McGreevy v. Stroup
2005 WL 1515891, 413 F.3d 359 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Qualified immunity is unavailable to public officials in a First Amendment retaliation claim where the Pickering balancing test weighs heavily in favor of the public employee's speech on a matter of public concern. A single decision by a municipal official with final policymaking authority, such as a school superintendent's approval of an employee rating, can constitute an official policy for which a municipality may be held liable under § 1983.
Facts:
- Linda McGreevy, a school nurse for the Bermudian Springs School District, consistently received excellent employment ratings from 1994 to 1999.
- In 1999, McGreevy began advocating on behalf of two disabled students to secure special assistance for them, contacting the Pennsylvania Department of Education.
- McGreevy reported to state authorities that the school had used an unlicensed individual for pesticide spraying, which caused illness among students and teachers and resulted in a state investigation and fine against the District.
- McGreevy also informed the Pennsylvania Department of Health that she was incorrectly listed as the supervising nurse for the middle school, which triggered an investigation and the withholding of state funds from the District.
- Following these events, McGreevy's supervisors—Principal Roger Stroup, Assistant Principal Kathleen Tsosie, and Superintendent Gerald Soltis—allegedly began to harass and criticize her.
- At the end of the 1999-2000 school year, McGreevy received a performance rating of 71 out of 80, a significant drop from her previous excellent scores.
- On June 1, 2001, McGreevy received an official rating of 40 out of 80 for the 2000-2001 school year.
Procedural Posture:
- Linda McGreevy filed a § 1983 lawsuit against the Bermudian Springs School District and school officials Soltis, Stroup, and Tsosie in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants on most claims, dismissing the § 1983 claim against the District for lack of a policy or custom and dismissing the claims against the individual officials in their personal capacities on qualified immunity grounds.
- The sole remaining claim—against the officials in their official capacities for the retaliatory 2001 performance rating—proceeded to trial.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case, the District Court granted the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding no evidence of a custom or practice of retaliatory evaluations.
- McGreevy, the plaintiff-appellant, appealed the District Court's summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does qualified immunity shield public school officials from a First Amendment retaliation claim when they issue a grossly unsatisfactory performance rating to an employee for speech on matters of public concern, where the employee's interest in speaking heavily outweighs any state interest in workplace efficiency?
Opinions:
Majority - Sloviter, J.
No, qualified immunity does not shield the school officials because the law prohibiting retaliation for this type of speech was clearly established. The court reasoned that the three-part test for public employee speech was met: (1) McGreevy's speech on student safety, pesticide use, and regulatory compliance were matters of public concern; (2) under the Pickering balancing test, her interest in speaking on government impropriety, the 'highest rung' of First Amendment protection, far outweighed the school's interest, as the officials alleged no workplace disruption; and (3) a jury could find her speech was a motivating factor for the bad review. The court held that because the balance of interests weighed so heavily in McGreevy's favor, the right to be free from retaliation was 'clearly established,' meaning a reasonable official would have known their conduct was unlawful. The court also held that the District could be liable under Monell because, under Pennsylvania law, the superintendent has final, unreviewable policymaking authority over employee ratings, making his decision an official act of the District.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'clearly established law' standard for qualified immunity in the context of First Amendment retaliation claims. It rejects the notion that a fact-intensive balancing test like Pickering is too vague to provide officials with clear notice of unconstitutional conduct. By holding that the law is clearly established when the Pickering balance heavily favors the employee, the ruling strengthens protections for public employee whistleblowers. Furthermore, the decision provides a clear application of Monell liability, demonstrating that a single official can be a 'final policymaker' for a specific function, thereby exposing the entire municipality to liability for their actions in that domain.
