Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-10778/USCOURTS-ca11-15-10778-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Benoit Mech
Appellant
School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida
Appellee

Document Text:

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-10778

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:13-cv-80437-KAM

DAVID BENOIT MECH,

d.b.a. The Happy/Fun Math Tutor,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA,

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_______________________

(November 23, 2015)

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judge:

The Supreme Court once predicted that “[t]here may be situations in which 

it is difficult to tell whether a government entity is speaking on its own behalf or is 

USCA11 Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 Page: 1 of 18
2

providing a forum for private speech.” Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 

460, 470, 129 S. Ct. 1125, 1132 (2009). This appeal presents one of those 

situations. David Mech complains that the School Board of Palm Beach County, 

Florida, violated his constitutional right to free speech, U.S. Const., amends. I, 

XIV, when three of its schools removed banners for Mech’s tutoring business from 

their fences. The schools removed the banners after they discovered that Mech’s

tutoring business shares a mailing address with his pornography business. The 

district court entered summary judgment against Mech because the schools did not 

remove the banners based on their content. We affirm, but on a different ground.

We conclude that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment does not protect 

Mech because the banners are “government speech.” Summum, 555 U.S. at 467.

I. BACKGROUND

David Mech has a unique resume. He provides a math tutoring service in 

Palm Beach County under the name “The Happy/Fun Math Tutor.” He has a 

bachelor’s degree from Michigan State University, a master’s degree from Arizona 

State University, and is enrolled in a Ph.D. program at Florida Atlantic University.

He has taught mathematics at Palm Beach State College and is certified to teach 

secondary math in Florida. Mech is also a retired porn star. He has performed in 

hundreds of pornographic films. And he owns Dave Pounder Productions LLC, a 

USCA11 Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 Page: 2 of 18
3

company that formerly produced pornography. The Happy/Fun Math Tutor and 

Dave Pounder Productions share a mailing address in Boca Raton, Florida.

In 2008, the School Board—which oversees the Palm Beach County School 

District—adopted a pilot program for its schools to hang banners on their fences to 

recognize the sponsors of school programs. The banner program was codified in 

2011 as Policy 7.151, “Business Partnership Recognition - Fence Screens.” See 

Sch. Bd. Policies 7.151, http://www.boarddocs.com/fl/palmbeach/Board.nsf/goto?

open&id=9R8NDB5AD0A1#. Subsection (1) of the Policy states its purpose:

Purpose. -- The District recognizes that athletic sponsors and other 

business partners provide a vital role in sponsorship of key programs 

within our schools. As such, schools have increased needs to visibly 

recognize these partners in the community. In the interests of 

community aesthetics and in consideration of local ordinances that 

may prohibit or restrict banners and advertising, these uniform 

standards have been developed. By permitting the recognition of 

business partners on school campuses, it is not the intent of the School 

Board to create or open any Palm Beach County School District 

school, school property or facility as a public forum for expressive 

activity, nor is it the intent of the School Board to create a venue or 

forum for the expression of political, religious, or controversial 

subjects which are inconsistent with the educational mission of the 

School Board or which could be perceived as bearing the imprimatur 

or endorsement of the School Board.

Id. at 7.151(1). “Because the [banners] are not considered advertising,” 

contributions by the sponsors are treated as “donations.” Id. at 7.151(2)(b).

The Policy imposes several conditions on the banners that can be displayed.

The principals of each school must “use their discretion in selecting and approving 

USCA11 Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 Page: 3 of 18
4

business partners that are consistent with the educational mission of the School 

Board, District and community values, and appropriateness to the age group 

represented at the school.” Id. at 7.151(2)(h). The Policy requires the banners that 

are visible from the road to use a uniform size, color, and font; to include a 

message thanking the sponsor; and to forego photographs and large logos. See id.

at 7.151(3).

Beginning in 2010, Mech inquired about displaying a banner for The 

Happy/Fun Math Tutor at three schools in Palm Beach County: Omni Middle 

School, Spanish River Community High School, and Boca Raton Community 

Middle School. Representatives from the schools encouraged Mech to apply: Mech 

specializes in the math courses that are taught at those schools and, according to a 

representative of the School Board, “[h]e apparently is a very good tutor.” The

high school requires banners to be printed in school colors, and all of the banners 

include the message “[School Initials] Partner in Excellence.” The banners can 

include only the name, phone number, web address, and logo of the business 

partner. To obtain a banner, the schools require a minimum donation of $250–

$650.

Mech complied with these requirements, and the schools hung the banners

displayed below on their fences.

USCA11 Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 Page: 4 of 18
5

In 2013, the schools removed the banners for The Happy/Fun Math Tutor.

Several parents complained about the banners after discovering the common

ownership of The Happy/Fun Math Tutor and Dave Pounder Productions. The 

schools informed Mech that his “position with Dave Pounder Productions, together 

with the fact that Dave Pounder Productions utilizes the same principal place of 

business and mailing address as The Happy/Fun Math Tutor creates a situation that 

is inconsistent with the educational mission of the Palm Beach County School 

Board and the community values.”

Mech sued the School Board for violations of the First and Fourteenth 

Amendments and breach of contract. Both parties moved for summary judgment, 

USCA11 Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 Page: 5 of 18
6

and the district court ruled in favor of the School Board. The district court ruled

that the schools did not abridge the First Amendment because they removed the 

banners due to the common ownership of Mech’s companies, not the content of the 

banners. The district court also rejected Mech’s claims under the Fourteenth 

Amendment and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his claim for 

breach of contract.

On appeal, Mech challenges only the dismissal of his claim under the First 

Amendment. After the parties submitted their appellate briefs, the Supreme Court 

decided Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., __ U.S. __, 

135 S. Ct. 2239 (2015). Before oral argument, we ordered the parties to provide

supplemental briefing on whether Walker affects this case.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“We review a summary judgment de novo.” Zibtluda, LLC v. Gwinnett Cty. 

ex rel. Bd. of Comm’rs, 411 F.3d 1278, 1281 (11th Cir. 2005). Summary judgment 

is appropriate if, viewing the record in the light most favorable to Mech, “there is 

no genuine dispute as to any material fact” and the School Board “is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56). We can affirm a 

summary judgment “on any alternative ground fairly supported by the record.”

Rozar v. Mullis, 85 F.3d 556, 564 (11th Cir. 1996).

USCA11 Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 Page: 6 of 18
7

III. DISCUSSION

The parties disagree about how to classify the school banners. According to 

Mech, the banners for The Happy/Fun Math Tutor are private speech in a limited 

public forum. As such, the First Amendment forbids the School Board from acting 

unreasonably or engaging in viewpoint discrimination. See Christian Legal Soc’y

Chapter of the Univ. of Cal., Hastings Coll. of the Law v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661, 

679 n.11, 130 S. Ct. 2971, 2984 n.11 (2010). The School Board argues that the

removal of the banners was reasonable and viewpoint neutral. It also argues, in the 

alternative, that the banners are government speech.

If the banners are government speech, Mech loses. The Free Speech Clause 

of the First Amendment “restricts government regulation of private speech; it does 

not regulate government speech.” Summum, 555 U.S. at 467, 129 S. Ct. at 1131.

When the government exercises “the right to ‘speak for itself,’” it can freely 

“select the views that it wants to express.” Id. at 467–68, 129 S. Ct. at 1131 

(quoting Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys. v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217, 229, 

120 S. Ct. 1346, 1354 (2000)). This freedom includes “choosing not to speak” and 

“speaking through the . . . removal” of speech that the government disapproves.

Downs v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist., 228 F.3d 1003, 1012 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Ark. 

Educ. Television Comm’n v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666, 674, 118 S. Ct. 1633, 1639

(1998)). Government speech is regulated primarily by “the political process,” not 

USCA11 Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 Page: 7 of 18
8

the Constitution. Southworth, 529 U.S. at 235, 120 S. Ct. at 1357. Because 

characterizing speech as government speech “strips it of all First Amendment 

protection” under the Free Speech Clause, Walker, 135 S. Ct. at 2255 (Alito, J., 

dissenting), we do not do so lightly.

The Supreme Court has not articulated a precise test for separating 

government speech from private speech, but its recent decision in Walker

concluded that the specialty license plates for motor vehicles in Texas were

government speech based on three factors. First, “the history of license plates” 

suggests “they long have communicated messages from the States.” Id. at 2248

(majority opinion). States have featured graphics and slogans on license plates 

since the early twentieth century, and Texas has approved specialty license plates 

“for decades.” Id. Second, reasonable observers would conclude that Texas 

“agree[s] with the message displayed” on specialty license plates. Id. at 2249. Each

plate bears the name “TEXAS” at the top; and Texas issues the plates, regulates 

their disposal, and owns the designs. Id. at 2248. License plates “are, essentially, 

government IDs,” and individuals choose specialty plates over bumper stickers 

because they hope to convey the impression that “the State has endorsed th[e]

message.” Id. at 2249. Third, Texas exercises “direct control over the messages” 

on specialty license plates. Id. The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board 

“must approve every specialty plate design proposal,” id., and Texas dictates “the 

USCA11 Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 Page: 8 of 18
9

design, typeface, color, and alphanumeric pattern for all license plates,” id.

(quoting 43 Tex. Admin. Code § 504.005(a)). These factors taken together

established that the specialty license plates were government speech.

The three factors that the Supreme Court applied in Walker came from

Summum, a decision in which the Court concluded that privately donated 

monuments in public parks were government speech. See Summum, 555 U.S. at 

470–72, 129 S. Ct. at 1133–34. There, the Court explained that “[g]overnments 

have long used monuments to speak to the public.” Id. at 470, 129 S. Ct. at 1132.

Moreover, “[i]t certainly is not common for property owners to open up their 

property for the installation of permanent monuments that convey a message with 

which they do not wish to be associated.” Id. at 471, 129 S. Ct. at 1133. “[T]here is 

little chance that observers will fail to appreciate the identity of the speaker” when 

they view a monument in a public park, id., especially because “[p]ublic parks are 

often closely identified in the public mind with the government unit that owns the 

land,” id. at 472, 129 S. Ct. at 1133. Finally, the city “‘effectively controlled’ the 

messages sent by the monuments in the [p]ark by exercising ‘final approval 

authority’ over their selection.” Id. at 473, 129 S. Ct. at 1134 (quoting Johanns v. 

Livestock Mktg. Ass’n, 544 U.S. 550, 560–61, 125 S. Ct. 2055, 2062–63 (2005)).

“The monuments that are accepted, therefore, are meant to convey and have the 

USCA11 Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 Page: 9 of 18
10

effect of conveying a government message, and they thus constitute government 

speech.” Id. at 472, 129 S. Ct. at 1134.

In the light of Walker and Summum, we conclude that this case also involves

government speech. Although the parties have not presented evidence about the 

history of banners on school fences, the banners bear the imprimatur of the schools 

and the schools exercise substantial control over the messages that they convey.

We do not mean to suggest that the factors identified in Walker and Summum are 

exhaustive or that they will be relevant in every case. See Walker, 135 S. Ct. at

2249. Whether speech is government speech is inevitably a context specific 

inquiry. But these decisions provide a useful framework. Below, we address how 

each of the three factors from Walker and Summum—history, endorsement, and 

control—applies to the banners in Palm Beach County.

A. History

The record contains no evidence about the history of banners on school 

fences. And the banner program in Palm Beach County has a relatively recent 

vintage: the School Board launched it in 2008 and codified it in 2011. On this

record, we cannot conclude that such banners “long have communicated messages 

from the [government].” Id. at 2248.

The absence of historical evidence weighs in Mech’s favor, but it is not 

decisive. A medium that has long communicated government messages is more 

USCA11 Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 Page: 10 of 18
11

likely to be government speech, see id.; Summum, 555 U.S. at 470, 129 S. Ct. at 

1132–33, but a long historical pedigree is not a prerequisite for government 

speech. For example, in Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association, the Supreme 

Court concluded that a promotional campaign for the beef industry was 

government speech without conducting any historical inquiry or citing any 

historical evidence. See 544 U.S. at 560–67, 125 S. Ct. at 2062–66. According to 

the Court, the promotional campaign—which was written by a nongovernment 

entity—was government speech because “[t]he message . . . is effectively 

controlled by the Federal Government itself.” Id. at 560, 125 S. Ct. at 2062.

Johanns makes clear that a particular medium may be government speech based 

solely on present-day circumstances. For example, if the School Board posted a 

message about school closings for inclement weather on Facebook or Twitter, we 

would have little difficulty classifying the message as government speech, even 

though social media is a relatively new phenomenon. See, e.g., Sutliffe v. Epping 

Sch. Dist., 584 F.3d 314, 331 (1st Cir. 2009) (“[T]he Town engaged in government 

speech by establishing a town website and then selecting which hyperlinks to place 

on its website.”); Page v. Lexington Cty. Sch. Dist. One, 531 F.3d 275, 288 (4th 

Cir. 2008) (school website and email communications were government speech).

The absence of historical evidence can be overcome by other indicia of 

government speech. And, as we explain below, such other indicia are present here.

USCA11 Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 Page: 11 of 18
12

B. Endorsement

The second factor—that observers reasonably believe the government has 

endorsed the message—strongly suggests that the banners are government speech.

The banners are hung on school fences, and government property is “often closely 

identified in the public mind with the government unit that owns the land.”

Summum, 555 U.S. at 472, 129 S. Ct. at 1133; see, e.g., United Veterans Mem’l & 

Patriotic Ass’n v. City of New Rochelle, 72 F. Supp. 3d 468, 474–75 (S.D.N.Y. 

2014) (Gadsden flag at a government armory was government speech), aff’d, No. 

15-120 (2d Cir. Sept. 9, 2015); Am. Atheists, Inc. v. Davenport, 637 F.3d 1095, 

1115–16 & n.8 (10th Cir. 2010) (cross memorials on the side of public highways 

were government speech). Although banners are not “government IDs,” Walker, 

135 S. Ct. at 2249, schools typically do not hang them on school property for long 

periods of time if they contain “message[s] with which the[ schools] do not wish to 

be associated,” id. (first alteration in original) (quoting Summum, 555 U.S. at 471, 

129 S. Ct. at 1133). Moreover, “[t]he governmental nature” of the banners “is clear 

from their faces.” Id. at 2248. Like the word “TEXAS” on the specialty license 

plates in Walker, each banner bears the school’s initials. The banners at the high 

school are printed in school colors, and all of the banners identify the sponsor as a 

“Partner in Excellence” with the school. The word “partner” suggests that the 

sponsor has a close relationship with the school—i.e., that the sponsor is an 

USCA11 Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 Page: 12 of 18
13

“associate” or is “engaged together in the same activity, occupation, etc.” Partner, 

Oxford English Dictionary (online ed.). Indeed, this positive association is likely 

why sponsors participate in the banner program, instead of appealing to parents 

and students through “purely private” media. Walker, 135 S. Ct. at 2249.

Mech contends that the banners for The Happy/Fun Math Tutor are private

speech because they are essentially advertisements; they invite the reader to do 

business with the sponsor, not the school. Mech bolsters his argument by 

identifying other examples of “Partners in Excellence” that provide services totally 

unrelated to the school, such as Maggiano’s Italian restaurant, Atlas Roofing, and 

The Journey Church. The schools must not be speaking on their own behalf, Mech 

reasons, because they neither know nor care whether these miscellaneous 

businesses provide “excellent” services.

Mech misunderstands the nature of the government message conveyed by 

the banners. The banners for “Partners in Excellence” are the schools’ way of 

saying “thank you.” The School Board requires the banners to expressly “thank the 

sponsor.” Sch. Bd. Policies 7.151(3)(e). Indeed, the entire purpose of the banner 

program is for the schools to “visibly recognize” the “business partners” that 

“provide a vital role in sponsorship of key programs.” Id. at 7.151(1). The sponsors

recognized on the banners have “provide[d] adequate funding for an important 

program or activity at the school.” Id. at 7.151(3)(g). To return the favor, the 

USCA11 Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 Page: 13 of 18
14

schools display the sponsor’s information on school property where parents and 

students will see it. Such gestures of gratitude are a common form of government 

speech. See, e.g., Wells v. City & Cty. of Denver, 257 F.3d 1132, 1141–42 (10th 

Cir. 2001) (sign on government property thanking the corporate sponsors of the 

city’s Keep the Lights Foundation was government speech); Knights of the Ku 

Klux Klan v. Curators of the Univ. of Mo., 203 F.3d 1085, 1093 (8th Cir. 2000)

(acknowledgements by a public radio station of the donors that contributed to its 

programming were government speech). The schools in Palm Beach County have

an interest in expressing gratitude to all of their sponsors, regardless of the services 

or the quality of services that they provide. “The fact that the sponsors may receive 

an incidental benefit from the [message]—in the form of publicity and good will—

does not refute . . . the [governmental] purpose. Indeed, any benefit that accrues to 

the sponsors ultimately serves the [government’s] interests by providing current 

and putative sponsors with an incentive to contribute to [government programs] in 

the future.” Wells, 257 F.3d at 1142.

The banners for The Happy/Fun Math Tutor are distinguishable from purely 

private advertising in other ways as well. Private advertisements are typically 

designed by the advertisers: they convey the words, pictures, and colors that the 

advertiser wants to convey. Even when they are located on government property, 

private advertisements typically bear “no indicia that the speech [i]s owned or 

USCA11 Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 Page: 14 of 18
15

conveyed by the government.” Walker, 135 S. Ct. at 2252. The banners on the 

school fences, by contrast, are subject to uniform design requirements imposed by 

the schools. Each banner bears the initials of the school and identifies the sponsor 

as a “partner” with the school. Unlike an advertisement on a city bus, the banners 

are “formally approved by and stamped with the imprimatur of [the schools].” Id.

Observers would reasonably interpret them as “conveying some message on the 

[school’s] behalf.” Id. (quoting Summum, 555 U.S. at 471, 129 S. Ct. at 1133).

That the sponsors “pay annual fees in order to display [the banners]” does not alter 

this conclusion. Id.

Furthermore, the banners for The Happy/Fun Math Tutor are qualitatively 

different from the other banners that Mech identifies. His banners pertain to an 

education-related service—namely, math tutoring. Because schools are experts in 

matters of education, see generally Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 400, 

43 S. Ct. 625, 627 (1923), an observer who saw a banner for tutoring services on 

school property with the imprimatur “[School Initials] Partner in Excellence”

would reasonably conclude that the school was endorsing the services of this tutor.

Indeed, school representatives encouraged Mech to apply for a banner because he 

taught the same math courses that they offered and because “[h]e apparently is a 

very good tutor.” Even if we were to assume that the banners for The Happy/Fun 

Math Tutor are advertisements, observers would view them as governmentUSCA11 Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 Page: 15 of 18
16

sponsored advertisements because tutoring services are related to the schools’ 

educational mission.

Mech further contends that the schools have disclaimed the governmental 

nature of the banners. He points to Policy 7.151 as the source of this supposed 

disclaimer. Mech argues that, according to subsection (1) of the Policy, the banners 

do not “bear[] the imprimatur or endorsement of the School Board.”

But Mech misreads the Policy. Subsection (1) expresses the intent of the 

School Board not to endorse some kinds of messages:

[I]t is not the intent of the School Board to create or open any Palm 

Beach County School District school, school property or facility as a 

public forum for expressive activity, nor is it the intent of the School 

Board to create a venue or forum for the expression of political, 

religious, or controversial subjects which are inconsistent with the 

educational mission of the School Board or which could be perceived 

as bearing the imprimatur or endorsement of the School Board.

Sch. Bd. Policies 7.151(1). Subsection (1) does not say that the banners do not

“bear[] the imprimatur or endorsement of the School Board.” Instead, it says 

because the banners may be perceived as “bearing the imprimatur or endorsement 

of the School Board,” the schools must be able to control the messages that they 

convey. The School Board seeks to avoid “the expression of political, religious, or 

controversial subjects.” Id. This concern is why the School Board requires 

principals to “use their discretion in selecting and approving business partners.” Id.

USCA11 Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 Page: 16 of 18
17

at 7.151(2)(h). Read in context, subsection (1) is not a disclaimer, but a recognition 

that the banners will likely be attributed to the schools.

C. Control

The third factor—the government’s control over the message—strongly 

suggests that the banners are government speech. Like the board that approves 

specialty license plates in Texas, the schools control “the design, typeface, [and] 

color” of the banners. Walker, 135 S. Ct. at 2249. The schools also dictate the 

information that the banners can contain, regulate the size and location of the 

banners, and require the banners to include the message “Partner in Excellence.”

Furthermore, the principals at the schools “must approve every [banner]” before it 

goes up on a fence. Id. “This final approval authority allows [the school] to choose 

how to present itself” to the community. Id. And it ensures that the messages on 

the banners are “effectively controlled” by the schools. Summum, 555 U.S. at 473, 

129 S. Ct. at 1134 (quoting Johanns, 544 U.S. at 560, 125 S. Ct. at 2062).

Mech contends that the schools do not meaningfully control the messages on 

the banners because the bulk of the information—the logo, name, phone number, 

and web address—comes from the sponsor, not the school. But “[t]he fact that 

private parties take part in the design and propagation of a message does not 

extinguish [its] governmental nature.” Walker, 135 S. Ct. at 2251. The monuments 

in Summum and the license plates in Walker were government speech, even though 

USCA11 Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 Page: 17 of 18
18

private entities designed them. See id.; Summum, 555 U.S. at 470–71, 129 S. Ct. at 

1133. Here, the sponsors have even less say-so about the messages on the banners.

The schools do not allow the banners to list anything but the sponsor’s name, 

contact information, and preexisting business logo. “The message set out in [a 

banner] is from beginning to end the message established by the [school].”

Johanns, 544 U.S. at 560, 125 S. Ct. at 2062.

We conclude that the banners for The Happy/Fun Math Tutor are 

government speech. Despite the lack of historical evidence in the record, the 

banners exhibit strong indicia of government endorsement and control.

Accordingly, Mech’s claim under the First Amendment fails. His redress lies with 

the political process, not the courts. See Southworth, 529 U.S. at 235, 120 S. Ct. at

1357.

IV. CONCLUSION

We AFFIRM the judgment against Mech.

USCA11 Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 Page: 18 of 18