Harris v. Victoria Independent School District

semester, the fall Harris and Martin SMITH, Before WIENER, DUHÉ and met with Brezina expressed faculty’s Circuit Judges. concerns Principal about Porche gave and Brezina a outlining memorandum them. As DUHÉ, Judge: Circuit a result of meeting, Superintendent Bre- This appeal zina reprimand arises hired a the and consultant to work with the SBDM, two teachers at High faculty Victoria the and Porche to improve (“VHS”), School Dwight the situation. Harris and After Gene Brezina received the Martin (collectively “Plaintiffs”), report, consultant’s as a result he formed a sub-commit- of their speech tee SBDM to December 1995 com- create improvement an plan mittee meeting. Brezina, Robert VHS. appointed Brezina Superin- all of the faculty tendent of the Victoria were Independent members, who SBDM School (“VISD”), including District reprimanded Martin, Harris and Plaintiffs serve on this newly and formed transferred Component them to Internal campuses different Commit- (“ICC”). tee during the school year because of speech. After the VISD Board of The ICC improvement distributed its plan Trustees Superintendent affirmed Brezina’s Mid-October, but 8,1995 the December decision, Brezina, the Plaintiffs sued mem- meeting of the ICC the situation at VHS had Board1, bers of the (collectively VISD improved. not Part the December 8th “Defendants”), alleging were trans- meeting was set aside to discuss the imple- ferred reprimanded in violation of their mentation of the improvement plan its First rights. Amendment The district court progress. Harris reported many granted the Defendants’ Motion For Sum- faculty members felt Porche was not follow- mary Judgment ground on the ing plan, and that VHS needed a new Plaintiffs did not on a matter of public principal improve the situation. Martin concern, and the appealed. Plaintiffs Be- agreed and added if Brezina did not do some- cause we hold that the engaged Plaintiffs in thing, would revolt. Martin and protected speech, the Defendants are not Harris also called individual VISD Trustees- entitled qualified immunity, absolute relaying message. the same and the Board of Trustees’ actions pur- After the 8th meeting, December Brezina suant to policy, official we reverse and re- reprimanded both Plaintiffs and transferred mand for proceedings. further Harris to high another school to teach the subjects same guidance Martin to a cen-

BACKGROUND subjects ter teach new to middle. school students. The VISD Board of af- Trustees the beginning of the 1995-96 school firmed Brezina’s grievance decision in a year, there was an escalating conflict at VHS hearing. concerning performance rating of the school and its principal, Melissa Porche. At After the affirmance, Board’s the Plaintiffs time,

the same Harris and sued, Martin’s col- alleging the transfers were in retalia- 1. The Board of Trustees Defendants are Paul (Vernon See Tex. § Educ.Code Ann. 11.253 Kornfuehrer, Cain, Clay Green, Randy Ivan 1996). Pol- lard, Margaret Easley, Murray, Reuban Theresa Guitierrez.

220 First, must Plaintiffs claim. retaliation speech. protected, exercise for their tion See decision. employment an adverse suffer Defendants’ granted court The district Harris, 365 F.3d Harrington v. ruling that Judgment Summary For Motion Cir.1997). Second, Plaintiffs’ adverse transfer was

while concern. a matter must involve spoken on decision, they not had employment Starkville, Thompson v. Plaintiffs a matter Myers, (citing Connick appealed. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 138, 147, S.Ct. interest (1983)). Third, the Plaintiffs’ DISCUSSION public concern on matters commenting Claim Amendment I. First interest Defendants’ outweigh the must speech was contend The Plaintiffs Pickering v. (citing efficiency. Id. promoting public concern. matter 563, 568, Education, 391 U.S. Board of on a speech was argue Fourth, (1968)). L.Ed.2d S.Ct. alternatively, concern, and matter have motivated must an adverse not suffer did (citing Mt. Id. action. the Defendants’ decision. Doyle, Dist. City School Healthy (1977)). 568, L.Ed.2d 274, 287, 50 97 S.Ct. district reviews court This that undisputed is it Because La. novo. See de determination court’s by motivated reprimands and transfers & Pension Trades Trowel Bricklayers & 8th at the December Ma General Miller v. Fund Alfred Welfare re three only the first address meeting, we 404, Co., 407 157 F.3d Contracting sonry specifically.3 quirements Biomedi v. Roche Cir.1998); see also Willis 313, Inc., Laboratories, F.3d 315 61 cal em- an adverse suffer Cir.1995). whether Plaintiffs Did the must determine A. We judgment evi summary action? ployment other and pleadings genuine no issue there is dence demonstrate mid-term, Brezina, in Superintendent fact, and whether any material as to to high school to another Harris transferred as a judgment to entitled to an subjects and Martin teach same inferences to at The Id. 315. matter of law. disruptive stu for learning center alternative be must underlying facts be drawn from he grade levels subjects and to teach dents to the light favorable in the most viewed Additionally, Brezina taught before. had v. See Victor the motion. opposing party in their the Plaintiffs reprimanded Cir.1998) 451, McElveen, 454 150 F.3d the Plain letters, the letters included and Inc., Diebold, 369 v. (citing States United Subsequently, files.4 personnel tiffs’ 993, 176 8 L.Ed.2d 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. U.S. "actions Brezina’s affirmed of Trustees Board (1962)). hearing. grievance ain may not constitu government that these held court The district relinquish their persons to tionally compel de employment adverse constituted facts as a condition rights First Amendment recognize cision, agree. We and we Keyishian v. E.g., employment. public extremely hesitant be should courts federal the State Univ. Regents Board in the area over” and take invade 675, “to L.Ed.2d 589, 17 N.Y., 87 S.Ct. U.S. 385 appro not the is education; court a federal satisfy four (1967). must over to seek redress forum priate which Amendment a First recover to elements unwilling to main- you are unable and/or testimony that he Superintendent Brezina’s 3. goals to these you made the commitment conduct tain of their because the Plaintiffs transferred appar- It is process. undisputed. the'improvement meeting to 8th at the December be I will team nor to that neither ent me 8, January let- Brezina's Superintendent satisfy will bring a resolution about able stated: Martin ters Harris your discontent. alleviate you and remove events, conduct and other statements [r]ecent the conclusion me to part have led your “faculty disputes concerning assign teaching district court reprimands these ments, assignments, room administrative transfers constitute employment adverse de- duties, equipment, classroom recog teacher cisions. nition, and a host of other relatively trivial matters.” Dorsett v. Board Trustees for B. Was the Plaintiffs’ speech on a matter of Colleges Universities, State & public concern? (5th Cir.1991) (citing Connick v. “In order for speech by Myers, 138-39, 103 S.Ct. enjoy protection constitutional (1983)). However, L.Ed.2d 708 we have by retaliation employer, the repeatedly held reprimands and demo speech must involve a matter of con tions constitute employment adverse deci cern.” Denton v. Morgan, sions. See Benningfield City Houston, (5th Cir.1998) (citing Myers, Connick v. (noting that 138, 147, 103 S.Ct. 75 L.Ed.2d a formal reprimand constitutes an adverse (1983)). To rise to the level of employment decision); Harrington, 118 F.3d concern, the (“Adverse Plaintiffs’ must primarily employment actions are in their roles as citizens demotions, rather than discharges, as em hire, refusals refus ployees addressing only of promote, personal als to matters reprimands.”) (citing (internal id. omitted). Dep’t Justice, Pierce citations Texas Crim. Inst. Div., content, form, look to We 1146, 1149 Cir.1994)). context of speech, record, as revealed the whole recognize We also that “a plaintiffs determining whether the subjective perception that a demotion has addresses a matter of concern. See enough” occurred is not to constitute an ad Connick, 147-48, 461 U.S. at 1684; 103 S.Ct. verse decision. Forsyth v. City see Benningfield, also 157 F.3d at 375. De Dallas, Cir.1996). of termining speech whether meets this thresh However, the record reflects that the Plain old specific is a fact analysis. See Thomp transfers, tiffs’ objectively, viewed constitute son, 901 F.2d at 461-62. Examining the Superintendent a demotion.5 Brezina testi speech light in of the above consid fied that he intended the transfers to be erations, we hold that speech the Plaintiffs’ disciplinary nature, in merely and that he on a was of matter concern. reprimanded faculty another member be cause her actions were Brezina not as testified that serious as the he transferred and Additionally, reprimanded Plaintiffs.6 both the Brezina and Plaintiffs as a result of Board of speech Trustees member their Gutierrez testi and actions at the December 8th they fied that could meeting. not recall ICC a mid-term The alleged Plaintiffs at this involuntary transfer VHS, meeting of a they teacher at told Brezina that many of the except in one instance faculty which from a Principal resulted believed Porche was not fol- reduction in force order.7 lowing improvement Gutierrez further the plan, that her re- testified that the transfers placement branded the necessary was to alleviate the Plaintiffs as “troublemakers” and “not team problems, that and the would revolt if players.” together, Taken agree we with the Brezina did not something.8 do recognized 5. We have also that a transfer not 7. This case does not involve a mere administra- involving a may pay reduction in constitute an change tive teaching assignments, in but a mid- adverse employment Forsyth decision. See v. school, term to entirely an different and Dallas, (5th Cir.1996); case, in subjects Martin’s grade unfamiliar and Vojvodich Lopez, Cir.1995); v. 48 F.3d 879 levels. Vickers, Tompkins 610 106, Cir. 1994); Copeland, Click v. deposition 8. Brezina testified in his the that 1992); Curlee, Fyfe Cir. 902 F.2d 401 Cir. facing away Plaintiffs turned their chairs 1990). Principle the meeting Porche at this in act of an Superintendent disrespect reprimanded defiance and Principal Brezina to Janice both the and Plowman, himself, faulty ICC, another specifically member on but the the Plaintiffs denied because she meeting attended a of VHS teachers these actions. concerning at a mall Principal Porche. request, to that pertinent matter on context emphasize Plaintiffs The favor.”) By in weighs his factor on a context it was speech indicate their form of speech -when protecting They contend concern. of public matter them, as committee requested repre- administration meeting as elected at the

they spoke truthfully on the school’s members, they sim- faculty, sentatives integrity “the protecting we progress, faculty to of the the views communicated ply Green, 105 seeking process.” See the truth their compliance with in administration Cir.1997).10 (3rd 882, 886 Plain- F.3d The members. committee as duties purpose stated point out tiffs may contain speech employee’s An progress of check the meeting was ICC’s yet still interest personal They an element plan. improvement implementing con matter of speech on a as qualify re- as they gave feedback when argue that 375; see F.3d at Benningfield, 157 he cern. them because punished Brezina quested, The at 463-65. Thompson, 901 F.2d also message. their like not did in their certainly an interest had Plaintiffs spoke Plaintiffs argue the Defendants not could employees, because speech as and that employees, role as only im from the teachers as help but benefit im- of their criticism was mere speech environment the educational provement administration supervisor’s mediate strong However, inter they also had VHS. interpret cases our school. achieving the committee ests as that when holding for itself and the committee set goals speech his employee, an role as in his speaks any point did not The .Defendants school. a matter of only considered may be dispute personal underlying an evidence corruption report of if it involves concern Principle Porche. the Plaintiffs between They higher authorities. wrongdoing is no evidence There speech does the Plaintiffs’ because argue that re merely concerned exception, their limited fall within fact, supervisor. squabble with their lated matter not on a contrary, establish to the- there is evidence neatly not fit speech does The Plaintiffs’ constantly in ing that both n within in which factual scenarios any level of edu raise the attempts to volved a matter speech involved held have we at VHS. cation rely on cases The Plaintiffs public concern. determining considered Another factor employee’s testi that an have held we where a matter speech is on whether adjudicatory or fact-finding mony a before were made is comments concern whether inherently a matter body is widespread backdrop debate against County Con v. Flood Harris See Johnston 603, Tompkins, 26 F.3d (5th community. See District, 1665, 1577 Cir. F.2d 869 trol testified members Several board Bd. 1989); County v. Claiborne Reeves Of called board Cir.1987).9 parents faculty members 1096, Educ., Board VHS. about with concerns members faced with the the Plaintiffs were While Easley testi- Margaret member of Trustees losing their or themselves perjuring choice her stopped at people even fied of either choice they with the job, faced concerns church with grocery store duty fulfilling truth telling Additionally, at VHS. the situation about keeping silent and members or committee indicating story newspaper ran the local on the purpose and function frustrating rating received performance VHS McElveen, low v. See Victor committee. of Education. Department Cir.1998) (“[Wjhen the Texas an 451, 458 F.3d considerations, hold we above light In of the an invitation speaks response to specific determina- fact of this outcome Housing 10. The Philadelphia Authori Green v. 9. Accord had the Plaintiffs might been different have tion 882, (3rd Cir.1997) (holding that ty, F.3d reporting the committee not been inherently testimony voluntary also is employee’s large to the administra- at of the views concern). a matter of tion. the Plaintiffs did on a matter even if speech protected is public concern and reverse the they district court. did suffer adverse deci- sion. The district court did not reach the C. Pickering Balancing issue. We must next consider whether the Qualified immunity shields cer speech interest in free outweighs tain performing officials discretionary state, “the interest of the employer, as an in functions from civil damage liability if their promoting the efficiency ser actions reasonably could have thought been performs vices it through employees.” its with rights consistent they alleged Victor, 150 F.3d at (citing Pickering, 391 have violated. Duckett City v. Cedar 1731.) U.S. at 88 S.Ct. In striking this Park, (citing balance we should examine whether the Anderson v. Creighton, 635, 638, 107 483 U.S. speech likely was generate controversy S.Ct. (1987)). 97 L.Ed.2d 523 Whether and disruption, impeded the general school’s a defendant is qualified entitled to immunity performance operation, and affected a two step is inquiry. See Hayter working relationships necessary to the de Vernon, Mount Cir. partment’s proper functioning. See Brawner 1998). The question first is whether Richardson, Cir. plaintiff alleged the violation of a clearly 1988) (citing Pickering, 391 569-73, established right. constitutional Siegert 1731). 88 S.Ct. v. Gilley, 226, 232, 111 S.Ct. (1991). 114 L.Ed.2d 277 ques second argue tion is whether the defendant’s conduct was demonstrated their lack objectively light reasonable in clearly es commitment to improvement plan, there tablished constitutional law. See Hayter, 154 fore jeopardizing plan’s They success. F.3d at 274. “Even if a defendant’s conduct assert justified Brezina was in removing the actually plaintiffs violates a constitutional Plaintiffs from VHS’s campus to allow the right, the defendant qualified entitled to improvement plan to effectively resolve the immunity if the conduct objectively was problems rea campus. Duckett, sonable.” 950 F.2d at 280. The Defendants do not any offer evidence The Defendants contend are entitled the Plaintiffs’ speech disrupted the qualified immunity because the law con operations performance. school’s fact, cerning the type was. not improvement plan specifically designated clearly at the established time of their con that the content of the meetings ICC was to They duct. argue right that a rarely can be be confidential. The events on campus clearly considered established when the law after the Plaintiffs’ transfer indicate that requires the balancing of interests in deter Brezina’s conclusion was incorrect. Ulti- mining whether the is con mately, both Brezina Principal Porche stitutionally protected. See v. Medina were removed from campus. VHS’s The Denver, and County 1493, 1498 throughout actions the (10th Cir.1992); Borucki Ryan, v. turmoil at VHS indicate their intent to im- (1st 836, Cir.1987). 848 The as Defendants prove the situation at the school rather than they sert punished should not be making goals abandon the of the committee and the judgment an incorrect call in particular this improvement plan. reasons, For the above ease. The argue there does not we strike the balance in favor of plain- have to be a directly case point on for the law tiffs’ interest in speech. free be to deemed clearly established, and that existing employee speech law II. was Immunity clearly established under these facts. See Anderson Qualified A. Immunity v. Creighton, 635, 640, 483 U.S. 107 S.Ct. The argue Defendants 3034, as an (1987) (“this alternative 97 L.Ed.2d 523 is not to qualified their immunity supports say that an official protected action is district grant court’s summary judgment, qualified immunity very unless the action in 224 (4) precedent; influence; importance unlaw held been previously has question process; (5) nature the adversarial Indep. v. Lubbock Hassan ful.”); see also appeal. See Cir.1995). on (6) correctability error 1075, 1079 Dist., F.3d 55

Sch. 193, Saxner, 474 Cleavinger v. U.S. (citing id. insulated are not Defendants (1985)). 507 496, L.Ed.2d 202, 106 S.Ct. merely conduct unconstitutional from list controlling and the is one factor “No our in is involved balancing test a because exclu- be intended is not considerations a speech cases are analysis. While F.2d at 1353. Mylett, sive.” scenarios, the fact for varied vehicle likely v. rely Hernandez The Defendants a “mix clearly established law is Hayes, (Tex.App.-San may be constitu speech” private 931 S.W.2d 648 Anto- denied), Tex- arguing that the 1996, nio, writ at F.3d Benningfield, 157 tionally protected. are procedures grievance school board as Texas, 116 County, 375; v. Pecos Warnock entitling Board therefore quasi-judicial, Cir.1997) (“a em 776, F.3d immuni- to absolute Defendants of Trustees both single statement amake can ployee privi- absolute with the dealt citizen.”) ty. Hernandez as a employee and witness to a granted law Texas lege under , proceeding Immunity quasi-judicial in a testifying Absplute B. While liability for defamation. against civil Cain, Defendants of Trustees Board procedures grievance held that court argue Kornfuehrer, and Green Pollard nature, analyzed it quasi-judicial were immunity because are entitled absolute factors using different procedure Grievance Level III in the actions at Hernandez, 931 S.W.2d rule. See federal reviewing the Hearing 652. fol For the nature. quasi-judicial reasons, Board Mem Supreme Court’s we hold lowing rely on the The Plaintiffs to absolute immunity are not entitled school denying absolute ber decision Strickland, 420 immunity. v. members Wood board 992, L.Ed.2d 320, 95 S.Ct. a understood generally “It affording abso- (1975). held that The Court situated, have ab similarly and those judge, was immunity to school board lute v. Mylett judicial acts.” immunity for solute sufficiently “since it would unwarranted Cir.1993). 1347, 1352 Mullican, F.2d to exer- ability school officials increase governmental of a character examine the We forthright manner in a their discretion cise relationship to and the duties officer’s consti- remedy” for of a the absence warrant he is enti determining whether parties when Wood, 420 U.S. violations. tutional (citing Stump immunity. Id. to absolute tled S.Ct. S.Ct. Sparkman, board’s a school with dealt (1978)). of While Wood are “If the functions L.Ed.2d 331 student, other at least one of a discipline weigh the we must judicial then nature deny holding to extended affording circuit has denying or and benefits costs boards’ decisions immunity to school Mississippi absolute immunity.” O’Neal v. absolute employment. faculty member’s concerning Nursing, 113 Board State County Board Baldwin Stewart Cir.1997). are char See following six factors l Cir. Education, judicia process and acteristics of ruling precludes 1990) (holding the Court’s De determining whether the in' instructive immunity to board of absolute extension immunity: to absolute -entitled are fendants faculty mem to terminate decision members’ (1) can that the individual assure the need to indicates ber). Additionally, the record or without harassment his functions perform elected, illus the school board (2) safeguards' of intimidation; the presence polit from insulated they trating that are damages private for reduce need governmental appointed forces ical controlling unconstitu as a means actions important it is While (3) officials.11 conduct; political insulation tional procedures any board’s specify of the school apply factors or the above parties failed to 11. board school members are able to make deci- for the remand to the trial “free sions from the incurring per- threat of court for further proceedings. sonal liability every for they decision hand REVERSED AND REMANDED. down”, O’Neal, 66, 113 F.3d at we believe qualified immunity them affords suffi- SMITH, JERRY E. protection. Judge, Circuit reasons, cient For the above we dissenting: hold the Defendants are not quali- entitled to fied immunity. Federal courts have “neither compe- tency nor the resources to undertake to mi- III. VISD’s liability section 1983 cro-manage the administration of thousands alternatively VISD contends of state educational institutions.” Dorsett v. failed demonstrate that constitu Trustees, Bd. 121, tional violations occurred as result of school Cir.1991). Because the majority adopts too policy district or custom. The Plaintiffs ar expansive a protected definition of speech for gue subject VISD is § liability public employees-and thereby takes anoth- through Superintendent Brezina’s actions be step er toward constitutionalizing the man- cause the Board of delegated Trustees agement respectfully schools-I dis- policymaking authority in the area of em sent. ployment policy to Alternatively, him. subject contend VISD is liability through I. the Board of Trustees’ policymak actions as ers in affirming the Plaintiffs’ transfers disagree I with majority’s characteriza- grievance hearing. tion of plaintiffs’s speech “as a matter of “A municipality may be held concern.” liable analyzing ques- When § under tion, 1983 when govern ‘execution 'of a a court should “content, consider the policy custom, ment’s or by whether made its form and given context of a statement, as lawmakers by those whose edicts or acts revealed the whole record.” Connick v. may fairly represent be said to policy, Myers, official 138, 147-48, 103 S.Ct. injury.’” inflicts the Doe v. Dallas Indep. (1983). 75 L.Ed.2d 708 While determinations Dist., Sch. speech of whether is a matter of con- (citing Monell v. Dep’t Soc. Services cern are necessarily fact-specific, majori- New City, York 98 S.Ct. ty departs nonetheless from this pre- circuit’s (1978))., 56 L.Ed.2d 611 On at. .least cedent. particular, In majority fails two separate occasions, we have held that the properly analyze plain- content of the board trustees independent of an school and, tiffs’ so, doing lowers the district in policymaker Texas is a pur requirements for plaintiffs asserting similar poses Doe, §of 216; 153 F.3d at causes of action. Jett Dist., v. Dallas Indep. Sch. (5th Cir.1993). Board Trustees’ A. action in affirming Superintendent Brezina’s decision to transfer the Plaintiffs was an act This circuit has never before held that an “may fairly be represent said to official employee’s criticism of his super- immediate policy” because the Board’s status as a visor for mismanagement job perfor- Doe, policymaker. 153 F.3d at 215. As a mance constitutes a matter of result, argument VISD’s fails. fact, we consistently have refused to ex- tend First protection Amendment to a CONCLUSION employee speaking in his role as an reasons, For the foregoing we reverse unless report “involves the grant district summary court’s judgment corruption or serious wrongdoing.”1 The their briefs. about financial handling assistance and racial qualify discrimination does not protected Univ., 1. Wallace v. Texas Tech. 80 F.3d speech); see also Indep. Kirkland v. Northside 1996) (holding Cir. speech that wrongdoing” that “serious to the level of analyze rise should we us that teach cases

cited required. has court this his speech about employee’s of an the content wrong- “serious of for discussion supervisor B. sexual of claims may include This doing.” discrimination, for ex- “backdrop racial or the on majority harassment relies also The criti- simply than community.” be more ample, but should the in widespread debate of or performance job supervisor’s is a that there of found cisms court district But the management argument skills. plaintiffs’ for the support little made had been Porche of their criticisms then- protection seek plaintiffs over larger public debate of a the context 1995, meeting December the at speech high school. the management of Porche’s management of school questions related single that the instance, found court the For specifically, More allocations. budgetary and plaintiffs by the offered newspaper article to the returned comments their all almost concerns any plaintiffs’ of not raise did supervi- ability of their direct of the question its or of the school of management about the adminis- Porche, sor, to lead of no other evidence It found principal. the school. ter incon- other than debate public widespread distinguish this case facts indi- These between private communications clusive fact situation analogous the most Tompkins, of the board faculty members vidual Here, plaintiffs plaintiffs. by the cited re- Therefore, properly the court trustees. management of discussing the were comments plaintiffs’ to find that fused crit- been Tompkins had school, continuing whereas own aof “in the context made at an- program a cancellation of icizing the public originated [a] commentary had plaintiffs Thus, instant school. (quoting other 26 F.3d Tompkins, forum.” in the personal stake greater much Richardson, a have 855 F.2d City Brawner of speech. of their consequences Cir.1988)). alleged that Tompkins had Additionally, II. for rea- canceled had been program the art when court that the district agree with I part of on the racial discrimination of sons form, content, together, higher reviewed obviously ais this superintendent; his do not suffi- speech plaintiffs’ of the context alleged here. than wrongdoing of level public of concern matter ciently a involve Moreover, plaintiffs’ December while Amend- First required to receive degree threat of to a in relation speech was not speech of the The form protection. termination, ment fo- it nonetheless that it involved by itself establish does not supervisor’s exclusively their direct cused Moreover, the concern.2 public matter of of the school in the administration role sup- little evidence have offered plaintiffs dispute more than resembles wide- was there argument port about general statement Tompkins’s does Most matter. on the debate spread sum, cor- court the district policy. school however, the content importantly, precedent circuit’s rectly followed per- on the narrowly focused seems speech plaintiffs’ holding content supervi- their direct and conduct formance does not meeting the December speech at majority's disagree with the Cir.1989) (reason- I do not Dist., While Sch. speech plaintiffs' of the the form does not conclusion of curriculum ing choice that teacher's concern”); favor, they were Wil- the fact that weighs in their qualify as "matter cf. (find- Ctr., necessarily create a Health does not son v. UT invited a matter alleging sexual harassment fac- ing speech other two public concern.” "matter Vickers, concern); Tompkins v. especially content —are tors— Cir.1994) speech alleging (finding determining was not key to concern); a matter racial discrimination public concern. matter Houston, Benningfield v. alleging (finding speech hos- tampering crimi- with work environment tile concern). a matter histories nal alleging seriously wrong sor. Without conduct,

corrupt plaintiffs have little ba- claiming

sis for protection. First Amendment

The.Supreme “public Court created the requirement prevent

concern” “intrusive

oversight by judiciary in the name of the Connick,

First Amendment.” 147-48, Previously, 103 S.Ct. 1684.

court has these followed instructions limit-

ing the notion of concern to eases of wrongdoing,

serious so as to dissuade liti-

gants using, federal courts to settle management disputes.

majority departs approach from this and un-

wisely expands the notion of concern disputes include employees between supervisors. Accordingly, respectful- I

ly dissent. INCORPORATED,

BARGECARIB

Plaintiff-Appellant,

OFFSHORE SUPPLY SHIPS INCORPO

RATED, personam; Sover M/V eign, engines, tackle, etc., her apparel,

rem; Defendants-Appellees, Towing, L.L.C.,

Global Claimant-

Appellee.

No. 98-20329.

United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

March 1999.

Rehearing Denied March

Case Details

Case Name: Harris v. Victoria Independent School District

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: Mar 12, 1999

Citation: 168 F.3d 216

Docket Number: 97-41015

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.