Opinion ID: 1361475
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Content of Posey's Letter and the School District's Justification for Adverse Employment Action

Text: Determining that there are genuine disputes of material fact as to Posey's employment duties does not necessarily mean, however, that the grant of summary judgment was improper. If Posey's letter and subsequent meeting were to fail either of the other two elements of the protected status inquiry, then summary judgment would have been appropriate on these alternate grounds. We conclude, however, that Posey's speech did raise matters of public concern and, as the School District has already conceded, there was no adequate justification for treating [him] differently from any other member of the general public. Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 418, 126 S.Ct. 1951 (citing Pickering v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Dist. 205, 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968)). `[C]ommunication on matters relating to the functioning of government...' [such as] misuse of public funds, wastefulness, and inefficiency in managing and operating government entities are matters of inherent public concern, regardless of the purpose for which they are made. Johnson v. Multnomah County, Or., 48 F.3d 420, 425 (9th Cir.1995) (quoting McKinley v. City of Eloy, 705 F.2d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir.1983) (quoting Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 575, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980) (plurality opinion))). Here, there is little doubt that Posey's assertions about the inadequacy and inefficacy of school security and safety policies were `relevan[t] to the public's evaluation of the performance of' the school's administration. Freitag, 468 F.3d at 545 (quoting Coszalter, 320 F.3d at 973-74). [5] Principal Soper's alleged failure to address Posey's initial expressions of concern is therefore undoubtedly of great public interest in itself, but the specific allegations in this case[are particularly] matter[s] of acute concern to the entire community. Id. (emphasis added). School staff members presumably come into contact with students on a daily basis. Whether they have committed acts of sexual harassment or rape certainly is of grave concern, id. at 545, to the parents of those students. So too is whether fires had occurred in school buildings without proper student evacuation, and whether students had brought deadly weapons onto school premises and threatened the lives of staff members. These matters would be of great importance to any community concerned with the safety of its school children. Posey's letter thus was unquestionably relate[d] to ... issue[s] of `political, social, or other concern to the community' sufficient to satisfy the First Amendment. Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839, 866 (9th Cir.1999) (quoting Connick, 461 U.S. at 146-47, 103 S.Ct. 1684). There is also no dispute that the School District lacked an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public, Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 418, 126 S.Ct. 1951 (citing Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731). Indeed, the School District conceded below that none of Posey's statements adversely affected the School District's mission or impinged on the efficiency of its operations.