finding sua sponte judgment proper even though the prevailing party did not directly challenge or present any argument or authority on a disputed claim in his motion for summary judgment because he moved for summary judgment on “all claims against him,” thus putting the opposing party on notice
How later courts described this case
- finding sua sponte judgment proper even though the prevailing party did not directly challenge or present any argument or authority on a disputed claim in his motion for summary judgment because he moved for summary judgment on “all claims against him,” thus putting the opposing party on notice
- finding that the plaintiff cannot satisfy the causation prong because an eight-to-nine-month gap between the protected speech and adverse employment action “is too distant to raise an inference of causation”
- holding a district court “may enter summary judgment sua sponte ‘so long as the losing party was on notice that [he or she] had to come forward with all of [his or her] evidence.’”
- finding that eight to nine months between awareness of the protected activity and the alleged adverse employment action is not sufficiently close in time
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, - concurring:
I am pleased to concur in Judge Thacker’s fine opinion. This case presents a school system personnel problem of the sort that occurs in hundreds, if not thousands, of school systems across the country every day. Here the plaintiff, a teacher, allegedly singled out two students’ sexual proclivities in front of their entire AP Government class, driving the young woman involved to tears and the woman’s mother to complain to school administrators.
Of course school administrators looked into it. It would have been a dereliction of duty not to do so. Their investigation revealed further inappropriate statements the teacher made to a student on Face-book, speculating about the student’s possible membership in the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Whether all this conduct merited á reprimand, suspension, or termination was well within the administrators’ discretion. For ' their efforts, they were hit with this litigation, which has been going on for over three years and in which the joint appendix alone has swelled to over 1200 pages.
I am unable to detect the slightest scintilla of educational benefit from all the churning in this lawsuit. In fact, it has drained the time of educators and the resources of a school district already burdened, as most districts are, with the steep compliance costs of federal regulation. Far be it from me to entertain the quaint notion that the efforts of educators should be spent on education, but that was assuredly not where this lawsuit directed them.
I do not think any section 1983 suit should evince such a profound lack of faith in the ability of local school systems to address their own personnel issues. There are teachers, parents, principals, superintendents, school boards, and state courts and legislatures all engaged in that task. By and large, they do a fine job and draw upon community input, not just courtroom arguments.
Education has long been a matter of paramount state and local concern. While federal authority has sometimes played a crucial role, school systems have come a long way since the unlawful and immoral practice of racial segregation left federal courts with no choice but to intervene; It is high time that the federal-state balance in this area be restored, and that litigation be viewed through the prism of the progress states have made and their rightful role in our constitutional structure. Federal judges otherwise risk becoming unnecessary chefs in an overcrowded kitchen without the educational understanding or the community involvement required to achieve a palatable outcome.