Federal appellate court rules Illinois teacher stated valid First Amendment retaliation claim based on filing criminal complaint against student
Gschwind v. Heiden, No. 12-1755 (7th Cir. Aug. 31, 2012)
Abstract: A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (IL, IN, WI) has ruled that a former teacher, who was forced to resign, has stated a valid cause of action for retaliation for exercising his free speech rights when he filed a criminal complaint against a student who threatened to assault him, rejecting the school district’s argument that the complaint did not involve a matter of public concern. The panel also concluded that the individual defendants, i.e., the assistant principal and the principal, were not entitled to qualified immunity, and that the school district could be held liable for the school administrators’ employment decisions because of the school board’s practice of “rubber stamping” the personnel decisions made by school administrators.
Facts/Issues: Sean Gschwind was a middle school teacher in Harvard, Illinois. One of his students performed a rap song as part of a class assignment during which the student said he stabbed the teacher. Gschwind had previously met with the student’s parents on two occasions; once after the student threatened another student, and again after the student beat up another student. During the second meeting, the student’s father threatened to file a class-action suit against Gschwind.
Gschwind met with the police liaison, who encouraged him to file a criminal complaint against the student for disorderly conduct, pointing out that Illinois law declares a knowing threat of violence against a person at a school to be a form of disorderly conduct. However, Gschwind’s assistant principal and principal were not supportive of filing a criminal complaint, fearing the parents would file suit. After Gschwind filed the complaint, the assistant principal gave him an “unsatisfactory” evaluation, though his previous evaluations had all been “satisfactory.” Gschwind later resigned after being informed that the assistant principal and principal would recommend the school board terminate him, and board policy was to “rubber stamp” school administrators’ personnel decisions.
Gschwind filed suit against the school district, the assistant principal, and principal in federal district court. He alleged that the defendants retaliated against him by forcing him to resign for exercising his free speech rights by filing a criminal complaint against the student. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that Gschwind’s speech, i.e., filing the criminal complaint, did not involve a matter of public concern.
Ruling/Rationale: The Seventh Circuit panel reversed the district court’s decision, rejecting the defendants’ argument that Gschwind’s speech was not protected by the First Amendment because it did not involve a matter of public concern, and remanded the case.
Instead, the panel gave credence to Gschwind’s assertion that his decision to file the juvenile complaint was for the purpose of making the public aware of the incident that occurred in his classroom. Although the panel expressed sympathy for school officials subjected “to parental pressure and to the threats and the actuality of suits engendered by indignant (though biased and often overprotective and downright unreasonable) parents” to forego bringing criminal charges, the panel emphasized “Illinois law has curtailed that discretion in respects directly relevant to this case by requiring that any incident of battery or intimidation (which includes threats, …) in a school be reported immediately to law enforcement authorities.”
The panel then determined that “[t]he principles on which this suit is based are well settled, which defeats the [assistant principal's and principal's] claim of qualified immunity.” Regarding the district’s liability for employment decisions made by the two school administrators, the panel noted the superintendent’s statement that “it was the policy of the school district and the Board of Education to allow principals and assistant principals to make evaluation and employment decisions as they see fit with respect to the teachers they supervise and for the school district and the Board of Education to follow these decisions and recommendations.” The panel found that to be “evidence of a policy of the school district of condoning unconstitutional terminations, since principals and assistant principals might ‘see fit’ to fire teachers on unconstitutional grounds.”
Gschwind v. Heiden, No. 12-1755 (7th Cir. Aug. 31, 2012)
[In February 2011, Legal Clips summarized a brief, nonprecedential summary order in Morey v. Somers Cent. Sch. Dist., in which a Second Circuit three-judge panel held that a school custodian, who complained to his supervisors about asbestos contamination on a number of occasions, failed to state a valid claim for First Amendment retaliation because his speech was pursuant to his duties as head custodian. The panel concluded that the fact that he never spoke publicly about his concerns, relying instead exclusively on internal channels, confirmed that he spoke pursuant to his duties.]
