ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

filed a complaint in district court. The board moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL).
The court granted the motion explaining that there was no evidence to support D’Angelo’s
claims. This appeal followed.
Issues: (1) Did the court err in granting JMOL on D’Angelo’s free speech retaliation
claim? (2) Did the court err in granting JMOL on D’Angelo’s petition to the government for
redress of grievances? (3) Did the court err in granting JMOL on D’Angelo’s violation to
freedom of association claim?
Holding: The court held that Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) was essential to the resolution of
this case. D’Angelo acted as a school official throughout the charter conversion process, which
precluded his protection under the First Amendment.
Reasoning: Just prior to D’Angelo’s jury trial where the JMOL motion was granted, the
Supreme Court ruled in Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) where a public employee who spoke in
his/her official capacity was not insulated by the First Amendment. When applied to this case,
the Garcetti standard quickly delineates that D’Angelo did not partake in protected speech. The
record was replete with statements from D’Angelo about his professional obligation to provide
the best educational opportunity for the students of Kathleen High. D’Angelo retroactively
argued that these proclamations stemmed from his moral obligations as a human. This assertion
was unfounded.
Next, D’Angelo claimed that the court erred on his petition to the government for the
redress of grievances. D’Angelo contended that the charter conversion was a petition to the
government for the redress of grievances. The court was not persuaded but proceeded with the
analysis using Garcetti as the guiding light. Yet again, D’Angelo acted in his official capacity;
therefore, his petition--assuming it was one--was not insulated by the First Amendment. Lastly,
225