Federal appellate court rejects Illinois principal’s First Amendment retaliation claim for reporting her predecessor’s financial misconduct
McArdle v. Peoria Sch. Dist. No. 150, No. 11-2437 (7th Cir. Jan. 31, 2013)
Abstract: A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (IL, IN, WI) has ruled that school district officials in Illinois did not retaliate against a former middle school principal for exercising her First Amendment free speech rights by reporting her predecessor’s misuse of district funds. The panel concluded the former principal had not spoken as a private citizen, but as a public employee, and, therefore, her speech was not constitutionally protected from discipline by her employer.
Facts/Issues: Julie McArdle was employed by Peoria School District No. 150 (PSD150) as the principal of Lindbergh Middle School (LMS). Her immediate supervisor, PSD150 Academic Officer Mary Davis, was the former principal of LMS. McArdle’s tenure at LMS was marked by a number of complaints from parents regarding her conduct and personality. At the time she was embroiled in a controversy with school district officials over her performance, McArdle discovered that Davis had engaged in a number of administrative and financial irregularities while as LMS’ principal. When McArdle attempted to discuss the situation with Davis, Davis told her that the matter had been cleared up during an audit.
McArdle continued her investigation, uncovering more irregularities. Davis was eventually charged with several felony counts in connection with those irregularities. However, before Davis’ alleged criminal behavior came to light, McArdle learned that the school board intended to terminate her. At that point, she emailed the superintendent and the vice-president of the school board outlining Davis’ theft and other alleged official misconduct. In addition, she filed a police report with local law enforcement. At the time the board met to decide whether McArdle should be terminated, the only people who knew about the charge were Davis, the superintendent, and the vice-president of the school board.
After the school board voted to terminate McArdle, she filed suit against PSD150 in federal court, alleging that she had been terminated in retaliation for exercising her First Amendment rights. McArdle also made a number of state law claims. PSD150 sought summary judgment on the retaliation and state law claims. McArdle sought and the court granted her motion for voluntary dismissal of some of the claims.
The district court also granted the school district’s summary judgment motion on McArdle’s claim that she was terminated in retaliation for exercising her First Amendment rights. The court concluded that the principal’s speech was not protected by the First Amendment because she spoke pursuant to her official duties.
The district court also ruled that even if McArdle had spoken as a private citizen, her speech was not entitled to First Amendment protection because it was not on a matter of public concern, but rather involved a personal grievance. Lastly, the court concluded that McArdle’s First Amendment claim failed because the school district’s decision to terminate her was not motivated by a desire to retaliate against her.
Ruling/Rationale: The Seventh Circuit panel affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment. Its analysis began by examining the threshold question of whether McArdle’s speech was constitutionally protected. In order for the speech to pass that First Amendment threshold, the panel stated it must be speech that the employee made in her capacity as a private citizen and not as a public employee. It pointed out that when the employee speaks pursuant to her official duties, she is not speaking as a private citizen for First Amendment purposes.
Relying on Seventh Circuit precedent, the panel concluded: “McArdle’s reporting of that misconduct was speech as a public employee, and was not shielded from her employer’s response by the First Amendment.” It added, “Because Davis’ recommendation was consistent with the district’s ultimate action, the conclusion that McArdle’s speech was unprotected as to the district is also applicable to Davis.” Having determined that McArdle’s speech was not protected, the panel found that the question of the defendants’ motive was not material.
McArdle v. Peoria Sch. Dist. No. 150, No. 11-2437 (7th Cir. Jan. 31, 2013)
