Opinion ID: 167809
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Team-Approval

Text: M s. Saurini’s final challenge to the instructions is that the district court failed to instruct the jury that her objections to the school’s alleged “team approval” policy were “categorically protected” speech. Aplt. Br. at 41. As w ith -12- her other challenges, she did not preserve the issue below, so we review for plain error. W e deny relief on this ground because M s. Saurini has failed to show that the absence of the desired instructions created a “fundamental injustice.” Abuan, 353 F.3d at 1173. W hether her opposition to the reporting policy was protected speech was simply not an issue at trial. Although the district court’s instructions make several references to protected speech, they make no reference to the Pickering factors or even ask the jurors to determine whether her “speech touch[ed] on a matter of public concern,” Orr, 417 F.3d at 1154 (internal quotation marks omitted), or to w eigh M s. Saurini’s free-speech interest against the School District’s needs as an employer. Rather, the instructions implicitly suggest that all her speech at issue was protected speech, with the exception we have already addressed of child-abuse reports made in bad faith or without reasonable suspicion. For example, Instruction No. 2 described the defendants’ defenses as follow s: Defendants deny that Plaintiff’s supervisor, Linda Curry, retaliated against Plaintiff by recommending her nonrenewal based on her filing of child abuse reports. Defendant Adams County School District No. 12 also denies that the Board of Education nonrenewed Plaintiff’s employment based on any retaliatory motive related to Plaintiff’s filing of child abuse reports or acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s First A mendment rights w hen it nonrenewed Plaintiff’s employment. Defendant M ark Hinson denies that he retaliated against Plaintiff for her filing of child abuse reports or knew of or -13- acquiesced in any retaliation against Plaintiff based on her filing of child abuse reports. Defendants state that Plaintiff was nonrenewed because M s. Curry wanted a better counselor and because the school district had to place a non-probationary counselor. Defendants affirmatively state that Plaintiff would have been nonrenewed regardless of any child abuse reports made by her or statements made by her about child abuse reporting procedures. Aplt. App. at 2566. There is no suggestion that her complaints about reporting procedures were not protected speech. M oreover, the only statements in the defendants’ closing argument implying that speech was not protected were references to a child-abuse report that the defendants claimed to have been deliberately false and to M s. Saurini’s actions in reporting that one student had kissed another without consent. In short, there is no reason to believe that the jury rendered a verdict against M s. Saurini on the ground that her objections to reporting procedures were not protected by the First Amendment.