ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

Citation: Ratliff v. Wellington Exempted Village Schools Board of Education, 820 F.2d
792, (1987 U.S. App.).
Key Facts: On March 13, 1984, the Wellington Exempted Village Schools Board of
Education (the board), voted to non-renew the administrative contract of Ayers Ratliff. In
November 1984, Ratliff brought suit alleging violation of his First Amendment rights under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Ratliff claimed that his non-renewal was a retaliatory action for statements he
made 2 years earlier. Ratliff cited a public meeting from September 1982 where he spoke on the
deplorable conditions of the schools and a lack of trust between school employees and the school
board.
In December 1985, a trial court heard the arguments by Ratliff and the board. Upon
direction from the district court, the jury was told to consider the “intrinsic” value of the rights
bestowed by the First Amendment when considering damages award amounts. This instruction
would prove important later. The jury returned an award of damages in the amount of $200,000
for the plaintiff as well as more than $75,000 in back pay. Following this verdict and seeking for
a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial and a remittitur of damages, the board filed
motions.
Issues: (1) Was the board entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict based on the
evidence presented at trial? (2) Were the damages awarded appropriate?
Holding: The court held that the defendants were not entitled to judgment
notwithstanding the verdict, but that the damages awarded were not legally appropriate.
Reasoning: As to the judgment notwithstanding the verdict claim, the board argued three
points that discredited Ratliff’s assertion that he was retaliated against for his September 1982
speech. First, the board argued that its members testified that the September speech had no
105