Posey v. Lake Pend Oreille School District No. 84
546 F.3d 1121, 28 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 385, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 21565 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a First Amendment retaliation claim, the determination of whether a public employee spoke as a private citizen or pursuant to their official duties is a mixed question of fact and law. When there is a genuine dispute over the scope and content of the employee's job responsibilities, that threshold question is a factual inquiry for the trier of fact, making summary judgment inappropriate.
Facts:
- Robert Posey worked as a 'security specialist' for the Lake Pend Oreille School District at Sandpoint High School.
- In November 2002, Posey expressed concerns to the school principal, Jim Soper, about inadequate student discipline and safety policies, but received no direct response.
- In October 2003, Posey, using his own resources at home and on his own time, wrote a lengthy letter to school district administrators detailing specific safety and security inadequacies at the school, including concerns about weapons, drugs, fire safety, and sexual harassment.
- Following the letter, Posey met with two administrators at his home, outside of school hours, to discuss his concerns.
- The scope of Posey's official job duties was unclear; his responsibilities had been substantially reduced in 2002, and the parties disputed whether reporting on broad policy inadequacies was part of his role.
- At the conclusion of the 2003-04 school year, the School District eliminated Posey's position by consolidating it into a new 'preventative specialist' position.
- Posey applied for the new consolidated position but was not hired.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Posey sued the Lake Pend Oreille School District in Idaho state court, alleging First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The School District removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.
- After discovery, the School District filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The U.S. District Court granted the School District's motion for summary judgment, finding as a matter of law that Posey's speech was made pursuant to his official duties and was therefore not protected.
- Posey, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with the School District as appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a public employee's First Amendment retaliation claim, does the determination of whether the employee's speech was made pursuant to their official duties under Garcetti v. Ceballos present a question of fact for a jury when the scope of those duties is disputed, rather than a pure question of law for a judge to decide on summary judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Hawkins, Circuit Judge
Yes, this determination presents a question of fact for a jury when disputed. The inquiry into whether a public employee spoke as a citizen or pursuant to official duties is a mixed question of fact and law. The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos transformed this part of the First Amendment retaliation analysis. While the ultimate question of whether speech is constitutionally protected is one of law for the court, determining the underlying 'scope and content' of an employee's job responsibilities is a 'practical' and factual inquiry. The court noted a circuit split on this issue and sided with the circuits treating it as a mixed question. Because there was a genuine and material dispute in the record about Posey's actual job duties, the district court erred by resolving this factual issue as a matter of law on summary judgment. The court also found that Posey's speech addressed matters of public concern and the school district conceded it had no adequate justification for punishing the speech, leaving the factual dispute over his duties as the key unresolved issue.
Analysis:
This decision significantly impacts First Amendment retaliation litigation in the Ninth Circuit by clarifying the procedural handling of the Garcetti inquiry. By classifying the scope of an employee's duties as a question of fact, the court makes it more difficult for public employers to obtain summary judgment in cases where an employee's job description is ambiguous or their actual duties are disputed. This shifts power to employee-plaintiffs, increasing the likelihood that their claims will survive pre-trial motions and be heard by a jury. The ruling solidifies a procedural protection for potential whistleblowers whose speech falls in a grey area between personal grievance and official responsibility.
