15.08.2013 Views

ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

halted Bill’s speech at this point and moved into executive session (private) where it asked Lewis<br />

if he wanted to continue his speech. He declined, and the meeting moved back into open session<br />

where the board reprimanded Bill Lewis for his personal attack on the superintendent.<br />

Just over a month later in June, Bill Lewis was notified that his contract was being<br />

recommended for non-renewal. The non-renewal notification enumerated four reasons: (1)<br />

Lewis’s professed lack of confidence in the superintendent, (2) Lewis’s professed decision to<br />

choose whether or not he will support the decisions of the superintendent, (3) Lewis’s lack of<br />

discretion in undermining the superintendent in a public forum, and (4) the board’s judgment that<br />

a positive working relationship was not possible following this exchange. Bill Lewis requested<br />

and was granted a hearing where the board voted unanimously to uphold its non-renewal.<br />

Lewis filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming a First Amendment violation. At trial,<br />

the jury found that Lewis’ speech was not protected by the First Amendment because it was not<br />

of public concern. However, the jury found that his termination was predicated upon his May 12<br />

speech and awarded him over $25,000 in lost wages and $5,000 for violation of his First<br />

Amendment rights. On appeal from the Harrison School District, the district court set aside the<br />

damages awarded to Lewis. This appeal followed.<br />

Issues: (1) Was Bill Lewis’s speech of a public concern? (2) If so, was the board’s need<br />

for efficient operations greater than Bill Lewis’ right to free speech in this instance? (3) Was Bill<br />

Lewis terminated for his May 12 speech? (4) Did the district court err in setting aside Lewis’<br />

damages award? (5) Were the defendants (district, superintendent, and board) entitled to<br />

qualified immunity?<br />

Holding: The board’s need for efficient operations was not great enough to suppress<br />

Lewis’s right to speech. Moreover, Lewis’s speech was of a public concern and a motivating<br />

94

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!