Opinion ID: 38354
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Content: What Salge Actually Said

Text: The parties dispute the content of Salge’s speech, specifically, whether Salge stated to Roberson that Airheart’s contract was not renewed or that it was not extended. They also argue about which version we should consider in our determination whether Salge’s speech is on a matter of public concern. The district court concluded that this argument was a red herring, as both versions of the statement address a matter of public concern. It is true that the Supreme Court’s Churchill v. 10 Harris v. Victoria Indep. Sch. Dist., 168 F.3d 216, 220 (5th Cir. 1999). 11 EISD does not dispute that Wells is a final decisionmaker and therefore EISD may be held liable under § 1983 for his decision to terminate Salge. See Johnson v. Louisiana, 369 F.3d 826, 831 (5th Cir. 2004)(“[O]nly final decision-makers may be held liable for First Amendment retaliation employment discrimination under § 1983.”). 7 Waters12 decision held that, when a plaintiff-employee’s First Amendment retaliation claim rests on a disputed version of his speech, a court applying the Supreme Court’s Connick v. Myers13 test to determine whether the speech was on a matter of public concern must examine the speech as the defendant-employer reasonably believed it to be.14 EISD argues that Wells reasonably believed that Salge had violated the school’s confidentiality and media policies and had provided false information to the newspaper; this reasonable belief justified Wells’s decision to terminate Salge, EISD argues, because (1) if Salge used the term “renewed,” then her speech was false and therefore unprotected and (2) whether true or false, she had violated school district policies against divulging confidential personnel information and speaking to the media. We evaluate these arguments, however, as part of our Pickering balancing test to determine whether EISD’s interest in efficiency outweighs any interest Salge has in making her speech. Whether the speech in question violates an employer’s policy has no relevance to whether the subject matter of the speech is on a matter of public concern. Whether an employee’s speech is true or false also plays no role in the determination whether the speech 12 511 U.S. 661 (1994)(plurality opinion). 13 461 U.S. 138 (1983). 14 Johnson, 369 F.3d at 832 (internal citation omitted). 8 concerned a matter of public interest.15 In Churchill, unlike the instant case, the difference between the two versions of the employee’s speech was determinative, as one version implicated protected speech and the other did not. The Churchill employer understood the employee’s comments to be personal criticism of her supervisor, which was not First Amendment protected speech.16 The employee insisted that she criticized the employer’s cross-training policy, which would have been protected speech.17 In contrast, the parties in this case dispute whether Salge said that Airheart’s contract had not been extended or had not been renewed. Salge’s speech indisputably concerned the high school principal’s resignation, so whether she used the word “renewed” or “extended,” is immaterial: Her point was that Airheart resigned grudgingly, as a result of the non-extension of his contract and his own feeling that he was unwanted and unappreciated. We are satisfied that, under either version, Salge’s speech concerned the high school principal’s employment status and his reasons for resigning before the end of the term of his employment. This is the speech we evaluate in our determination whether Salge spoke on a matter of public concern, and this evaluation does not implicate 15 Denton v. Morgan, 136 F.3d 1038, 1043 (5th Cir. 1998). 16 511 U.S. at 665-66. 17 Id. 9 Churchill.