Samuelson v. LaPorte Cmty. Sch. Corp., No. 06-4351 (7th Cir. May 22, 2008)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (IL, IN, WI) has ruled that a teacher failed to establish that the nonrenewal of his coaching contract was in retaliation for his having exercised his free speech rights. The court also ruled that the school district’s “chain of command” policy did not constitute impermissible prior restraint on his speech. The plaintiff, Gregory Samuelson, was a teacher employed by LaPorte Community School Corp. (LCSC) and head coach of the girls high school varsity basketball team. LCSC has a “chain of command” policy that directs all staff members to “refer matters requiring administrative action to the person in charge of the department, who shall refer such matters to the next higher authority, when necessary.” That policy is supplemented by a bylaw that acknowledges the right of staff members to speak out on matters of public concern and instructs employees doing so to “clearly [state] that his/her expression represents personal views and not necessarily those of the School Corporation.” The athletic director and principal recommended nonrenewal of Mr. Samuelson’s coaching contract based on: (1) complaints and unrest among players, parents and coaches; (2) Mr. Samuelson’s poor fundraising and unauthorized spending of team funds; and (3) his coaching ability. The superintendent passed the recommendation on to the school board, which approved it. In his resulting lawsuit, Mr. Samuelson cited four instances where he claims to have engaged in protected speech on a matter of public concern: (1) his speaking to the school board about the treatment of the girls’ sports programs as compared to the boys’ programs; (2) his voicing disapproval about the selection and hiring of a middle school principal; (3) his speaking to board members about proposed changes in the school’s computer platform; and (4) his speaking to a board member about his objections to a proposed school redistricting plan. The district court granted summary judgment to LCSC, holding that that the “chain of command” policy was not an unconstitutional prior restraint and that LCSC had not retaliated against Mr. Samuelson’s exercise of a First Amendment right because, even if the district had been motivated partially by speech that was protected, he had not shown that its stated reasons for the nonrenewal were pretextual.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The appeals court first concluded that the “chain of command” policy did not constitute an impermissible restraint on staff members’ speech because it covered only “speech grounded in the public employee’s professional duties,” which the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), has made clear is not protected by the First Amendment. The court then concluded that none of speech cited by Mr. Samuelson supported his claim of retaliation. “Even assuming, arguendo, that these instances were not a product of his employment duties, and thus were protected by the First Amendment, Mr. Samuelson has failed to show that his nonrenewal as coach was motivated by any of these instances.” Although Mr. Samuelson pointed to that the fact that his nonrenewal came two days after he asked the superintendent an e-mail about the proper procedure for filing a Title IX complaint and one day after the superintendent ordered him not to speak to board members without following the chain of command, the court found no evidence that the board saw or considered the e-mail exchange.
Samuelson v. LaPorte Cmty. Sch. Corp., No. 06-4351 (7th Cir. May 22, 2008)