Opinion ID: 511547
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application to Present Case

Text: 67 Did Hall and the Board fall into that narrow band of fragile relationships requiring for job security loyalty at the expense of unfettered speech? Gonzalez I, 712 F.2d at 150. The district court rightly concluded that they did, and therefore that the government's interest in the effective functioning of its enterprise outweighed Hall's interest in speaking on a matter of public concern. 68 Hall's position related to a policy area, and his duties were such as to identify him as a prominent policy level official. The University therefore had a significant interest in ensuring that Hall was, and was perceived to be, compatible with the President and the Board. Hall's speech directly interfered with this interest, as he engaged in a pattern of opposition to the policies of his superiors. 69 First, the Athletic Directorship clearly is a position that relates to policy concerns. There is substantial room for principled disagreement on the formulation and implementation of goals for the Athletic Department. Two directors may disagree about which sports to emphasize, whether to focus on league or intramural activities, or whether to insist on compliance with NCAA and University rules even at the expense of negative publicity and competitive setbacks. As the Athletic Director's job performance cannot be measured solely on the basis of neutral, technical criteria of professional competence, his position relates to a policy area. See Shondel, 775 F.2d at 864; cf. Roman Melendez v. Inclan, 826 F.2d 130, 133-34 (1st Cir.1987) (as physical condition of schools is matter of vital public concern, and there was room for disagreement as to priorities for investigating and remedying deficient conditions, position of director of program whose primary responsibility was to repair, maintain, and improve public schools clearly related to institutional policy); Tomczak v. City of Chicago, 765 F.2d 633, 641 (7th Cir.) (deputy water commissioner's duties related to unprotected area because there was room for principled disagreement on how best to accomplish goal of providing public services), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 946, 106 S.Ct. 313, 88 L.Ed.2d 289 (1985). 70 Second, Hall's duties as Athletic Director were sufficiently extensive to qualify him as a policy level employee. The Athletic Director is in the excepted service, which is defined by statute as an individual whose primary duties are of a policy determining, confidential, or policy advocacy character and who reports directly to the head of an agency. D.C.Code Ann. Sec. 1-610.2 (1981). Although the statute is not conclusive, it is entitled to some deference. Jimenez Fuentes, 807 F.2d at 246. The statutory classification is confirmed by the complaint's description of the Athletic Directorship. Hall alleged that the President and the Board placed the position of Athletic Director in the University's 'Excepted Service' so that the President could select the Athletic Director at his sole discretion. Complaint at p 30, App. at 8. Hall was the President's key subordinate, chosen for the express purpose of implementing policy. The President rel[ied] upon [appellant] to bring the UDC Athletic Department into full compliance with NCAA and UDC rules and guidelines. Complaint at p 10, App. at 3. In other words, he was charged with formulat[ing] plans for the implementation of [the University's] broad goals. Elrod, 427 U.S. at 368, 96 S.Ct. at 2687 (plurality opinion). 71 These duties were obviously not well defined [and] of broad scope. Id. Hall was the immediate subordinate of the President and the Board. He reported directly to them, and they were his only superiors. He had the power and primary responsibility to control all employees within his department. At the same time, he was a highly visible spokesman for the University's athletic program, likely to be thought of by the public as responsible for running the department. 72 Finally, the government's interest in having its Athletic Department efficiently operated in accordance with policies established by the President and Board was directly undermined by Hall's contrary views as to how these policies should have been formulated and implemented. He engaged in a pattern of speech concerning the proper response to rule violations within the department. Complaint at p 13, App. at 4. His statements were opposed with increasing frequency by the UDC administration and various members of the Board. Complaint at p 14, App. at 5. Hall's views as to how the department should have been run were obviously at odds with those of the Board. 73 We conclude that Hall could be dismissed for expressing views on matters within the core of his responsibilities that reflected a policy disagreement with his superiors such that they could not expect him to carry out their policy choices vigorously.