## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 12

- 1755 S EA N G S CHWI ND , Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. L I NDA H EI DEN , e tal ., D efend a nts-A pp ellees
.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, We stern Div isi on. No . 08 C50035

—Philip G. Re inha rd, Judge .
A RG UE D A UGUS T 7, 2012

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 31, 2012

Befo re P OSNER, T INDER, an d H A MI L T ON, Circ uit Ju dg es . P OS NER, C i r cu i tJudg e . T he p l a i nt i fft a ughts i xth- g r a de m at h ata p u b lic s c h oo l in H ar va rd , I llin ois , a sm all town
. He wa s f o r c e d t o r e s i g n a ft e r he c o mpl a i ned to sc h oo l adm i ni str ato rs and the pol i ce about a threa t t o h im m ad e b y on e o f h is s tu d en ts . H e c laim s in th is c ivil r i g ht s su i t ag ains t th e sc ho o l ’ s p r i nc i pala nd a ss i st an t pri nci pal and a gainst the schoo l dist ri ct that his fo rce d re si gnati on w as i n re tal i ati on f or hi s exer ci sing h is2 N o. 12

- 1755 First A m en d m en t ri gh t of free spee ch
. Th e d istri ct cou rt gr anted sum m ary j ud gm ent forthe defe nd ants on th e g r o und tha t the pl aint i ff’ s co m pl aintabo utb eing th r eaten ed was no t pr o te ct ed bythe F i r stAm en dm en t be ca us e i t di d no t i nv o l ve a matt ero fpub l i c co nc ern. The b as i c f ac ts a re n o t i n di spu te
. Be f o r e th e stude nt thre ate ned him , the pla i nti ffhad m et w ith the pare nts about a threa t the stud ent had m ade to ano therstud ent. Laterthe pla i nti ffhad see n the student be at up ano th er student i n the hal l w ay of the schoo l, and a gain h e m et w i th the stud ent’ s par ents. The stud en t’s father used that occa si on t o thre ate n the pla i nti ffwith a cl ass - acti on l aws ui t an d to te l l hi m tha t th e f athe r ’ s o l ders o n, who had assa ult ed the ass i sta n t p rinci pal, sho uld have as s a ul t e d the p l a i nt i ffi ns t e a d. S ev er a l d a y s l a t e r th e p l a i n t i ffh a p p e n e d t o c a l l o n t he student in cl ass to per f or m the student’ s “ m ath kar aok e”

— th e pl aint i ffha d g i ve n th e s tu den ts a n a ss i g nm ent t o cre ate a so ng the l yr i cs o fwh i ch w oul d rel ate to so m ethi ngthe y ’ d l ea r ne d i n the cla ss . The s tu den t’ s so ng add ed “Ist abbe d G schw i nd ” t o the lyr i cs o fthe Gangsta Rap song “Boyz i n da hoo d, ” ww w . youtube. com /watch?v= fGe N D nY cQ O A ( visit e d A ug . 28, 2012 ). Th e plaintiff w as disturbed and st op p ed the cl ass . The stud ent was 12 or13
. The p l a i n t i ffs p o k e t o th e s c h o o l ’ s p o l i c e l i a i s o n a nd to the princ ip a l an d the ass istant princ ipal ( th e latter, r emember, ha d b ee n the v i ct im of th e as sa ul t bythe s tu
dent’s bro ther )
. The pla i nti ff tal ked of fi l in g a cr i m i nal co m p l a i n t, a n d l a t e r d i d
. He a c k n o wl e d g e s h a v i ngN o. 12

- 1755 3 been afra i d fo r hi s s afety, bu t h e e xplai ned i n an affi davi t in thi s l i ti gat i on that hi s fear“co

- exi ste d w i th a d e s i r e t o r e p o r t t h e s i n g i n go fth e s o n ga s a c r i me that had been com m i tte d, to hel p ensure the sm oo th an d saf e oper ati on of the schoo l and e ver yone i nsi de
. . . . The po i nto fs i g ni ngthe di so r der l y c o nduc t co m pl aint w as to bring to the pu bl i c l i ght the f act th at such an in c id en t h ad oc c u rre d .” H e t es tifie d sim ilar ly in h is dep os itio n: “a s f aras i t [ the c om pla i nt] being a m att er ofp ub l i c c o nc e r n, i ti nv o l v e d d i s o r de r l y c o nd uc tthat occur re d i n the cl as sr oom . That di sor derl y c onduct h ad to d o w ith p u b lic s afe ty iss u es .” The p olic e l i ai son encour age d him to fi l e the cr i m i nal com pla i nt, poi nti ng o ut thatI l l i n ois l aw decl ar es a knowing thre at of viol ence aga i nst a per son at a s chool to be a form of d isorderly con d uc t, 720 ILC S 5/26-1(a) (13), an d t el l i nghi m tha t “the c i tyfee l s i t’ s i m po r tant th at th is s tu d en t g o in fron t o f a j u d g e a n d ex p lain h is acti o ns . ” T he p r i nc i pa l a nd a s s i s t a ntp r i nc i pa l we r e n ot supp or ti ve, howe ve r, fear i ng tha t the par ents w oul d sue. N ev e r t h ele ss th e p lain tiff s ign ed th e c om p lain t (t h is wa s thr e e we e k s a ft e r the s i ng i ngo f“ Is t a b b e d G s c hwi nd ” i n hi s cl ass ) and the student was char ged with disor derl y c onduct; we have no t be en t old the outco m e. The schoo l i ni ti al l y s uspend ed hi m f orthr ee days but the n re du ced the suspensi on t o tw o. T h e d a y a ft e r th e p l a i n t i ffs i g n e d th e c r i mi n a l c o mp lain t, th e a ss ist an t p rin c ip al ou t o fth e b lu e g av e h im an“ uns at i sf ac to r y ” ev al ua ti o n; hi s pr ev i o us e va l uatio ns had al l bee n “sa ti sf acto ry ” a nd h e h ad notbee n w ar ned4 N o. 12

- 1755 of p ro b lem s t h at m igh t re su lt ina 18 0 d eg re e c h an ge in h is eval uati on. The o ste nsibl e ba si s o fthe new eval uati on w as “l ack ofi nter pers on al s ki l l s in re l ati ng to stud ents, parents , and col l eagues. ” A j ury could e asi l y fi nd that th e r ea l r ea so n was the thr ea t of l i ti g at i o n b y the stu d en t’s bell igerent fath er. T h e d e fe n d a n t s a d mi t t e d i n th e i r a n s we r t o th e p l a i nti ff’ s co m pla i nt thattheyhad “i nfo rm ed Pl ai nt iff that th ey ha d both com e to the con clusion that Pla in t iff’ s empl o y m en t w ith th e S ch o o l Di st r i cts ho ul d no t co ntin u e b ey on d th e e n d of th e s c h oo l yea r an d th at, i f Pl aint i ffdi d no t r es i g n h i s teac hi ngpo si ti o n b efo r e th e next Boar d ofEd u c atio n m eet i ng, Princi pal H ei den w ou ld r ec o m m en d t o the Bo ar d o fEduc at i o n tha t Pl aintiff’s te ac h in g c on tr ac t n otbe ren ew ed for t h e fo ll owing yea r. ” S i nce, as we’l l se e, the b oar d’s pol i cy w as to rubbe r sta m p perso nnel deci si ons by the s chool dist ri ct’ s s up er i ntendent, wh o i n turn ru b b er st am ped per so nne l de ci si o ns b y pr i nc i pal s, i t i s appa r en t tha t th e pla i nti ff w as bein g fired

— as he put i t in hi s co m pla i nt, bei ng “c om p elled to re si gn. ” The defendants do no t d en y t h at h e w as co n st ru c tiv el y d isc h ar ge d . See , e.g., Kodish v. O ak br o o k Ter raceFire P rote cti on D is tr ict, 60 4 F.3 d 49 0, 50 2 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); F is ch er v. Ava nade, Inc. , 519 F.3d 393, 409 (7th Cir. 2008). B u t t h e y a rg u e t h at ev en if th ey fired th e p lain tiff in r et al i at i o n f or hi s co m pl aini ngt o the m abo utthe s t u d e n ta n d p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r h i s fi l i n gth e c r i mi n a l c o mp lain t, th e c om p lain in g a n d th e filin g w er e p u re ly perso nal act s o n hi s par t a nd thus no t th e e xerci se ofN o. 12

- 1755 5 h is rig h t o f free sp ee c h
. H ous ki ns v. Sh e ahan , 54 9 F
. 3d 4 8 0 , 4 9 0

- 9 2 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 )
. T h e d i s t r i c tj u d g e a g r e e d, s a y i n gth a t“ th e u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s o v e r wh e l mi n g l y d e mon st ra te th at p lain tiff s ign ed th e c om p lain t p u re ly as a m att ero fpri vate i nter est
. . . as a perceived vi ct i m o fa cr i me a n d o u to fc o n c e r n f o r h i s o wn p er so n al s afe ty .” V iole n c e in sc h oo ls is a su bj ec t in w h ich t h e p u b lic th es e days i s hi ghl y inter est ed, with the added tw i st in thi s ca se, wh i ch w oul d am pli fy the publ i c’ s inter est, that the f athero fthe s tu d ent who m ade the thre at ap p ears to ha ve e n d orsed i t. N everth eless the plaintiff i n fi l i ngthe c r i m i na l c o m pl aintmightha ve ha d no i nt e r e s ti n mak i nga p ub l i c s t a t e men tab o uts c ho o l v i ol ence, bu t h av e o nl y wanted to deterfurtherthr eat s aga i nst hi m sel f
. H oweve r, in sa yi ng tha t the undisput ed fa ct s “o ve r whel m i ng l y de m o ns tr at e[ d] ” th atthe latter w as th e correct interp retation oft h e plaintiff’s re action to “Ist abbed Gschw i nd , ” the di str i ct j ud ge ove rloo ked the st ate m ent in the pla i nti ff’ s a ffi davi t that h e h ad filed th e c rim in al c om p lain t in p ar t “ to h elp ensure the sm oo th and s afe oper ati on ofth e s c hool and everyo n e i nsi de” and, m or e i m port ant t o a fre espeech cl ai m , “t o bring to the pu bl i c l i gh t the f act that su c h an inc id en t h ad oc c u rre d .” A s p oin te d ou t in G aza rkie w ic z v. Tow n of Kingsfor d Heights , 35 9 F
. 3d 933, 942 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) , “s peech o fpubli c i m port ance i s onl y t r a ns f o r med i nt o a ma t t e r o fp r i v a t e c o nc e r n when i ti s mo t i v a t e d sole lyby the sp eaker’s p erson al int erests” ( em p ha sis in origi na l)
.6 N o. 12

- 1755 T he de fend an ts state i n th eir brief th at th e plaintiff’s “co ntenti on that he si gned the j uveni l e co m plai nt for diso rder l y c on du ct t o bring to the pu bl i c l i ght the f act that such an inci dent had occur re d i n hi s cl ass ro om i s b e lied by th e fa c t t h at u n d er th e Illino is Ju ve n ile C ou rt A ct, both law enforcem en t record s and cou rt r ec o r ds r el at i ngt o j uv en i l es a r e de emed t o b e co nfi denti aland cannot be i n sp ecte d, unle ss by or der o f c ou rtor b y s tr i c t e x c ep tio n s s et fort h in t h e Ju ve n ile Court A ct. M em b ers o fthe pu bl i c have no unfet ter ed right of acc ess to j uv en il e cou rt record s” (record reference and ci tat i on o m itt ed )
. I t i s t rue that the r e co r ds are sealed , 705 I L C S 405/1-7, -8 , b ut that doe sn ’t prec lu d e the vi cti m o fa j uveni l e cr i m e, o r anyo ne el se f o r tha t m at te r ( us j udg es f or e xa m pl e) , fr o m t al k i ng a b o utthe c r i me, wh e the r p r i v a t e l y o r i n pu b l i c . I nd e e d, w e know fro m the Pentagon P ap ers ca se ( N ew Yo rk Tim es C o . v. U nited Sta tes , 40 3 U.S
. 71 3 ( 1971) ) , and fro m m an y c a se s s in c e, th at oft en th e F irs t A m en d m en t is hel d t o prot ect a disc l osur e of sta te secr ets th at vi ol ate s s t a t e l aw

— not to m enti on o bnoxi ous invasi ons of per so na l pr i va cy, a s i n Co x Bro a d c a s t i n gC o rp . v . Cohn , 420 U
. S. 469 (1975), w hich i nv olved a radio station’s vi ol ati on o fa sta te l aw l i m i tin g pu bl i c di scl osur e o f the nam es ofr ape vi cti m s. ( Se e the di scussi on o fth at a n d r e l a t e d c a s e s i n H a ynes v. Al f r e d A. Knopf

, Inc ., 8 F
. 3d 12 22 , 1 22 9- 32 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 3)
. ) And certa i nl y the i nci dent gi vi ng r i se to the a ccusati on

— “Ist abbed Gs c hwi nd ”

— coul d not be si l enced consi ste ntl y with the F i r s t Am e nd men t
. I t ha s i n f a c t b e e n r e po r t e d, se e Davi d L. H ud son Jr. , “F i re d M ath Tea cher ’ s Ret al i ati onN o. 12

- 1755 7 C lai m N ixed ” (Fi rst A m en d m en t C en ter, O ct. 27, 2011), w w w . f i rs tam endm en tc en te r.or g/ fire d -m at h -te acher sre tal i ati on-cl ai m - ni xed (v i si ted A ug. 15 , 20 12) , and of c ou rs e is be in g re p or te d in t h is op in io n . A n d fina lly th e j uv en i l e cr i m i na l s ec r ec y l aw i s so r i ddl ed w i the xce ptions

— f orpol i ce, pro secuto rs , j ud ges , so ci alworke rs , a n d o th e r o ffi c i a l s , s e e 70 5 I L C S 4 0 5 / 1

- 7 ( A) , - 8 ( A)

— that the r e wa s a c t ua l l y a r a the r siz a b l e p ub l i c f o r the r e c o r ds ofthe cri m i nal pro ceedi ng witho ut any re port i ng by the m edi a. W e ar e m i ndful

— have i nd eed em p hasi zed

— that academ i c adm i ni str ato rs ar e e nti tl ed, i n the nam e o f academ i c fre edom and effi ci ent e du cati onaladm i ni str atio n , t o a co n sid er ab le d eg re e o f j u d icia l forb ea ra n c e in m at te rs of d isc ip lin e. Se e, e.g ., Bran dtv. B o a rd o fEduc at i on of

Ci ty of Chi cago , 480 F.3d 4 6 0 , 4 6 7 ( 7th Cir. 2007 )
. Real i sti cal l y they c an ’ t be i nd i ffer ent t o parenta l pressure and to the threa ts and the ac tual i ty ofsui ts en gen d ered by i nd ignan t (t hou gh biased and often overpr o te ct i ve a nd do wnri g htunr ea so nabl e) pa r en ts
. But I l l i noi s l aw has curta i l ed that disc re ti on i n re spects di r ec tly r el ev an t to thi s ca se b y r equi r i ngtha t an y i nci dent of batt er y o r i nti m i dati on ( w hi ch i ncl ud es th re ats , se e 7 20 I LC S 5/ 12- 6( a) ( 1) ) i n a s choolbe re port ed i m m edi ate l y t o l aw enf or cem ent a uthor i ti es. 105 I LC S 5/ 10- 21. 7, 5/34- 84a. 1. There has been no s ugges ti on that s uch re gul ati ons i nfr i nge a cadem i c fre edom prot ecte d by the Fi rs t Am endm ent. So sum m ar y j ud gm en t shoul d not hav e be en gr anted o n t h e g r o u n d th a tth e p l a i n t i ff’ s c r i mi n a l c o mpl a i nt8 N o. 12

- 1755

w as a m att ero fpurel y priva te co ncer n. But w e m ust al so consi der the l i abi l i ty ofthe parti cul ardefendants shoul d the pl ai nti ffsucce ed o n r em and i n prov i ng a vi o l at i o n o fhi s r i g hto ffr ee s pee ch
. T h e p rin c ip les on w h ich th is s u it is b as ed are w ell set tl ed, w hi c h de fe a t s the i nd i v i du a lde fe ndants’ c l a i m o fqu a l i fi e d i mmun i t y . T h e s c h o o l di s t r i c t, h o weve r, cannotbe hel d l i abl e forthe tor ti ous c on d u c t of th e pr i nc i pala nd a ss i st an t pr i nc i palunde r the do ct rin e ofr espondeat superi or . I t ca n be hel d l i abl e o n l y fori ts ow n co n d u c t o r th at of its h igh es t o fficia l or offic ials c h ar ge d w ith re sp on sib ility for m ak in g th e kin d o fd ec isio n, in th is c as e a te rm in at ion o fe m p loy m en t, th at is chal l enged. I n I l l i noi s th e schoolbo ar d i s the ul ti m ate pol i cym aking bo dy w i th r ega rd to per sonneldeci si ons. 10 5 I LCS 5/ 10-20, 2 0. 7. The s ch o o l di st r i ct ’ s su per i ntendent, although the h i ghestoffi ci alo fthe schoo l di str i ct, i s no t a m embe r o fthe b o ar d a nd do es no t ha ve the ult i m ate r esponsibi l i ty f orsuch deci si ons. 10 5 IL C S 5/ 10- 16 .7, -21 .4; Thor nt on Frac t i onal H igh Scho ol D i s t r i ctNo. 21 5 v. Illin o is E du ca tio na l La bo r R ela tio ns B o a rd, 9 3 6 N. E. 2d 11 88 , 119 6 (Ill. A p p . 201 0); D uda v. B oar d of Educ at i on of Frank lin P ark Pub l i c Sc hool D i s t r i ctNo. 84 , 13 3 F
. 3d 1054 , 1061 (7th Cir. 1998). T he sup erinten d en t au th orized th e princ ipal to fire Gsch w i nd, a nd the b o ar d a ppr o ve d tha t dec i si o n. W he n Gsc hwi nd co m pl aine d to th e s upe r i nt en den t aboutthe de ci si o n o fthe pr i nc i pala nd a ss i st an t pr i nc i p a l t o f o r c e h i m t o r e s i g n, th e s u p e r i n t e n d e nt r epl i ed th at“ i t was the po l i cyo fthe s ch o o l di st r i cta ndN o. 12

- 1755 9 th e Bo ar d o fEduc at i o n t o a l l o w pri nc ipals an d a ss i st an t p rin c ip als to m ak e e va lu at ion an d em p loy m en t d ec isi ons as they s ee fi t with re spect to the t eacher s they supervi se and fo r the s chooldi strict a n d the Boar d of Ed ucati on t o f ol l ow these deci sio n s a nd r eco m m endati ons. ” Thi s was ev i dence ofa pol i cy ofthe schoo l dist ri ct o fco nd on i ng unconst i tuti onalte rm i nati ons, si nce princi pal s a nd as si sta nt principal s m i ght “ see fi t” to fi re te acher s o n unconsti tuti onalgro u nd s. S ee C ornfi el d by Le w is v. Co nsoli dated H ig h S chool D is tr ict N o. 23 0 , 991 F.2d 13 16 , 13 2 5

- 2 6 (7t h C ir. 19 93 ); M o rtim er v. B aca , 594 F.3d 714 , 716 (9th C ir. 2010). Aft er th e ho l di ng i n Wa l-M a rt Sto res, Inc . v. D uk es , 13 1 S
. Ct. 2 54 1 ( 20 11 ) , tha t ane m pl o y er’ s po l i cyo fg r an ting its su p er vis or s d isc re tio n to m ak e p er so n n e l d ec isi o ns c an ’ t be th e su bj ec t o fa c l as s ac ti o n a g ains t th e em ployer b y e m plo yee s co m pla i ni ng o fdi scr i m i nati on by the supervi sor s, i t i s eas y to j um p to the concl usi on that such a pol i cy cannot be the bas i s o fan ind i vi du al (as distin c t f r om class action) suit agains t the em p loyer, ei ther
. Easy, bu t w ro n g. Wal-M art d isti ngui shes between the lac k o f“co m m onal i ty” am ong the c l ass m em ber s when m ult i ple superv i sor s m ade the em plo ym en t dec i si o ns o fwhi chthe class i s co m pl aini ng

— c o mm on alitybeing a prer equi si te f ora cl ass act i on

— a n d the possibi l i ty “that‘ i n appropri ate cas es, ’ gi ving di scr eti on to low er -lev el s u p er vis or s c an be t h e b as is of T itle V II l i abi l i ty
. . . since ‘a n e m plo yer ’ s undis ci plined syst em o f su bj ec ti ve de ci si o nm ak i ng[ ca n h av e] pr ec i se l y the sa m e e ffec ts as a sy st em p er va d ed by im p er m iss ible i ntenti onaldi scr i m i nati on, ’ ” id. at 2554, quoti ng Wat s on10 N o. 12

- 1755 v. Fo rt Wo rth B a nk& Trust, 487 U
. S. 977, 990-91 (1988 ). Or a s we puti t i n Bol de n v. Wal s h Con s t r u c t i on Co
. , N o. 12

- 2205 , 2012 W L 31945 9 3 , a t * 3 ( 7th Cir. A ug . 8, 2012), “whe n mul t i pl e ma na g e r s e xe r c i s e i nd e pe nd e ntdi s c re ti on, c on d iti ons at differ ent s tor es ( orsi tes ) do not prese nt a com m on quest i on. ” F orsur e that i s not thi s ca se. The sui t was te rm i nated pre m atur el y. R EV ER S ED AN D R EMAND ED .

8- 31- 12