ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

1992
Citation: Carrillo v. Rostro, 845 P.2d 130, (1992 N.M.).
Key Facts: Carrillo spoke at a board meeting on March 19, 1987, where she addressed the
board’s possible decision to excuse 3 days from the school year for the students at Carroll
Elementary School. Carroll Elementary flooded from a burst water pipe during the 1986-1987
school year and classes were suspended for 3 days. Carrillo spoke at the meeting in hopes of
deterring the board from suspending the days from the calendar.
In her speech, Carrillo noted that the board needed to prioritize the importance of
education and set a good example. Carrillo’s speech would become an issue with the board and
her delivery of the message would become a disputed issue. The board contended that Carrillo
delivered the message in an arrogant, unprofessional, harassing, and inappropriate tone.
Moreover, the board asserted that Carrillo exhibited contempt for the board’s authority.
Over a year later in April 1988, the board voted to non-renew Carrillo’s position as
principal at Carroll Elementary and cited her speech at the meeting as one of the factors leading
to the board’s determination. Shortly thereafter, Carrillo brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
claiming that the board retaliated against her for her March 19, 1987, speech and violated her
First Amendment rights while also depriving her of due process and violating her property
interest in continued employment. The board filed a motion for summary judgment and raised
the defense of qualified immunity. The district court denied the request and ruled that the
superintendent and board members were not entitled to qualified immunity. The school board
appealed.
Issues: (1) Was the denial of summary judgment by the district court reviewable? (2)
Were the board members entitled to qualified immunity?
140