2009 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-29-2009

Ronald Isler v. Sch Dist Keystone

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 08-3853

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Ronald Isler v. Sch Dist Keystone" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1281.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1281
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-3853

___________

RONALD ISLER, 

 Appellant

v.

KEYSTONE SCHOOL DISTRICT; JEAN A. GOOL, Individually and in her official

capacity as Superintendent of the Keystone School District; JOHN R. SLAGLE,

Individually and in his capacity as President of the Keystone School District Board of

Education; TERRI KAHLE, Individually and in her official capacity as Vice-President of

the Keystone School District Board of Education; GREGORY A. BARRETT,

Individually and in his official capacity as a member of the Keystone School District

Board of Education; JAMES A. BEARY, Individually and in his official capacity as a

member of the Keystone School District Board of Education; R. JEFFREY KLINE,

Individually and in his official capacity as a member of the Keystone School District

Board of Education; THOMAS MCCOY, Individually and in his official capacity as a

member of the Keystone School District Board of Education; MARILYN STEMPECK,

Individually and in her official capacity as a member of the Keystone School District

Board of Education; KENNETH SWARTFAGER, Individually and in his official

capacity as a member of the Keystone School District Board of Education; VERNON

LAUFFER, Individually and in his official capacity 

as Business Manager of the Keystone School District

___________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-01335)

District Judge: The Honorable Arthur J. Schwab

___________
The District Court also dismissed without prejudice the remaining claim brought 1.

under the Pennsylvania Whistle-Blower Act. Isler did not appeal that claim. 

2

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

May 21, 2009

Before: FUENTES, JORDAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: May 29, 2009)

___________

OPINION OF THE COURT

___________

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

Because our opinion is wholly without precedential value, and because the parties

and the District Court are familiar with its operative facts, we offer only an abbreviated

recitation to explain why we will affirm the order of the District Court.

Ronald Isler appeals the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of

Keystone School District et al. on his claims that the School District violated the First

Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. Isler 1

complained that the School District’s refusal to renew his bus driver contract was

retaliation for his advocacy on behalf of a student with disabilities. We disagree.
3

I.

 Isler’s First Amendment, ADA and Rehabilitation Act retaliation claims rest

solely on his assertion that the School District did not renew his contract because he

approached the School District to “advocate” for a student with special needs who rode

on his bus. There is agreement that Isler contacted some School District officials late in

February 2007 about the student’s conduct on the bus. Isler attempts to characterize these

communications as “advocacy.” Yet, we agree with the District Court that, whatever label

Isler ascribes to his words, objectively, he did not engage in protected speech. 

Isler had an affirmative, contractual duty to report to the School District any

student incidents that occurred on his bus. Where, as here, an employee speaks in a way

that is wholly within the scope of his employment and responsibilities, such speech is not

protected from disciplinary actions under the First Amendment. Therefore, we will

affirm summary judgment in favor of the School District et al. on Isler’s First

Amendment claim.

II.

With regard to Isler’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act retaliation claims, we do not

find any evidence of protected activity by Isler. As stated above, Isler was acting within

the scope of his employment responsibilities as a bus driver to discuss the situation

arising from the student’s conduct on the bus. Moreover, an ADA or Rehabilitation Act
4

retaliation claim is premised upon an underlying violation of a disabled individual’s

rights. 42 U.S.C. §12203(a). 

Isler attempts to create a dust-up with allegations of the School District’s failure to

provide the student with adequate and safe transportation. Yet, at summary judgment a

non-moving party may not rest on mere allegations. Trap Rock Industries, Inc. v. Local

825, Intern. Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, 982 F.2d 884, 890 (3d Cir. 1992),

quoting Quiroga v. Hasbro, Inc., 934 F.2d 497, 500 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 376

(1991). He has completely failed to produce any evidence, beyond his vague unsupported

testimony, that would raise even a reasonable inference about the existence of

discriminatory behavior by the School District toward the student. 

Finally, Isler did not demonstrate any causal connection between his alleged

“advocacy” and the School District’s decision, five months later, to not renew his

contract. The amount of time between the incident and the employment action, a complete

absence of any evidence of animus toward Isler, and the uncontested legitimacy of a nondiscriminatory reason for the employment action lead us to conclude that Isler did not

raise any reasonable inference that the School District retaliated against him. 

Due to Isler’s utter lack of supporting evidence to create any question about the

credibility of the School District’s evidence, we will affirm the District Court’s decision

to grant summary judgment in favor of the School District, dismissing the ADA and

Rehabilitation Act retaliation claims. 
5

III.

For the above stated reasons, we will affirm the decision of the District Court.