holding that although teacher was speaking in her role as an employee when she presented information on the environmental benefits of industrial hemp, the speech nonetheless related to matters of political and social concern to the community
How later courts described this case
- holding that although teacher was speaking in her role as an employee when she presented information on the environmental benefits of industrial hemp, the speech nonetheless related to matters of political and social concern to the community
- holding that a defendant is entitled to summary judgment if she demonstrates that every reasonable trier of fact would conclude that the plaintiff would have been terminated even if he had not engaged in protected speech
- holding a teacher’s sponsorship of an in-class speaker on industrial hemp was speech, despite the lack of a “particularized message” such as “advocating or speaking against hemp’s usé as an environmental alternative to cutting down trees”
- rejecting the school's argument that the teacher’s speech had impacted the "efficient operation of the school and a harmonious environment” because her speech had been pre-approved by the school board and, thus, the "disruptive consequences of the employee speech can be traced back to the government's express decision permitting the employee to engage in that speech”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SILER, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
On the face of it, it appears inappropriate for a fifth grade class to have a celebrity speaker on a matter as complicated as legalizing industrial hemp. It is a matter of public concern in Kentucky, as evidenced by anecdotal illustrations in the majority opinion; nevertheless, matters of public concern may be outweighed by the school’s interest in maintaining certain legitimate goals or missions. See Williams v. Kentucky, 24 F.3d 1526, 1536 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 947 , 115 S.Ct. 358 , 130 L.Ed.2d 312 (1994).
Here, the school might very well have precluded the teacher from allowing Har-relson and others to discuss legalization of industrial hemp before a class of children in a grade school, even where it might be a valid topic in high school or college. One could point out a myriad of subjects appropriate for an older audience that would not promote a valid educational purpose for grade school children. However, the school approved in advance the subject matter and the speaker. It now must pay the penalty for giving prior approval, because it cannot now be heard that such conduct by Cockrel was disruptive.
Likewise, Cockrel’s conduct, if true, toward the principal and other teachers may very well have supported a dismissal for cause, but the school took no action toward her for some of this conduct until after the community became agitated following Har-relson’s visit. Thus, as the majority opinion relates, the burden is upon the school board to show that the dismissal would have occurred even in the absence of the protected conduct. See Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287 , 97 S.Ct. 568 , 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977). The district court correctly found that the school board presented evidence to show that Cockrel would have been fired regardless of her protected conduct. Nevertheless, Cockrel has also presented evidence to the contrary, which makes this a factual issue that cannot be decided by summary judgment.