Opinion ID: 159486
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Termination Reasonably Related to Legitimate Pedagogical Concerns

Text: 22 In Kuhlmeier, the Supreme Court established an analytical framework for determining when a public high school's restrictions on school-sponsored student speech violates those students' First Amendment rights: educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising . . . control over . . . student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. 484 U.S. at 273. This court in Miles extended that holding to a school's control over the classroom speech of a public high school teacher. See 944 F.2d at 777. This court has not decided, however, whether that same analytical approach should be applied to a college or university's ability to restrict the classroom speech of a professor. On appeal, both Vanderhurst and the College embrace the Kuhlmeier approach as the proper means to analyze Vanderhurst's First Amendment claim. This court will thus assume for purposes of this appeal that the analytical framework established in Kuhlmeier is indeed appropriate to this case; we need not decide definitively, however, whether that framework does in fact govern a public college or university's control over the classroom speech of a professor or other instructor. 2 23 In the instant case, the district court ruled as a matter of law that the interests embodied in the College's sexual harassment policy and code of ethics and stated as the reasons for terminating Vanderhurst did constitute legitimate pedagogical concerns. Additionally, the district court determined that neither the sexual harassment policy nor the code of ethics are unconstitutionally vague. Finally, in granting the College's Rule 50 motion on Vanderhurst's equal protection claim, the district court ruled as a matter of law that the College did not act in a discriminatory or vindictive manner in firing Vanderhurst. Given these three rulings, the College contends that the district court was required to rule as a matter of law that the termination was reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical interests. Specifically, the College first asserts that whether the termination reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical interests is a question of law which the district court erroneously submitted to the jury. The College then maintains that had the district court made this determination, instead of allowing the jury to do so, the court should have ruled in its favor. Vanderhurst counters that the College waived its right to press these two related arguments on appeal because it failed to articulate them in its Rule 50 motions. 24 This court generally will not entertain arguments on appeal which the appellant failed to raise before the district court. See Crow v. Shalala, 40 F.3d 323, 324 (10th Cir. 1994). More specifically, [a Rule 50] motion for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of all the evidence preserves for review only those grounds specified at the time, and no others. Correa v. Hospital San Francisco, 69 F.3d 1184, 1196 (1st Cir. 1995). Finally, Rule 51 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states, No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless that party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds of the objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 51. 25 At the close of Vanderhurst's case, the College orally moved for judgment as a matter of law on the First Amendment claim, stating simply, we believe that there has been insufficient evidence to show that Dr. Vanderhurst was terminated for the exercise of any First Amendment protected rights . . . . The College thus rested its initial Rule 50 motion upon the broad contention that Vanderhurst's speech was not protected under the First Amendment. After extensively discussing whether Vanderhurst's speech was constitutionally protected, the district court denied the motion, concluding that sufficient factual disputes existed about the controversial speech which the jury needed to resolve before the court could issue a legal ruling. At that time, however, the district court addressed the First Amendment claim within the analytical framework of Pickering v. Board of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (1968) and Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) and not under the Kuhlmeier and Miles approach. 3 The College was also then operating under the belief that Connick/Pickering, rather than Kuhlmeier and Miles, provided the appropriate analytical framework for the First Amendment claim. 4 Indeed, the College's pretrial motions, which argued within a Connick/Pickering analysis, likely induced the district court to adopt just such an approach. Due to the College's position when it made that initial Rule 50 motion regarding the proper analytical framework, it did not argue then that the district court should decide as a matter of law that Vanderhurst's termination reasonably related to the College's legitimate pedagogical interests. 26 The following day, the College filed a trial brief, which finally urged the district court to analyze Vanderhurst's First Amendment claim under the analytical rubric of Kuhlmeier and Miles rather than under the framework set out in Pickering and its progeny. After advocating such an analytical approach, the College's brief stated, Defendants have demonstrated in evidence adduced during Plaintiff's case-in-chief that his classroom comments implicated the three pedagogical interests outlined in Miles. The College did not argue in that brief that it would be improper for the jury to resolve the issue of whether the termination reasonably related to the College's legitimate pedagogical concerns, nor did it even request that the district court answer this question as a matter of law. Indeed, nowhere in the trial brief did the College either refer to Rule 50 or request any form of relief. Rather, it seems that the College's intent in filing the brief was merely to refocus the trial court on what the College now considered the proper mode of analysis for Vanderhurst's First Amendment claim, i.e., the analytical structure set out in Kuhlmeier and Miles. 27 After the close of all the evidence, the district court held a jury instruction conference. During the conference, the district court stated that the proper analysis required answering two questions: whether there are shown to be legitimate pedagogical interests, and secondly, whether the actions taken by the school are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical interests. The court then declared that the first inquiry presented a question of law, which it answered in the affirmative. The court stated that it would submit the second question to the jury. The district court then continued this discussion, stating, And if I determined that [the] defendants' pedagogical interests in this case stated as a basis for the termination are legitimate, that's no longer a factor for the jury to consider here. What they're considering is the reasonableness of the action in termination. The College simply responded, Okay. 5 After further discussion about other aspects of the relevant jury instruction, the district court read the finalized version, to which the College responded, That's fine, your Honor. Significantly, at no time before, during, or after this conference did the College object to the submission to the jury of the question whether the termination reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns or even state that it viewed this as a legal inquiry. Quite to the contrary, the College's own statements during this colloquy reveal that the College, like the district court, viewed the question as one for the jury. 28 Finally, after the jury instruction conference ended, the College renewed its Rule 50 motion, merely stating, On the [First Amendment] claim we would incorporate the reasoning in Miles, in Bishop v. Aronov, and also in . . . Edwards v. California University of Pennsylvania . . . . The College articulated no specific arguments to support its renewed Rule 50 motion. The district court then denied the motion, to which the College responded, I would just like to reserve that issue as to the submission of the academic freedom First Amendment claim . . . . Again, the College failed to state any specific reasons for objecting to the submission of the First Amendment claim to the jury. 29 This record reveals that the College never argued before the district court, as it does now on appeal, that the question whether the termination reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical interests is not a question for the jury, but instead a question of law for the court. The College had ample opportunity to make the court aware of its opposition to submitting this question to the jury. Nevertheless, in its motion for summary judgment, in its initial Rule 50 motion, in the trial brief, during the jury instruction conference, and in its renewed motion, it failed to do so. Not only did the College fail to object to the submission of this question to the jury, during the instruction conference the College explicitly agreed with the district court that the question belonged to the jury. Pursuant to Rule 51, the College's failure to object to the giving of this instruction renders fatal its argument that the submission of this question to the jury warrants reversal of the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 51. Because the College never objected to the submission of this question to the jury or stated that the question required a legal determination by the court, this court concludes that the College waived its appellate argument that the submission of this question to the jury warrants reversal of the judgment. 30 Having reviewed the entire record surrounding the College's Rule 50 motions and having concluded that the College never argued against submitting to the jury the question whether Vanderhurst's termination reasonably related to the College's legitimate pedagogical interests, this court is uncertain as to the specific grounds upon which the College did base those motions, particularly the renewed motion. The initial Rule 50 motion was predicated upon the argument that under a Pickering analysis, the speech for which Vanderhurst was terminated was not constitutionally protected. In making its renewed Rule 50 motion, the College merely offered an entirely vague reference to Miles without articulating any specific argument to support its motion. The College's nebulous presentation could not have alerted the district court that the reasonable relationship issue was being tendered for its review. This court therefore concludes that the College also waived for appellate review the argument that the district court should have granted its renewed Rule 50 motion because Vanderhurst's termination reasonably related to the College's legitimate pedagogical concerns. 31 Because the College waived for appellate review its arguments challenging the judgment on Vanderhurst's First Amendment claim, we must affirm that judgment.