Weintraub v. Board of Educ. of City of New York
593 F.3d 196, 30 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 353, 187 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3217 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a public employee's speech is made in furtherance of their core job duties and has no relevant analogue to speech by ordinary citizens, it is made 'pursuant to official duties' and is not protected by the First Amendment.
Facts:
- David H. Weintraub was a fifth-grade teacher at a public school in Brooklyn, New York.
- On November 6, 1998, a student threw a book at Weintraub during class.
- Weintraub referred the student to Assistant Principal Douglas Goodman, who returned the student to the classroom without imposing discipline.
- The following school day, the same student threw more books at Weintraub.
- Weintraub again referred the student to Goodman, who again returned the student to the classroom.
- Concerned about classroom safety and Goodman's inaction, Weintraub informed Goodman he would have to file a grievance with the union.
- Weintraub then filed a formal grievance with his union representative regarding the failure to discipline the student.
- Weintraub alleges that after filing the grievance, school officials retaliated against him through harassment, poor evaluations, false accusations, and ultimately, termination.
Procedural Posture:
- David Weintraub filed suit against the Board of Education and other officials in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging First Amendment retaliation.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The district court initially denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the First Amendment claim.
- Following the Supreme Court's decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, the defendants moved for reconsideration.
- Upon reconsideration, the district court granted partial summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that Weintraub's grievance was unprotected speech made as an employee.
- The district court certified the question of whether the grievance was protected speech for an interlocutory appeal.
- Weintraub (Petitioner-Appellant) appealed that specific ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second 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 a public school teacher's filing of a union grievance challenging a supervisor's failure to discipline a student constitute speech as a citizen on a matter of public concern protected by the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Walker
No. A public school teacher's filing of a union grievance challenging a supervisor's disciplinary inaction is speech made pursuant to official duties and is therefore not protected by the First Amendment. The court's reasoning, based on Garcetti v. Ceballos, is twofold. First, the grievance was made in furtherance of Weintraub's core professional duties, as maintaining classroom discipline is an indispensable prerequisite to effective teaching. The speech was 'part-and-parcel of his concerns' about his ability to properly execute his duties. Second, the speech lacks a relevant analogue to citizen speech. The lodging of a union grievance is an internal dispute-resolution process available only to employees, unlike a letter to a newspaper or a complaint to an elected official, which are channels available to any citizen. Because Weintraub was speaking as an employee fulfilling his professional responsibilities through an employee-specific channel, he was not speaking as a citizen for First Amendment purposes.
Dissenting - Judge Calabresi
Yes. A public school teacher's filing of a union grievance should be considered protected speech. The majority's interpretation of 'pursuant to official duties' is overly broad and will improperly chill important employee speech. The dissent argues that speech is 'pursuant to official duties' only when the employer has 'commissioned or created' it, meaning the employee is required to make the speech as part of their job function. Weintraub was not required to file a union grievance; this was not part of his job duties commissioned by the school. Rather, he was using an adversarial process to complain about the administration's failures. The majority's 'furtherance of core duties' and 'citizen analogue' tests are unworkable and would wrongly categorize protected speech, like that in Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, as unprotected.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'pursuant to official duties' test from Garcetti v. Ceballos within the Second Circuit. It establishes that courts should look not only at the content of the speech but also its form and the channel through which it is communicated. By holding that an internal union grievance about a core job function lacks a 'citizen analogue,' the ruling narrows the scope of First Amendment protection for public employees who use formal, internal complaint procedures. This may incentivize employees to voice their concerns through public channels rather than internal ones to secure constitutional protection, potentially undermining internal dispute resolution processes.
