RETALIATION FOR SCHOOL EMPLOYEE SPEECH by AMY L. DAGLEY C. JOHN TARTER ...

327 Pages·2012·0.76 MB·English

RETALIATION FOR SCHOOL EMPLOYEE SPEECH

by

AMY L. DAGLEY

C. JOHN TARTER, COMMITTEE CHAIR
JOHN DANTZLER
JUDY GIESEN
ROXANNE M. MITCHELL
STEPHEN TOMLINSON

A DISSERTATION

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the Department of Educational Leadership,
Policy, and Technology Studies
in the Graduate School of
The University of Alabama

TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA

2012
Copyright Amy L. Dagley 2012
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ABSTRACT
This study was a qualitative, document-based, legal-historical, multiple-case research
project examining federal case law regarding the violation of free speech rights of PK-12 public
school employees from June 1, 2006, through 2010. Historical documents, in the form of federal
court decisions, involving retaliation for PK-12 public school employee speech, were examined
using qualitative research methods. Qualitative analysis was used to determine patterns, themes,
and categories in the case law.
The sample was made up of 84 cases in the federal courts involving retaliation for public
school employee speech since the Garcetti v. Ceballos decision, dating from June 1, 2006,
through 2010. In 48 of the cases in the sample the court applied the precedent set forth in
Garcetti to determine whether or not the speech was made as a citizen or as an employee. Of the
cases where Garcetti was applied, more than 70% of the speech claims failed to pass the Garcetti
threshold and the employee’s speech was unprotected under the First Amendment.
An important identified and recurring theme within the study was the question of how the
court decided whether an employee’s speech was “pursuant to the employee’s official duties.”
The analysis also revealed a number of cases that involved political speech or instances of
whistle-blowing. The analysis revealed how the courts determined whether or not an employee’s
speech was made pursuant to the employee’s official duties. The analysis identified differences
in the courts decisions based on the speech being politically-related, curriculum-related, or
whistle-blowing in nature. An emerging outcome was revealed in the analysis where the court’s
application of Garcetti concluded that the speech owed its existence to job duties. The courts
ii
also tended to look to whether or not the speech was made public in determining if the speech
was part of the employee’s official duties. These outcomes indicated that a possibility exists that
the lower courts are ignoring precedent from the Supreme Court without explanation and
possibly misapplying Garcetti.

iii
DEDICATION
To Jonathan Boone Dagley, for giving me purpose.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to thank all the people who encouraged, supported, and tolerated me through the
process of writing this dissertation. For eating subpar meals with a smile, tolerating dirt in the
house, and playing with Boone whenever he asked, I want to thank my family, especially my
parents. Without their myriad support I would never have finished this degree. I wish to thank
my favorite sister, Erin, who is always there for me, even to edit case briefs until cross-eyed
while knowing she would remain my favorite without her free editing services. You are the best
sister! I wish to thank Dr. Tregon Fitch, who not only has paved the way for me for years, but
has provided encouragement and friendship on which I have always been able to count. You are
the best cousin! I wish to thank my Alaska parents, Lawrence Lee Oldaker and Linda Blefgen,
who have always encouraged, listened, advised, and loved me despite my faults--just like my
real parents. To my committee, especially Dr. John Tarter for stepping outside his comfort zone
to chair a school law dissertation, I thank you for everything. For taking the time to edit my
dissertation, I thank Sherri Edwards. And last, but certainly not least, to Dr. Arnold Watland,
thank you for encouraging me to pursue my doctorate long before I saw a benefit to doing so.

Obstinate rigor.

v
CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................x
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... xi
I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ........................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................2
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................3
Significance of the Problem .................................................................................................3
Research Questions ..............................................................................................................4
Definition of Terms..............................................................................................................4
Limitations ...........................................................................................................................6
Delimitations ........................................................................................................................7
Assumptions .........................................................................................................................7
Researcher Position ..............................................................................................................8
Organization of the Study ....................................................................................................9
II LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................10
Court Attitudes Prior to 1968 .............................................................................................10
Landmark Free Speech Cases in the Supreme Court (1968-2005) ....................................12
Pickering v. Board of Education ..................................................................................12
vi
Mt. Healthy v. Doyle ...................................................................................................14
Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated .........................................................................15
Connick v. Myers .........................................................................................................16
The Threshold or Balancing Test: In Summary ...........................................................18
Landmark Free Speech Case in the Supreme Court: Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) ............21
Federal Level Court Cases in Education ............................................................................25
Speech Related to Noncompliance or Violations of Federal or
State Mandates before 2006 .........................................................................................26
Speech Related to Noncompliance or Violations of Federal or State Mandates
after Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) .................................................................................26
Speech Related to Athletics before 2006 .....................................................................28
Speech Related to Athletics after Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) ....................................29
Speech Made to General Public, Including the Media, before 2006 ...........................30
Speech Made to General Public, Including the Media, after
Garcetti v. Ceballos 2006 ............................................................................................32
Speech Related to Criticisms of School Policies or Practices before 2006 .................34
Speech Related to Criticisms of School Policies or Practices after
Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006)..........................................................................................38
Speech Criticizing Administration or Supervisors ......................................................41
Chain of Command Policy before 2006 .......................................................................42
Chain of Command Policy after Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) .....................................44
Speech Related to Misconduct before 2006 .................................................................45
Speech Related to Misconduct after Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) ...............................47
Speech Involving Curriculum before 2006 ..................................................................54
Speech Involving Curriculum after Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) .................................60
vii
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................61
III METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................63
Research Questions ............................................................................................................64
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................65
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................67
IV DATA ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................69
Case Briefs, Summary Information ...................................................................................70
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................71
Garcetti by Circuit Court .............................................................................................71
Issues ..................................................................................................................................79
Pursuant to Job Duties .................................................................................................80
Curriculum-related Speech ..........................................................................................91
Political Speech ............................................................................................................95
Whistle-blowing .........................................................................................................100
First Amendment Speech Cases that Were Not Analyzed .........................................111
Outcomes .........................................................................................................................112
Speech Involving an Employment Dispute ................................................................113
Speech Owes Its Existence to Job Duties ..................................................................115
Speech Made to the Public .........................................................................................117
V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................122
Introduction ......................................................................................................................122
Summary of Findings .......................................................................................................122
Issues ..........................................................................................................................122
viii
Outcomes ...................................................................................................................128
Trends ........................................................................................................................130
Guiding Principles .....................................................................................................131
Theoretical Implications ..................................................................................................133
Suggestions for Further Research ....................................................................................134
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................136
APPENDIX
CASE BRIEFS .......................................................................................................................146
ix