find speech was a motivating factor; Pickering-based protection clearly established, so no qualified-immunity bar |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state plausible claim to survive Rule 12(b)(6))
- Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (teacher speech on public issues protected from adverse employment action)
- Umbehr v. McClure, 518 U.S. 668 (1996) (refusal to renew contract can constitute adverse action in First Amendment retaliation context)
- Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990) (nonpromotion or refusal to hire based on protected speech is actionable)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (framework for determining whether public employee speech is protected)
- Schrock v. Wyeth, 727 F.3d 1273 (10th Cir. 2013) (standards for reviewing Rule 12(b)(6) and summary judgment)
- Trant v. Oklahoma, 754 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2014) (articulating Garcetti/Pickering factors in Tenth Circuit)