Case Name: Elaine M. MEREDITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA, Jonathan R. Davis, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-21
Citations: 260 F. App'x 214
Docket Number: No. 07-13779
Parties: Elaine M. MEREDITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA, Jonathan R. Davis, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 260
Pages: 214–214

Head Matter:
Elaine M. MEREDITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA, Jonathan R. Davis, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-13779
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Dec. 21, 2007.
Edward Randolph Gay, Law Firm of Edward R. Gay, P.A., Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Erin J. O’Leary, Suzanne D’Agresta, Brown, Garganese, Weiss & D’Agresta, P.A., Orlando, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Elaine M. Meredith filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against appellees School Board of Osceola County, Florida, and Jonathan R. Davis, principal at Cypress Elementary School in Osceola County, alleging breach of contract, defamation, and violation of her constitutional rights. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees, and Meredith then perfected this appeal. We review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment. Battle v. Board of Regents for the State of Georgia, 468 F.3d 755, 759 (11th Cir.2006).
On appeal, Meredith challenges only the district court's entry of summary judgment on her claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that the appellees violated her First Amendment rights by retaliating against her for her speech. The speech concerns a discussion that Meredith had with another teacher at Cypress Elementary School, where they both taught. After reviewing the record, and reading the parties' briefs, we conclude that the district court correctly concluded that Meredith's speech was not protected speech because her speech did not involve a matter of public concern but constituted mere gossip or rumors. Even if, however, we concluded that Meredith's speech was protected under the First Amendment, we would still conclude that the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees because Meredith's speech had nothing to do with the decision not to renew her contract. The record evidence demonstrates that Meredith's contract was not renewed because she had mediocre lesson plans and because she had a negative impact on staff morale at Cypress Elementary School. Furthermore, the record demonstrates that the appellees made the non-renewal decision months before Meredith engaged in the conversation with her fellow teacher.
Because we conclude that there is no merit to any of the arguments that Meredith makes in this appeal, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.