Alaska Employment Law

A public school teacher working as a “curriculum specialist” and “instructional coach” blogged about her mentees.  When the District found out about the blog, it transferred her to a classroom teaching position.  The employee sued the HR director under Section 1983.  The 9th Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, has affirmed summary judgment for the employer on the merits.

The panel assumed that the blog entries were speech of public concern, and that the transfer was an adverse employment action.  The panel affirmed because the blog’s impact on the author’s co-workers tipped the Pickering balancing test in favor of the District.

It is undisputed that the positions from which Richerson was transferred required that she enter into trusting mentor relationships with other, lessexperienced eachers in order for her to give honest, critical, and private feedback.  Richerson’s publicly-available blog included several highly personal and vituperative comments about her employers, union representatives, and fellow teachers. Although Richerson did not refer to these individuals by name, many were easily identifiable by the description of their positions or their personal attributes. When this blog came to light, Beckon received several complaints from teachers and other employees of the District, including at least one person to whom Richerson was assigned as an “instructional coach” who thereafter refused to work with her. Beckon then transferred Richerson on the ground that her blog had fatally undermined her ability to enter into trusting relationships as an instructional coach.

That a public employee’s speech touches on matters of public concern is a “necessary, but not a sufficient condition of constitutional protection.” . . .  Richerson’s speech and Beckon’s response are subject to the Pickering balancing test, which includes at least five factors. . . . Particularly relevant to Richerson’s case are the considerations of whether her speech “disrupt[ed] co-worker relations,” “erode[d] a close working relationship premised on personal loyalty and confidentiality,” or “interfere[d] with the speaker’s performance of her or his duties.” . . .

It is abundantly clear from undisputed evidence in the record that Richerson’s speech had a significantly deleterious effect in each of these ways.  Beckon provided testimony, not controverted by Richerson, indicating that several individuals refused to work with Richerson in the future. Common sense indicates that few teachers would expect that they could enter into a confidential and trusting relationship with Richerson after reading her blog. Beckon need only make a “reasonable prediction” that such disruption would occur; she need not demonstrate that it has occurred or will occur to a certainty.  . . . This standard was clearly met.   . . . Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that the legitimate administrative interests of the School District outweighed Richerson’s First Amendment interests in not being transferred because of her speech. 

Richerson v. Beckon, 2009 WL _______ (9th Cir. June 16, 2009)(unpub.)

H/T: Adjunct Law Prof Professor