holding the Court’s ruling precludes an extension of absolute immunity to board members’ decision to terminate faculty member
How later courts described this case
- holding the Court’s ruling precludes an extension of absolute immunity to board members’ decision to terminate faculty member
- resolving Pickering balance in favor of school employee who spoke in nondisruptive manner at employee meeting where the school could not show any interruption of school functions
- using Wood holding to bar absolute immunity to school board members who allegedly discharged employee in retaliation for his walking out on school meeting
- once defense of qualified immunity is raised on summary judgment, plaintiff must adduce evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant’s conduct violated rights guaranteed by clearly established law
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HATCHETT, Circuit Judge, specially
concurring:
I join in affirming the district court and returning this case to that court for factual development because the issue of why the school board fired Stewart precluded summary judgment. Consequently, I would dismiss the appeal. Goddard v. Urrea, 847 F.2d 765 (11th Cir.1988).
Two additional comments are in order: (1) where material factual issues are in dispute, it is risky for the district court to rely on one party’s “version of the facts” to resolve any issue in the case; (2) the practice whereby defendants create material factual issues in the district court, lose on their summary judgment motion based on immunity because of the factual disputes, but then argue on appeal that the district court should be reversed because on the plaintiff’s “version of the facts” no clearly established right has been shown, is unacceptable.