T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly12,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT DAWN DI L L ON, P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, v. TW I N PEA KS CH AR TER A C A D E M Y ; and S T . V R A IN VAL L E Y S CH OOL DI S T RI CT NO. R E -1J, D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 1189 ( D. C. No . 9 9 - c v - 2 4 6 2 - J L K)

(D . C o lo .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , BA LD OCK , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l antD aw n D i l l on appea l s fr om t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or der gr ant i ng D efe ndant - A ppel l ee Tw i n Peaks C hart erA cade m y ’ s ( “the A cade m y ”) mo t i o n fo rs u mma r yj u d g me n ta n d i t s r e l a t e d e n tryo f j u d g me n tfo rt h e Ac a d e my and S t . V rai n V al l eyS cho ol D i stri ctN o. R E -1J ( “t he D i stri ct ”) on al l cl ai m s. M s. D i l l on w as form er l ya par apr ofes s i onal att he A cade m y . She fi l ed s ui tunder42 U . S. C . § 1983 as s ert i ng thatD efe ndant s vi ol at ed herr i ght s undert he Fi r s t , Fi fth,T h is c a se is c lo se lyc o n n e c ted w ith th e fa c ts a n d c laim s a risin g in 1 B ram m er-H o elt er v . T w in P ea k s C h arter A ca d em y , N o . 0 6 -11 8 6 , (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ), a c a se b ro u g h t b ysix fo rm e r te a c h e rs o f th e A c a d e m yw h o re sig n e d th e ir pos i t i ons i n M ar ch 1999. T hr oughoutt hi s opi ni on, w e r efe rt o r el evanthol di ngs r eac hed i n t hatcas e. 2 and Four t eenth A m endment s t o the U . S. C ons t i tut i on. H ercl ai m s s t em from t he no n-r enew al of h er em ploym ent r el at i on shi p w i th the A cadem y . S pecifi cal l y , M s. D i l l on al l eged thatD efe ndant s r et al i at ed aga i ns therforexer ci s i ng herfr eedom of s peec h and fr eedom of as s oci at i on r i ght s , i m pos ed an i l l egal pr i orr es tr ai nton her fr eedom of spe ech a nd fr eedom of as s oci at i on, and depr i ved herof pr ocedur al due p ro c e ss in d e ter m in in g n o t to re n e w h e r e m p lo ym e n t an d b yin f rin g in g a lib e rty i nt er es ti n i s s ui ng a per form ance eval uat i on thatadver s el yaffect ed herchanc es forfutur e empl oym ent . She al s o as s er t ed pende ntcl ai m s forbr eac h of contr act a n d e s to p p e l u n d e r C o lo ra d o la w . E x e rc is in g ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1291, w e affi r m i n part , r ever s e i n part , and r emand. Backg r ound 1 T h e A c a d e m yis a K -8 c h a rte r sc h o o l in L o n g m o n t, C o lo ra d o . It i s chart er ed by , and oper at es w i thi n the boundar i es of, t he D i s tr i ct . D r . D or othy M ar l attw as the pr i nci pal of the A cade m yw hen M s . D i l l on w as empl oy ed ther e as a par apr ofes s i onal . T he eve nt s gi vi ng r i s e t o thi s cas e occ urr ed fr om t he fa l l of 1998 t o the s pr i ng of 1999 and ul t i m at el ycul m i nat ed i n M s . D i l l on bei ng non-3

re n e w e d in J u n e 1 9 9 9 . M s . D i l l on began w or ki ng fort he A cade m yas a par apr ofes s i onal i n the fal l of 1997. She had no w r i t t en empl oym entcontr act . H eri ni t i al per form ance e v a lu a tio n s w e re sa tisfa c to ry . D u rin g th e su m m e r o f 1 9 9 8 , M s. D ill o n m e t w ith D r. M arlattto d iscu ss h er d u ti es fo r th e u p co m ing sch o o l y ea r. H er p ri m ary as s i gnm entw as t o w or k i n t he A cade m y ’ s “r es our ce r oom ” w her e s he and a not her p a ra p ro fe ss io n a l w e re to p ro v id e lit e ra c yin stru c tio n , tuto rin g , an d tes tin g a n d to as s i s ti n the pr epar at i on of I ndi vi dual i zed Learni ng Pl ans . D ur i ng thi s m eet i ng, D r. M a rl a tt a ls o w a rn e d M s . D illo n n o t to “ g o s s ip .” B ythe fa l l of 1998, the s i x t eac herpl ai nt i ffs i n B r amm er - H oel t erhad devel oped a numberof conc erns aboutt he oper at i on, m anage m ent , and mi s s i on of the A cade m y . T heybegan t o m eetoff- campus a nd aft erhour s atl ocal restau ran ts, in ea ch o thers’ h o m es, an d in a c h u rch to d iscu ss the se c o n ce rns. In res po nse, D r. M arl at ti ssued a seri es of o rder s di rect i ng t he teachers no tt o d i scuss A cade m ym att er s out s i de of w or k w i th anyper s on, i ncl udi ng eac h other . O ne su c h o rd e r w a s m a d e d u rin g a m a n d a to ryfa c u ltym e e tin g . D r. M a rla tt also to ld the t eac her s s he w oul d pr efe rthatt heynoteven a s s oci at e w i th eac h otherout s i de o f s c h o o l. M s . D i l l on w as a fr i end of the s i x t eac her s and part i ci pat ed i n the offcampus meet i ngs . A l though s he neve rhear d D r . M ar l at t ’ s or der s per s onal l y , one of the s i x t eac her s r el at ed them t o M s . D i l l on. M s . D i l l on cont ends t hatdur i ng4

thos e gather i ngs , s he and the t eac her s di s cus s ed doze ns of t opi cs r angi ng fr om unfai renfor cementof the A cade m y ’ s code of conductt o cr i t i ci s m s of the A cade m y ’ s B oar d of D i r ect or s ( “the B oar d”) . See A pl t . B r . 3- 4. A ta D ece m ber 10, 1998 m eet i ng betw een the B oar d and A cade m yfac ul tyand s t aff, M s . D i l l on compl ai ned that“mi ddl e s chool t eac her s di d nothave a dequat e hel p fr om par apr ofes s i onal s , ” and thatempl oy ees w oul d “fi nd outt hi ngs fr om m emos in s te a d o f

b e in g to ld v e rb a lly.” A p lt. A p p . a t 1 5 2 . D e sp ite D r. M a rla tt’s o rd e rs, M s. D ill o n a n d th e six tea c h e rs c o n tin u e d to m e e t o ff c a m p u s fo r t h e p u rp o s e o f d is c u s s in g v a ri o u s A c a d e m ym a tte rs . E v en tually , the s ix teac h ers rec eive d less fa v o rab le pe rfo rm an ce rev iew s b yD r. M a rl a tt. T h e s ix te a c h e rs e v e n tu a lly su b m itte d re s ig n a tio n s o n M a rc h 1 , 1 9 9 9 . D r. M arl at tthen res i gn ed o n M arch 2, 19 99 . T he B oard sub sequen t l yoffered M s. D i l l on the opportuni tyt o m ove i nt o one of the vac at ed t eac hi ng pos i t i ons , buts he decl i ned the as s i gnm ent . O n A pr i l 15, 1999, t he s i x t eac her s i nform ed the A cadem yof thei r i ntentt o sue, al l eging nu m erous federal and st at e cl ai m s. In M ay1 9 9 9 , Iva n A d am s, the A ca d em y ’s i n teri m ad m inistrator, r ecomm ended t o t he B oar d t hatM s . D i l l on and D avi d H ar dy , t he otherr es our ce room paraprofessi on al , be n on -r enew ed fo r the n ext s cho ol y ear. M r. A dam s al so del i ver ed a w r i t t en eva l uat i on of M s . D i l l on t o the B oar d. M s . D i l l on r ece i ved m edi ocr e r at i ngs i n s ever al cat egor i es . M r . A dams conc l uded hi s eval uat i on by s t at i ng:5

I a m c o n c e rn e d th a t D a w n h a s b e e n v o c a l an d d e m o n stra tiv e a g a in st B oar d pol i ci es , pr act i ces and the ac tual oper at i on of the s chool . She has al s o t aken i s s ue w i th s t aff m eet i ngs t hathas hel ped t o br i ng abouta di vi s i venes s among st aff m ember s . T hes e ac t i ons ar e hurt ful to th e e n v iro n m e n t o f a sc h o o l. Id. at 14 5 . In a n ex ec u ti v e se ssion , the B o ard ac ce p ted M r. A d am s’s r ecomm endat i on and vot ed nott o r enew M s . D i l l on’ s empl oym ent . I n an aff i davi t , B oar d m emberK athySei t z t es t i fi ed thats ever al B oar d m ember s s poke up t o aff

i r m thatM s . D i l l on s houl d be non- r enew ed bec aus e s he had a s s oci at ed w i th the s i x t eac her s and had be en att endi ng the off- campus meet i ngs . I d. at431- 34. In an ev al uati on con ference on June 4 , 19 99 , M r. A dam s i nfo rm ed M s. D i l l on that he r ecom m end ed h er non-renew al . Id. at15 4. A ccordi ng t o M s. D i l l on, M r . A dams t ol d herthathe made the r ecomm endat i on beca us e s he “as s oci at [ed] w i th t he s i x t eac her s w ho had l efti n M ar ch” a nd thats he had a d is ru p tiv e re la tio n s h ip w ith th e o th e r r e s o u rc e ro o m p a ra p ro fe s s io n a l, M r. H a rd y . I d. at387. M s . D i l l on then compl ai ned thathernon- r enew al w as unfai r , and s he demanded an expl anat i on. Shor t l yt her eaf t er , s he gave not i ce of heri nt entt o s ue.

P roce dural H i s t ory M s . D i l l on fi l ed herl aw s ui ton D ece m ber27, 1999. B oth D efe ndant s fi l ed m ot i ons fors um m aryj udgm enton A ugus t31, 2000. O verfi ve y ear s l at er , on M arc h 2 8 , 2 0 0 6 , the d istri ct co u rtissue d a se v en -pa g e o rde r gra n ti n g the s u m m aryT he D i s tr i ctar gued thatM s . D i l l on had fa i l ed t o s how a pol i cyorcus t om 2 on i t s par ts uffi ci entt o cr eat e l i abi l i tyunder§ 1983 and thati thad no contr act w ith M s . D illo n a n d m a d e n o re p re s e n ta tio n s to h e r. S e e A p lt. A p p . a t 4 3 -5 2 . T he di s tr i ctcourtcons i der ed thes e ar gum ent s m ootgi ven thati thad al r eady di s pos ed of M s . D i l l on’ s cl ai m s on t he mer i t s i n gr ant i ng the A cade m y ’ s m ot i on fo r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. 6 j udgm entm ot i on fi l ed bythe A cade m yand di s m i s s i ng the D i s tr i ct ’ s m ot i on as m o o t . S e e D i l l o n v . T w i n P e a k s C h a r t e rA c a d . , N o . C i v . 9 9 - K - 2 4 6 2 , 2 0 0 6 WL

2 827311 ( D . C ol o. M ar . 28, 2006) . A ddr es s i ng the fr eedom of spe ech a nd fr eedom of as s oci at i on r et al i at i on cl ai m s , t he di s tr i ctcourthel d thatt he mat t er s di s cus s ed byM s . D i l l on and the s i x t eac her s w er e notm at t er s of publ i c conc ern and that M s . D i l l on had fa i l ed t o s how an adve r s e empl oym entact i on as a r es ul tof her s peec h oras s oci at i on. I d. at*2- 3. T he di s tr i ctcourtfur therhel d thatM s . D i l l on had no pr ot ect ed pr opertyi nt er es ti n cont i nued empl oym entand s o coul d not su sta in a p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e ss c laim b a se d o n h e r n o n -re n e w a l. Id . at * 3 . W ith r egar d t o herl i bertyi nt er es tcl ai m , t he di s tr i ctcourthel d thatt he A cade m yhad nevereven publ i s hed a fal s e s t at ementaboutM s . D i l l on. I d. R egar di ng her c o n tr a c ta n d p r o mi s s o r ye s t o p p e l c l a i ms , t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r th e l d t h a tt h e c l a i ms fai l ed bec aus e M s . D i l l on w as an at - w i l l empl oy ee w i th no contr actof cont i nued em p loym en t and b ec au se th e A ca d em y ’s i n fo rm al griev an ce p o li cyd id n o t fo rm an ongoi ng empl oym entcontr act . I d. T he di s tr i ctcourtt hen ent er ed j udgm ent fo r b o th D e fe n d a n ts o n a ll c la im s . O n appea l , M s . D i l l on ar gues t hatt he di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n det erm i ni ng7

th a t th e m a tters sh e d isc u ss e d w ith th e tea c h e rs w e re n o t m a tters o f p u b lic c o n c e rn . S h e a l s o a r g u e s th a tth e r e t a l i a t o ryme a s u r e s t a k e n b yt h e Ac a d e my w er e s uffi ci entt o cons t i tut e adve r s e empl oym entact i ons . C ons equent l y , s he ar gues thatboth herfr eedom of spe ech a nd fr eedom of as s oci at i on r et al i at i on cl ai m s s houl d s urvi ve s um m aryj udgm ent . M s . D i l l on fur therar gues t hatt he A ca d em y ’s ac ti o n s co n sti tuted an il lega l pri o r restr aint, w h ich th e d istri ct co u rt i gnor ed. She ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n r ej ect i ng herpr ocedur al due pr oces s cl ai m s beca us e i tw r ongl ydet erm i ned thatcert ai n pr om i s es m ade t o her b yth e A c a d e m yd id n o t cr e a te a p ro tec ted p ro p e rtyin ter e st. A d d iti o n a lly , w ith r egar d t o herl i bertyi nt er es tcl ai m , M s . D i l l on ar gues t hats t at ement s m ade byt he A cade m yi n herper form ance eval uat i on w er e publ i s hed t o the D i s tr i ctand hi nder ed herabi l i tyt o obt ai n futur e empl oym ent . Fi nal l y , s he ar gues t hatt he di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n di s m i s s i ng herpendents t at e l aw cl ai m s beca us e i ti gnor ed evidence o f t he A cadem y ’s cou rs e of d eal i ng and pri or ass urances.

D i s cus s i on I . St andard of R evi ew T hi s courtr evi ew s a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entde novo, appl y i ng t he s ame st andar d as the di s tr i ctcourt . T i m m erm an v. U . S. B ank, 483 F . 3 d 1 1 0 6 , 1 1 1 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). S u m m aryjud g m en t i s p rop er o n lyif th e re co rd s how s “thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatt he movi ng8

p a rt yis e n title d to a ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w .” F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ). Fur therm or e, beca us e thi s cas e i nvol ves t he Fi r s tA m endment , w e have “an o b lig a tio n to m a k e a n in d e p e n d e n t ex a m in a tio n o f th e w h o le r e c o rd in o rd e r to m a k e su re th a t th e ju d g m e n t d o e s n o t co n stitu te a fo rb id d e n in tru sio n o n th e field of fr ee e xpr es s i on. ” C i t i zens forPeace i n Space v. C i tyof C ol o. Spr i ngs , 477 F .3 d 1 2 1 2 , 1 2 1 9 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). I I . Th e F i r s t Ame n d me n t Cl a i ms M s . D i l l on advanc es thr ee di s cr et e cl ai m s undert he Fi r s tA m endment . T he fi r s ti s thats he w as r et al i at ed aga i ns tforexer ci s i ng herfr eedom of spe ech. T he s e c o n d is th a t s h e w a s re ta lia te d a g a in s t fo r e x e rc is in g h e r f re e d o m o f

a s s o c ia tio n . Th e th i r d i s th a tDr . M a r l a t t ’ s b l a n k e tp r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s td i s c u s s i n g Ac a d e my m a tters in p u b lic a n d h e r sta tem e n t to th e six tea c h e rs e n c o u ra g in g th e m n o t to m eett ogetheri n publ i c cons t i tut ed an i l l egal pr i orr es tr ai nton hers peec h and as s oci at i on. T hes e ar e di s t i nctcl ai m s . See Shrum v. C i tyof C ow et a, 449 F. 3d 1132, 1138 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( di s t i ngui s hi ng betw een f r eedom of spe ech a nd fr eedom of as s oci at i on r et al i at i on cl ai m s ) ; M i l w aukee Pol i ce A s s ’ n v. J ones , 192 F. 3d 742, 749- 50 ( 7th C i r . 1999) ( di s t i ngui s hi ng betw een f r eedom of spe ech re ta lia tio n c la im s a n d p ri o r r e s tr a in t c la im s ). A. F r e e d o m o f

S p e e c h Re t a l i a t i o n Cl a i ms T h e d istric t co u rt rejec ted M s. D ill o n ’s f re e d o m o f

sp e e c h re talia tio n c laim on the l egal gr ounds thatthe mat t er s s he and the s i x t eac her s di s cus s ed w er e notM s . D i l l on ar gues thatbeca us e manyof the mat t er s s he di s cus s ed r el at ed 3 t o t eac her s and otherpar apr ofes s i onal s , t he mat t er s nece s s ar i l yext ended be y ond herper s onal conce r ns and cons t i tut ed mat t er s of publ i c conc ern. A pl t . B r . at4- 5; A pl t . R epl yB r . at4- 5. W e di s agr ee. T he fa ctt hatM s . D i l l on w as s uppor t i ve of the t eac her s and otherpar apr ofes s i onal s does notm ean thatherdi s cus s i on regar ding, i nteral i a, the lack of class room supp l i es, i nternal per sonn el dis pu t es, a n d h e r su p e rv iso r’s p e rfo rm a n c e c o n stitu ted d isc u ss io n o n m a tters o f p u b lic conce rn. Fur therm or e, beca us e M s . D i l l on w as effect i vel ya “t eac her ’ s ai de, ” s ee A pl t . B r . at3, heroffi ci al dut i es over l apped s ubs t ant i al l yw i th thos e of the tea c h e rs, re n d e rin g o u r G a rc e tti a n a ly sis in B ra m m e r-H o e lter a p p lica b le to th is cas e. See N o. 06- 1186, at13- 17. 9 m at t ers of p ub l i c con cern and becau se she had no tsuffered an adv ers e em p loym en t acti o n . A s d iscu ssed in B ram m er-H o elt er, w h il e m an yo f th e m att ers di s cus s ed byM s . D i l l on and the s i x t eac her s ei therr el at ed t o thei rempl oym ent du t i es or w ere notm at t ers of p ub l i c con cern, som e of the m at t ers dis cussed p ass 3 th e c o m b in e d G a rc e tti/P ic k e ri n g a n a lysis fo r f re e d o m o f

s p e e c h re ta lia tio n c la im s . N o . 0 6 -11 8 6 , at 13 -21 ; see G arc ett i v. C eb all o s, 1 2 6 S . C t. 1 9 5 1 , 1 9 5 8 (20 0 6 ); P i ckeri ng v. B d. of E du c. , 39 1 U . S . 56 3, 56 8 (196 8). F urtherm ore, i f M s. D i l l on’ s empl oym entw as notr enew ed bec aus e of he rpr ot ect ed s peec h, s uch act i on i s suffi ci ent t o co nst i tute an adv ers e em ploym ent act i on for a F i rs t A m endmentr et al i at i on cl ai m . See M t . H eal thyC i tySch. D i s t . B d. of Educ. v. D oy l e, 429 U . S. 274, 283- 84 ( 1977) ( not i ng thatFi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on cl ai m s do notdepend on a pr oper tyi nt er es ti n cont i nued empl oym ent ) ; Sm i th v. L os ee, 485 F. 2d 334, 340 ( 10th C i r . 1973) ( “I ti s now es t abl i s hed thatt he nonr enew al of a nont enur ed publ i c s chool t eac her ’ s one- y earcontr actm aynotbe10

pr edi cat ed on hi s exer ci s e of Fi r s tand Four t eenth A m endmentr i ght s . ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ) . C ons equent l y , M s . D i l l on’ s fr eedom of spe ech r et al i at i on cl ai m s ur vi ves s um m aryj udgm entt o the s ame ext entas do the t eac her s ’ s i m i l arcl ai m s . See B r amm er - H oel t er , N o. 06- 1186, at25. B . F r e e d o m o f A ss o c ia tio n R e ta lia tio n C la im M s . Di l l o n a l s o r a i s e s a s e p a r a t e f r e e d o m o f

a s s o c i a t i o n r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m, ar gui ng t hats he s uffe r ed an a dver s e empl oym entact i on foras s oci at i ng w i th t he si x teachers . T he d i stri ctcou rti ncluded t his cl ai m i n it s di scussi on of M s. D i l l on’ s fr eedom of spe ech r et al i at i on cl ai m , det erm i ni ng thatthe cl ai m fai l ed b e c a u se sh e w a s n o t as so c iatin g fo r th e p u rp o se o f d isc u ss in g m a tters o f p u b lic conce rn and bec aus e s he di d nots uffe ran adve r s e empl oym entact i on. M s . D i l l on w a s c lea rlya ss o c iatin g fo r th e p u rp o se o f d isc u ss in g so m e m a tters o f p u b lic c o n c e rn . S e e id . at 2 0 -2 1 . F u rth e rm o re , as a lre a d yd isc u ss e d , h e r n o n -re n e w a l is an adve r s e empl oym entact i on s uffi ci entt o s uppor ta Fi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on c laim . A c c o rd in g ly , M s. D ill o n ’s f re e d o m o f

a ss o c iatio n re talia tio n c laim s ur vi ves s um m aryj udgm entt o t he s ame ext entas herfr eedom of spe ech r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m. C . P r io r R e str a in t C la im M s . D i l l on r ai s es a pr i orr es tr ai ntcl ai m t hati s s epar at e and di s t i nctfr om herfr eedom of spe ech a nd fr eedom of as s oci at i on r et al i at i on theor i es . A rndtv. K o b y , 3 0 9 F .3 d 1 2 4 7 , 1 2 5 1 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). “[ U ]n lik e a n a d v e rse a c tio n tak e n in11

re sp o n se to a c tu a l sp e e c h , [a p rio r re stra in t] c h ill s p o ten tial sp e e c h b e fo re it h ap p en s. ” Id . (cit ing U n it ed S tat es v . N at’l T rea s. E m p loy ee s U n ion (“N T E U ”), 513 U . S. 454, 468 ( 1995) ) . T he di s tr i ctcourtfai l ed t o addr es s M s . D i l l on’ s pr i or r es tr ai ntcl ai m i n i t s or der . A ccor di ngl y , w e r emand t hi s m at t ert o the di s tr i ct c o u rt fo r a d e ter m in a tio n u n d e r N T E U a n d o u r re late d p re c e d e n t. II I. T h e P r o c e d u r a l D u e P r o c e ss C la im M s. D i l l on argues t hat the A cadem ydep ri ved her of p rocedu ral du e process byt erm i nat i ng herempl oym entw i thout“j us tcaus e” a nd byfai l i ng t o pr ovi de her w i th a s t at ementof the r eas ons forhert erm i nat i on. “To ass es s w hetheran i ndi vi dual w as deni ed pr ocedur al due pr oces s , court s m us tengage i n a tw o- s t ep i nqui ry : ( 1) di d t he i ndi vi dual pos s es s a pr ot ect ed i nt er es ts uch thatt he due pr oces s pr ot ect i ons w er e appl i cabl e; and, i f s o, t hen ( 2) w as t he i ndi vi dual affor ded an a ppr opr i at e l evel of pr oces s . ” M ont gom eryv. C i tyof A r dm or e, 365 F .3 d 9 2 6 , 9 3 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). “T h e f u n d a m e n tal re q u ire m e n t o f d u e p ro c e ss is the opportuni tyt o be hea r d ata meani ngful t i m e and i n a meani ngful m anner . ” M athew s v. E l dr i dge, 424 U . S. 319, 333 ( 1976) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . Forthi s r eas on, a hea r i ng i s gener al l yr equi r ed befor e a pe r s on m aybe d e p riv e d o f

a p ro tec ted in ter e st. S m ith v . O rg . o f F o ste r F a m ili e s fo r E q u a lity a n d R e fo rm , 4 3 1 U .S . 8 1 6 , 8 4 8 (1 9 7 7 ). W e lo o k to sta te la w to d e ter m in e w h e th e r a p ro p e rtyin ter e st in em p loym en t exists. L igh ton v . U n iv. of U tah, 20 9 F . 3 d 1 2 1 3 , 1 2 2 1 (10 th C ir .12

2000) . Such an i nt er es tcan a r i s e fr om “s t at e s t atut es , r egul at i ons , m uni ci pal or di nance s , uni ver s i tyrul es , and eve n expr es s ori m pl i ed contr act s . ” A ngl emy er v . Ha mi l t o n Co u n tyHo s p . , 5 8 F . 3 d 5 3 3 , 5 3 6 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 1 9 9 5 ) . Ab s e n ts o me sp e c ific e n a c tm e n t to th e c o n tra ry , an “ a t-w ill ” e m p lo y e e h a s n o p ro p e rtyrig h t in cont i nued empl oym entunderC ol or ado l aw . See C ont ’ l A i rL i nes , I nc. v. K eena n, 731 P. 2d 708, 711 ( C ol o. 1987) ; H ol l and v. B d. of C ountyC om m ’ r s , 883 P. 2d 5 0 0 , 5 0 5 (C o lo. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 4 ). A s not ed, M s . D i l l on had no w r i t t en contr actw i th the ac ademy . U nder C ol or ado l aw , s he i s ther efor e pr es um ed t o be an “ at - w i l l ” empl oy ee. See Fr emont R e- 1 Sch. D i s t . v. J acobs , 737 P. 2d 816, 820- 21 ( C ol o. 1987) . I ndeed, the A cade m y ’ s chart ercl ear l ys t at es t hat“al l per s ons w ho per form s ervi ces for the A cade m ys hal l be cons i der ed ‘ at - w i l l ’ empl oy ees orvol unt eer s of the A c a d e m y .” A p lt. A p p . at 1 0 2 . T h e c h a rte r f u rth e r sta tes : “T h e A c a d e m ysh a ll nothave the author i ty , byvi r tue of i t s pol i ci es orpr ocedur es orotheract i on of the A cade m yB oar d, t o change the ‘ at - w i l l ’ natur e of the empl oym ent re la tio n s h ip .” Id . a t 1 0 3 . I n C ol or ado, “a gove r nm entent i ty ’ s pow ert o ent eri nt o contr actual o b lig a tio n s is c irc u m sc rib e d b ysta tu te a n d o rd in a n c e s.” K irk lan d v . S t. V ra in V al l eySch. D i s t . N o. R e- 1J , 464 F. 3d 1182, 1190 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . Such re s tr ic tio n s a re in c o rp o ra te d in to a n yc o n tr a c t th e g o v e rn m e n t e n tity m a k e s . Id . T hus , anypartycontr act i ng w i th a governm entent i tyi s char ged w i th cons truct i ve13

know l edge of

thos e r es tr i ct i ons and ca nnotcl ai m j us t i fi abl e r el i ance on s t at ement s t o t he contr ary . I d. ; s ee a l s o K eel i ng v. C i tyof G r and J unct i on, 689 P .2 d 6 7 9 , 6 8 0 (C o lo . C t. A p p . 1 9 8 4 ) (im p a rtin g c o n stru c tiv e k n o w led g e th a t a cityco u n cil co u ld o n lyac t pu rsua n t t o the a u tho ri tyg ran ted to itb ythe c ity ’s chart er ) . W e have appl i ed thi s rul e i n a ca s e conc erni ng a s chool di s tr i ctpol i cy r equi r i ng s chool boar d appr oval of ce r t ai n expendi tur es . See K i r kl and, 464 F. 3d at1190- 91 ( hol di ng thatthe s chool di s tr i ctcoul d notbe bound byan admi ni s tr at or ’ s pr om i s e t o buy - outan empl oy ee’ s s al ary ) . B eca us e the A c a d e m y ’s c h a rte r c lea rlysta tes th a t th e A c a d e m yc a n n o t alte r th e a t-w ill e m p lo ym e n t re latio n sh ip , M s. D ill o n w a s a n a t-w ill e m p lo y e e a n d c a n n o t cla im j us t i fi abl e r el i ance on pr om i s es oras s ur ance s t o the contr ary . A ccor di ngl y , any p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e s s c la im b a s e d o n h e r n o n -r e n e w a l m u s t fa il. M s . D i l l on al s o cl ai m s thatherpr ocedur al due pr oces s r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed w h e n th e A c a d e m yfa iled to p ro c e ss c e rta in g rie v a n c e s s h e lo d g e d . T h is c laim fa ils b e c a u se th e A c a d e m y ’s g rie v a n c e p o licyitse lf d id n o t cr e a te a p ro p e rty i nt er es t . See W el l s v. H i co I ndep. Sch. D i s t . , 736 F. 2d 243, 254 ( 5th C i r . 1984) (not i ng that a general gri evan ce po l i cydo es not cr eat e a prop ertyi nter estbecau se i t“al l ow s a means forempl oy ees . . . t o voi ce thei rcompl ai nt s [but ] s ay s nothi ng a b o u t e ith e r d is c h a rg e o r n o n re n e w a l . . .” ). F i n a l l y , M s . Di l l o n c l a i ms t h a th e rr i g h t s we r e v i o l a t e d wh e n M r . Ad a ms w r ot e i n herper form ance eval uat i on thats he w as “voca l and demonstr at i ve14

agai ns tB oar d pol i ci es , pr act i ces , and the ac tual oper at i ons of the School . . . [and th a t h e r a c tio n s w e re ] h u rt f u l to th e e n v ir o n m e n t o f a s c h o o l.” A p lt. A p p . a t 4 0 9 . She ar gues thatthes e s t at ement s s t i gm at i zed he rand pr event ed herfr om obt ai ni ng f u tu re e m p lo ym e n t w ith th e D istric t. T h u s, sh e c laim s th e sta tem e n ts a m o u n ted to a depr i vat i on of a pr ot ect ed l i bertyi nt er es ti n futur e empl oym entw i thout proced ural du e process. “[W ] hen a publ i c empl oy ert akes act i on t o t erm i nat e an e m pl oy ee ba s ed upon a publ i c s t at ementof unfounde d char ges of di s hones tyori m m or al i tyt hat m ig h t se rio u slyd a m a g e th e e m p lo y e e ’s s tan d in g o r a ss o c iatio n s in th e c o m m u n ity and for ecl os e the empl oy ee’ s fr eedom t o t ake a dvant age of futur e empl oym ent o p p o rt u n itie s , a c la im fo r r e lie f is c re a te d .” W a ts o n v . U n iv . o f U ta h M e d . C tr ., 75 F . 3d 56 9, 57 8 (10th C i r. 19 96 ). T o b e act i on able, such a st at em ent m ust “i m pugn t he good name, r eput at i on, honor , ori nt egr i tyof the empl oy ee. ” I d. at 579. T he s t at ementm us tal s o be fa l s e and “ occuri n the cour s e of t erm i nat i ng t he empl oy ee orm us tfor ecl os e otherempl oym entoppor tuni t i es . ” I d. Fi nal l y , t he s t at ementm us tbe publ i s hed. I d. T he di s tr i ctcourtdet erm i ned thatM s . D i l l on had fa i l ed t o s how t he s t at ement s w r i t t en byM r . A dams w er e made publ i c. See B i s hop v. W ood, 426 U .S . 3 4 1 , 3 4 8 (1 9 7 6 ). S h e a rg u e s th a t b e c a u se M r. A d a m s w ro te th e sta tem e n ts on a St . V r ai n V al l eySchool D i s tr i ctE val uat i on R eportfor S e c r e t a r i e s / Cl e r k s / M e d i a Te c h n i c i a n s / Ai d s , i ti s s e l f- e v i d e n tt h a tM r . Ad a ms15

pu bli shed the st at em ents t o the D i stri ct . W e agree w i th the di stri ctcou rt . M s. D i l l on pr es ent ed no evi dence thatM r . A dams, t he B oar d, oranyotherempl oy ee of the A cade m ycomm uni cat ed the r eas ons forhernon- r enew al t o any one, m uch l es s the D i s tr i ct . She pr es ent ed no evi dence t hatM r . A dams s ubm i t t ed the eval uat i on t o t he D i s tr i ctorany one w or ki ng ther e. B eca us e M s . D i l l on has fai l ed to sh o w an yev iden ce o f p u b li ca ti o n , h er li b ertyinterest claim b ase d o n M r. A dam s’ s st at em ents fai l s. I V. Br e a c h o f

Co n t r a c t a n d Es t o p p e l Cl a i ms M s. D il lon p rem ises h er b rea ch o f c o n tr ac t cl aim o n the A ca d em y ’s s uppos ed fa i l ur e t o fol l ow i t s i nt ernal gr i evanc e pol i cy . Speci fi cal l y , s he ar gues thatthe A cade m yw as r equi r ed t o pr oces s and r es pond t o anygr i evanc e or c o n c e rn , w ritten o r o ra l, by a “ su p e r-m ajo rityo f a t lea st fiv e m e m b e rs.” A p lt. A pp. at396. O n t he days he w as i nform ed of he rnon- r enew al , M s . D i l l on compl ai ned or al l yt o M r . A dams and then compl ai ned t o the B oar d. B eca us e the Bo a r d n e v e rr e s p o n d e d t o th i s “ g r i e v a n c e , ” a r g u e s M s . Di l l o n , t h e Ac a d e my b re a c h e d a c o n tr a c t w ith h e r. A s pr evi ous l ynot ed, M s . D i l l on w as an at - w i l l empl oy ee unde rC ol or ado l aw . So faras contr actl aw i s conce rned, t he A cade m yw as fr ee t o t erm i nat e her empl oym entatanyt i m e foranyr eas on. C ons equent l y , t he B oar d w as not o b l i g a t e d t o e x p l a i n th e r e a s o n fo ri t s d e c i s i o n n o tt o r e n e w he re mpl o yme n t . To h o ld o th e rw is e w o u ld c o n flic t w ith th e a t- w ill n a tu re o f M s . D illo n ’s e m p lo ym e n t.16

M s . D i l l on pr emi s es heres t oppel cl ai m on the fa ctt hats he voi ced c oncerns ata B oar d m eet i ng bas ed upon an e xpr es s pr om i s e thats he w oul d notbe r et al i at ed aga i ns tfordoi ng s o, butt hats he w as r et al i at ed aga i ns tanyw ay . I d. at 3 8 3 -8 4 . S h e d e v o tes o n lytw o se n ten c e s o f a rg u m e n t in h e r a p p e llate b rie f to th is is s u e , w ith n o c ita tio n to a u th o ri ty w h a ts o e v e r. S e e A p lt. B r. a t 5 3 . C ons equent l y , w e dee m the cl ai m w ai ved. G arr et tv. Sel byC onnorM addux & Jan er, 42 5 F . 3 d 8 3 6 , 8 4 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). V . T he A cadem y ’ s L i abi l i t y B as ed on P ol i cy or C ust om T he A cade m yar gued bel ow t hati ts houl d notbe l i abl e under§ 1983 beca us e ther e w as no i ns t i tut i onal pol i cyorcus t om depr i vi ng M s . D i l l on of her r i ght s . See M onel l v. D ep’ tof Soc. Ser vs . , 436 U . S. 658, 694 ( 1978) . I ti s t rue th a t § 1 9 8 3 lia b ility fo r a n e n tity c a n n o t b e p re d ic a te d o n re s p o n d e a t s u p e ri o r. S ee C ityo f C an ton v . H arris, 4 8 9 U . S . 3 7 8 , 3 8 5 (19 8 9 ). Instea d , itis ne ce ssary t o s how a di r ectcaus al l i nk betw een the ac t s of the ent i tyand the al l eged cons t i tut i onal depr i vat i ons . W ar e v. U ni fi ed Sch. D i s t . N o. 492, 881 F. 2d 906, 912- 13 ( 10th C i r . 1989) . U nderappr opr i at e ci r cumst ance s , a s i ngl e dec i s i on by p o licy m a k e rs c a n b e su fficie n t to c re a te lia b ili tyu n d e r § 1 9 8 3 . P e m b a u r v . C ity of C i nci nnat i , 475 U . S. 469, 480 ( 1986) . I n i t s or der , t he di s tr i ctcourtnever addr es s ed the A cade m y ’ s ar gum entr egar di ng the l ack of a pol i cyorcus t om , and the A cade m yi s fr ee t o r eas s erti ton r emand.17

V I . The D i s t r i c t ’ s M ot i on for Sum m ar y Judgment T he di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed the D i s tr i ct ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entas mo o tb a s e d o n i t s d e t e r mi n a t i o n th a tM s . Di l l o n ’ s c l a i ms fa i l e d o n t h e me r i t s . As w e have deci ded otherw i s e, the D i s tr i cti s fr ee t o r eas s er tt hi s m ot i on on r emand. W e A FFIRM the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enton the p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e ss , co n tra c t, an d e sto p p e l cla im s. W e R E V E R S E in p a rt its gr antof s um m aryj udgm enton the fr eedom of spe ech a nd fr eedom of as s oci at i on r et al i at i on cl ai m s . W e R E M A N D t he pr i orr es tr ai ntcl ai m forfur therpr ocee di ngs con si st ent w i th thi s opini on . O n rem and , D efen dan t s ar e free t o asser tt ho se defe ns es notaddr es s ed bythe di s tr i ctcourti n i t s or deras w el l as anyaddi t i onal d e fe n se s th a t m a ye x ist.

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

P au l J. K ell y , Jr. C i r cui tJ udge