Federal district court upholds dismissal of guidance counselor for writing a sexually explicit “self-help” book
Craig v. Rich Township High Sch. Dist., No. 12-7581 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 19, 2013)
Abstract: An Illinois federal district court has ruled that school district officials did not violate a former high school guidance counselor’s First Amendment free speech or his Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest rights when they dismissed him from his employment based on a “self-help” book he published on relationships. The court concluded that although the guidance counselor was speaking as a private citizen, he was not speaking on a matter of public concern. As a result, the court dismissed his First Amendment free speech claim.
The court also rejected the guidance counselor’s claim that the dismissal violated his Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in reputation. The court stated that “[b]y failing to plead any publication on the part of defendants, plaintiff has not stated a claim for deprivation of his liberty interest without due process.”
Facts/Issues: Bryan Craig was employed by Rich Township High School District (RTHSD) as a guidance counselor. After he self-published a book entitled “It’s Her Fault,” the school board voted for his dismissal. Craig described the book as a “self-help” book about relationships between men and women. The court, however, characterized Craig’s book as “little more than a lewd account of plaintiff’s own sexual preferences and exploits.” Foregoing his right under state law to a review of the board’s decision, Craig filed suit in federal court against RTHSD, alleging that school officials restrained his right to free speech and retaliated against him in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. RTHSD filed a motion to dismiss the suit.
Ruling/Rationale: The district court granted RTHSD’s motion to dismiss the suit. Addressing Craig’s First Amendment claim, the court first determined that Craig was speaking as a private citizen when he published his “self-help” book. In analyzing the free speech claim, the court applied a three-part test: (1) whether plaintiff’s speech was constitutionally protected; (2) whether plaintiff can prove that defendant’s actions were motivated by plaintiff’s constitutionally protected speech; and (3) can defendant demonstrate it would have taken the same action in the absence of the constitutionally protected speech.
The first part of the test involved resolving a question of law utilizing the two-prong “Connick-Pickering” test. Specifically, whether Craig’s speech addressed a matter of public concern, and if so, whether “[Craig's] interests …, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern” outweigh “the interest of [RTHSD], as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.”
The court found that it need not venture beyond the first prong of the “Connick-Pickering test,” stating that “[t]he bare legal conclusion that the book is on a matter of public concern is not enough to state a First Amendment claim.” The court found Craig’s assertion that “the book addresses relationships between adult men and women, [and therefore must be] a matter of public concern” to be “too vague to state a claim.” The court also determined that the mere fact that he made the book “available to the public and purportedly part of some public discourse, is not enough to satisfy the first prong of the Connick-Pickering test.”
In its analysis, the court found the book to be highly sexual, and concluded that “there is no question that the speech is ‘detrimental to the mission and functions of [RTHSD].’” The court cited several other court decisions which amplify the elements of “a matter of public concern.” Thus, the district court concluded: “Simply because [Craig’s] book touches on a matter of public interest (relationships between men and women) does not mean that it addresses a matter of public concern such that it satisfies the Connick-Pickering test.” In sum, the court said that even though Craig attempted “to dress his book in more noble clothing,” the book did not meet the threshold test of the Connick-Pickering analysis.
The district court also rejected Craig’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim based on an alleged violation of his liberty interest in pursuing his profession and maintaining his professional reputation. Quoting a Seventh Circuit case, the district court stated that “[t]o prove a deprivation of [a] liberty interest, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant publicly disclosed stigmatizing information that caused the plaintiff to suffer a tangible loss of other employment opportunities.” In the end, the court found that Craig failed “to plead any publication on the part of defendants, [and consequently, Craig] has not stated a claim for deprivation of his liberty interest without due process.”
Craig v. Rich Township High Sch. Dist., No. 12-7581 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 19, 2013)
[Editor's Note: In September 2012, Legal Clips summarized an article in the Chicago Tribune, which reported on Craig's lawsuit against RTHSD, in which he charged he was terminated in violation of his free speech rights after writing a graphic book about relationships. The school board cited Craig’s book, “It’s Her Fault,” when it unanimously voted to fire him. Board President Betty Owens said, “Mr. Craig’s conduct in this matter fell far short of our expectations and evoked outrage for me, members of this board and many others in this district who have come to expect the highest level of professionalism and sound judgment from the people they entrust with their children each day.”]
