Burns v. Adirondack Central School District, __ F. Supp.2d __ , 2006 WL 3007704 (N.D. N.Y. Oct. 23, 2006)

A New York federal district court has ruled that a school district secretary had a valid First Amendment retaliation claim because her public support for a candidate for the school board was protected speech. Debra Burns had been employed by Adirondack Central School District (ACSD) as a secretary since 1991. During the 2003-04 school year, Ms. Burns publicly supported her union president’s candidacy for the school board. Superintendent Oren Cook and some board members supported the union president’s opponent. Later that school year, Mr. Cook reprimanded Ms. Burns for publicly endorsing the union president’s candidacy. In April 2004, he informed her that her position was being eliminated. Mr. Cook denied her request for another full- time secretary’s position. The board then denied her grievance. After she pursued her administrative remedies, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued her a right to sue letter. Among the several claims Ms. Burns raised in her suit, she claimed that she was the victim of retaliation because she exercised her First Amendment right to publicly endorse a school board candidate.

The court focused on two issues: (1) whether Ms. Burns’s speech was constitutionally protected speech; and (2) whether she suffered an adverse employment action. On the first question, the court pointed out that the critical question was whether the speech could be "characterized as constituting speech on a matter of public concern." In order to answer that question, the court found it must look to the content, form, and context of the speech, as well as the employee’s motive for speaking, i.e., was the speech calculated to address a personal grievance or did it have a broader public purpose. The court concluded that Ms. Burns’s support of a political candidate was the "quintessential example of speech related to a matter of public concern." The form, content, and the context of the speech related to a political matter that affected the broader community. As a result, it was protected by the First Amendment. Turning to the second question, the court concluded that even though Ms. Burns’s claim did not elaborate on how Mr. Cook’s reprimand affected her employment situation, it is well-settled law that a reprimand constitutes an adverse employment action. As a result, the court concluded that Ms. Burns had alleged sufficient facts to survive the school district’s motion to dismiss her retaliation claim.

Burns v. Adirondack Central School District, __ F. Supp.2d __ , 2006 WL 3007704 (N.D. N.Y. Oct. 23, 2006)