Opinion ID: 463210
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Propriety of the Mt. Healthy City School District

Text: 13 Board of Education v. Doyle Instruction. 14 Instructions No. 6 and 8 4 directed the jury to return a verdict for Hartley, in part, if Hartley's political affiliation was a substantial factor in the decision to terminate his employment. Hartley asserts that the district court erred in refusing to add that the verdict should be for Hartley if his political affiliation was a motivating factor in the termination decision. Hartley contends that the motivating factor language was required by the Supreme Court's decision in Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977). However, in Mt. Healthy, the Supreme Court stated that the burden was properly placed upon respondent to show that his conduct was constitutionally protected, and that this conduct was a 'substantial factor'--or, to put it in other words, that it was a 'motivating factor' in the    decision not to rehire him. Id. at 287, 97 S.Ct. at 576 (footnote omitted). From this excerpt it is clear that in Mt. Healthy the Supreme Court determined that the terms motivating and substantial could be used interchangeably in the context of a claim for retaliatory discharge for the exercise of the employee's constitutional rights. Thus, in the instant case, the district court did not err in refusing to submit both these terms in the instructions to the jury. 15