Opinion ID: 2774149
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Tuberculosis Testing

Text: The Eastern Oklahoma County Technology Center is a public career and technology education center, which employed Ms. Meyers as the adult education coordinator in the EMT program. She supervised Ms. Lisa 3 Gonzales-Palmer, an instructor at the school who also worked for Air Evac, a company providing air ambulance services. Students had to submit proof of tuberculosis testing before taking EMT classes. About six students submitted documentation of their tests, but the school lost the documents. Rather than requiring the students to assume the cost of obtaining a new test, Ms. Gonzales-Palmer agreed to retest the students. Ms. Gonzales-Palmer began to do so, removing a vial of purified protein derivative (PPD) from her Air Evac jumpsuit and telling Ms. Meyers that she was going to perform tuberculosis skin tests on the students. Ms. Meyers told Ms. Gonzales-Palmer not to perform the tests, believing she was unqualified and suspecting she had stolen the PPD from Air Evac. Ms. Meyers later found “PPD Administration/Reporting” forms in six students’ education records. These forms showed that Ms. GonzalesPalmer had administered the tests in disregard of Ms. Meyers’s instructions. B. Unauthorized Termination of Ms. Gonzales-Palmer Seeking guidance about how to handle Ms. Gonzales-Palmer’s actions, Ms. Meyers called Mr. Ron Feller, an Air Evac manager who had previously worked for the Oklahoma State Department of Health. Ms. Meyers did not mention Ms. Gonzales-Palmer, but Mr. Feller inferred 4 from their discussion that Ms. Gonzales-Palmer was the person who had administered the tests. Mr. Feller told Ms. Meyers to speak with Ms. Judy Dyke, who was Ms. Gonzales-Palmer’s manager at Air Evac and had recently said that a vial of PPD was missing. Ms. Dyke contacted Ms. Meyers and asked her to cooperate in an investigation by Air Evac. Ms. Meyers met with Ms. Gonzales-Palmer to discuss the testing. Ms. Gonzales-Palmer explained that she had performed the tests at the direction of three Technology Center instructors. Dissatisfied with this explanation, Ms. Meyers terminated Ms. Gonzales-Palmer’s employment. C. Warning to Ms. Meyers Ms. Gonzales-Palmer informed the school’s administration of her termination. Shortly thereafter, the school superintendent met with Ms. Meyers, telling her that she lacked authority to terminate employees and that Ms. Gonzales-Palmer would be reinstated. The superintendent warned Ms. Meyers that she was not to retaliate against Ms. GonzalesPalmer or talk to anyone about Ms. Gonzales-Palmer’s testing of the students. A short time later, Ms. Meyers informed Ms. Dyke of the termination of Ms. Gonzales-Palmer and the lot number of the PPD used in the tests. The superintendent learned of Ms. Meyers’s communication with Air Evac and was not pleased. He admonished Ms. Meyers, telling her that she could be fired if she retaliated against Ms. Gonzales-Palmer, continued to 5 take unauthorized action, or failed to comply with other directives. The superintendent added that “[t]o the extent [Ms. Meyers] believe[d] that the hiring, termination (or other adverse action) of an employee [was] in the best interest of [the Technology Center] [she] should promptly meet with Mr. O’Boyle.” Applt. App. Vol. 1, pt. 1 at 135. Four days after the meeting, Ms. Meyers submitted an “Amendment to Course Authorization Request Form” for two courses in the EMT program without receiving approval from Mr. O’Boyle. See Applt. App. Vol. 1, pt. 1 at 143 (stating that Mr. O’Boyle discovered the change the day after it was made). In this form, Ms. Meyers removed Ms. GonzalesPalmer as co-instructor for the two courses. Mr. O’Boyle discovered the amendment and reported to the superintendent that Ms. Meyers had taken action against Ms. Gonzales-Palmer. D. Suspension of Ms. Meyers Upon learning of this incident, the superintendent arranged a meeting with Mr. O’Boyle and Ms. Meyers. At the end of the meeting, the superintendent notified Ms. Meyers that she was suspended with pay. The next day, the superintendent learned that Ms. Meyers had failed to renew the school’s certification as an EMT training site. The superintendent advised Ms. Meyers that he was recommending her termination. The same day, Ms. Meyers made a written complaint to the Oklahoma State Department of Health about the tuberculosis testing. 6 Two days later, the superintendent sent Ms. Meyers a letter, saying he had recommended termination because she  provided Air Evac with confidential employee records and emailed confidential records to her home computer,  failed to communicate with supervisors regarding contact with Air Evac despite warnings about her duty to communicate with supervisors,  failed to respond candidly to questions about Ms. GonzalesPalmer,  retaliated against Ms. Gonzales-Palmer after being told not to retaliate, and  allowed expiration of the Technology Center’s certification as a training site. E. Ms. Meyers’s Hearing and Termination The superintendent told Ms. Meyers that he would allow her to appeal his decision, though she had no right to an appeal. She took advantage of this opportunity and appeared with counsel at a hearing before the school’s board. The board voted to terminate Ms. Meyers, finding that  Ms. Meyers had repeatedly failed to communicate with supervisors despite warnings to communicate,  Ms. Meyers had not been candid in her meeting with the superintendent,  Ms. Meyers had retaliated toward another employee and violated the superintendent’s instructions, and 7  the superintendent’s firing had been based on Ms. Meyers’s consistent failure to report important EMT matters. With this action by the board, Ms. Meyers lost her job. III. Section 1983 Claims and the Ruling in District Court Ms. Meyers sued under § 1983, alleging  denial of the right to free speech because she was suspended and terminated for reporting the illegal administration of tuberculosis testing, and  deprivation of procedural due process based on bias of the board in her termination hearing. The district court granted summary judgment to the school and the superintendent. IV. Retaliation Claims Involving Violation of the First Amendment Generally, public employees cannot be terminated for engaging in protected speech. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 417 (2006); Dill v. City of Edmond, Okla., 155 F.3d 1193, 1201 (10th Cir. 1998). Ms. Meyers claims retaliation for protected speech involving discussion of the tests with the Oklahoma State Board of Health and Air Evac. The district court acknowledged that these discussions involved protected speech, but concluded they did not cause Ms. Meyers’s termination. We agree that the termination did not result from protected speech. 8 A. The Five-Pronged Test The claims trigger the five-pronged Garcetti-Pickering test. Trant v. Oklahoma, 754 F.3d 1158, 1165 (10th Cir. 2014). Under this test, Ms. Meyers can prevail only if 1. her speech was not made pursuant to official job duties, 2. her speech involved a matter of public concern, 3. her free speech interests were not outweighed by the defendants’ interest in promoting workplace efficiency, 4. the speech was a motivating factor in the suspension and termination, and 5. the defendants would not have reached the same employment decision without the protected speech. Brammer-Hoelter v. Twin Peaks Charter Acad., 492 F.3d 1192, 1202 (10th Cir. 2007).