Court Opinion

ID: 9441861
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 18:13:15.54194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:28:41.629947
License: Public Domain

REAVLEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I would affirm. With the litigation between the District and Blanck pending, I see no constitutional objection to the change of Nichols’ position from the legal office where records sensitive to the litigation were located, especially since she sided with Blanck in his conflict with the District Board. Because our prior opinion remanded for the district court to decide the Pickering balancing issue, I move to that and agree with the district court’s decision that her continued communication and confidential relationship with Blanck justified the legitimate administrative interest in moving her from the legal office. Pickering balancing is a question of law, not fact. We should rule and affirm. See Loya v. Desert Sands Unified School Dist., 721 F.2d 279, 281 (9th Cir.1983).