Court Opinion

ID: 9427411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:20:37.471453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:06.858622
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Stevens,
concurring.
Because this Court’s opinion in Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U. S. 274, had not been announced when the District Court decided this case, it did not expressly find that respondents would have rehired petitioner if she had not engaged in constitutionally protected conduct. The District Court did find, however, that petitioner’s protected conduct was the “primary” reason for respondents’ decision.* The *418Court of Appeals regarded that finding as foreclosing respondents’ Mt. Healthy claim. In essence, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court would have made an appropriate finding on the issue if it had had access to our Mt. Healthy opinion.
My understanding of the District Court’s finding is the same as the Court of Appeals’. Nevertheless, I agree that the District Court should have the. opportunity to decide whether there is any need for further proceedings on the issue. If that court regards the present record as adequate to enable it to supplement its original findings without taking additional evidence, it is free to do so. On that understanding, I join the Court’s opinion.

App. to Pet. for Cert. 35a. See also id., at 36a, where the District Court stated that petitioner’s protected activity was “almost entirely” responsible for her termination.