Home >Documents >CSBA Brief in Johnson v. Poway Unified

CSBA Brief in Johnson v. Poway Unified

Date post:29-May-2018
Category:
View:213 times
Download:0 times
Share this document with a friend
Transcript:
  • 8/9/2019 CSBA Brief in Johnson v. Poway Unified

    1/32

    No. 10-55445

    In the United States Court of Appeals

    For the Ninth Circuit

    BRADLEY R.JOHNSON,PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

    v.

    POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.,

    DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

    __________________________________________

    On Appeal from the United States District Court

    Southern District of California San DiegoCase No. 3:07-cv-00783-BEN-WVG

    Honorable Roger T. Benitez, District Judge

    __________________________________________

    Brief ofAmici Curiae National School Boards Association and

    California School Boards Association

    In Support of Defendants-Appellants

    Request for Reversal___________________________________________

    Francisco M. Negrn, Jr., Thomas E.M. Hutton*

    General Counsel Derek A. Bishop

    National School Boards Association Michael Kitson

    1680 Duke Street Keith A. TalbotAlexandria, VA 22314 Bryan T. Terry

    (703) 838-6722 Patterson Buchanan Fobes Leitch

    & Kalzer, Inc., P.S.2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500

    Seattle, WA 98121(206) 462-6700

    *Counsel of Record

    Counsel forAmici Curiae

  • 8/9/2019 CSBA Brief in Johnson v. Poway Unified

    2/32

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

    July 23, 2010

    Case Number 10-55445

    Johnson v. Poway Unified School District, et al.

    Disclosure of Corporate Affiliations and Other Entities

    with a Direct Financial Interest in Litigation

    Pursuant to FRAP 26.1 the National School Boards Association and the California

    School Boards Association, who are Amici Curiae, make the following disclosures:

    1. Is party a publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity?( ) YES (X) NO

    2. Does party have any parent corporations?( ) YES (X) NO

    If yes, identify all parent corporations, including grandparent and great-

    grandparent corporations:

    3. Is 10% of more of a partys stock owned by a publicly held corporation or otherpublicly held entity?

    ( ) YES (X) NO

    If yes, identify all such owners:

    4. Is there any other publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity that has adirect financial interest in the outcome of the litigation?

    ( ) YES (X) NO

    If yes, identify entity and nature of interest:

    5. Is party a trade association?( ) YES (X) NO

    If yes, identify all members of the association, their parent corporations, and any

    publicly held companies that own 10% or more of a partys stock:

    6. If case arises out of a bankruptcy proceeding, identify any trustee and the members

    of any creditors committee: N/A

    /S/Francisco M. Negrn, Jr. July 23, 2010

    _______________________________ _________________________

    Signature Date

  • 8/9/2019 CSBA Brief in Johnson v. Poway Unified

    3/32

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    Page

    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................... iii

    STATEMENT OF INTEREST IN CASE ...................................................... 1

    SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ............................................................. 2

    ARGUMENT.................................................................................................. 3

    I. This Court should provide much needed legal clarity on free

    speech claims brought by public school employees..................... 3

    II. This Court should reject forum analysis in a public employee

    speech claim.................................................................................. 5

    A. Precedent does not dictate the use of forum analysis in this

    case........................................................................................... 5

    B. Applying forum analysis to public employee speech claims is

    likely to have negative unintended consequences ................... 9

    III. A public school teachers free speech claim is properly evaluated

    using the same legal authority that applies to free speech claims

    made by other public employees ................................................ 13

    A. Nearly all classroom expression by a teacher is unavoidably

    a curricular matter and is made in the role of employee ....... 14

    B. A teachers curricular speech is governed by Garcetti v.

    Ceballos ................................................................................. 16

    C. A teachers non-curricular speech made as a private citizen

    is governed by Pickering v. Board of Education and Connick

    v. Myers.................................................................................. 18

    i

  • 8/9/2019 CSBA Brief in Johnson v. Poway Unified

    4/32

    IV. Individual defendants are entitled to strong qualified immunity

    protection from free speech claims arising in public schools..... 20

    CONCLUSION............................................................................................. 21

    CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    ii

  • 8/9/2019 CSBA Brief in Johnson v. Poway Unified

    5/32

    CASES:

    Arizona Life Coalition v. Stanton,

    515 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 56 (2008).................... 7

    Axson-Flynn v. Johnson,

    356 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2004) .................................................................... 10

    Bauchman for Bauchman v. West High Sch.,

    132 F.3d 542 (10th Cir. 1997) ...................................................................... 20

    Berry v. Dept. of Soc. Serv.,

    447 F.3d 642 (9th Cir. 2006) ............................................................ 3, 7, 8, 19

    Bishop v. Aronov,926 F.2d 1066 (11th Cir. 1991) ...................................................................... 5

    Busch v. Marple Newton Sch. Dist.,

    567 F.3d 89 (3d Cir. 2009)............................................................................ 10

    California Teachers Assn. v. State Bd. of Educ.,

    271 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2001) .............................................................. 3, 6, 18

    Christian Legal Society v. Martinez,

    2010 WL 255187 (U.S. June 28, 2010) ....................................................9, 14

    Connick v. Myers,461 U.S. 138 (1983)............................................................................... passim

    Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc.,

    473 U.S. 788 (1985) .................................................................................. 7, 11

    Currier v. Potter,

    379 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2004) ........................................................................ 13

    Downs v. Los Angeles Unified School District,

    228 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied,

    532 U.S. 994 (2001).......................................................................7, 11, 13, 14

    iii

  • 8/9/2019 CSBA Brief in Johnson v. Poway Unified

    6/32

    Edwards v. Cal. Univ. of Pa.,

    156 F.3d 488 (3d Cir. 1998)............................................................................ 4

    Eng v. Cooley,

    552 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................... 16

    Flint v. Dennison,

    488 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 2007) .......................................................................7, 9

    Garcetti v. Ceballos,

    547 U.S. 410 (2006)............................................................................... passim

    Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier,

    484 U.S. 260 (1988)........................................................................3, 6, 12, 19

    Hills v. Scottsdale Unified Sch. Dist. No. 48,

    329 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1149 (2004) .............. 7

    Hong v. Grant,

    516 F. Supp.2d 1158 (C.D. Cal. 2007) ......................................................... 17

    Huppert v. City of Pittsburg,

    574 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2009) ........................................................................ 16

    Lee v. York County Sch. Div.,

    484 F.3d 687 (4th Cir. 2007) .............................................................10, 11, 14

    M.A.L. v. Kinsland,

    543 F.3d 841 (6th Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 6

    Malley v. Briggs,

    475 U.S. 335 (1986) ...................................................................................... 21

    Mayer v. Monroe County Comm. Sch. Dist.,474 F.3d 477 (7th Cir. 2007) .................................................................. 16, 17

    Morgan v. Plano Indep. Sch. Dist.,

    589 F.3d 740 (5th Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 6

    iv

  • 8/9/2019 CSBA Brief in Johnson v. Poway Unified

    7/32

    Morse v. Frederick,

    551 U.S. 393 (2007) .................................................................................. 6, 21

    Newdow v. Rio Linda Union Sch. Dist.,

    597 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2010) ...................................................................... 19

    Nicholson v. Bd. of Educ., Torrance Unified Sch. Dist.,

    682 F.2d 858 (9th Cir. 1982) ................................................................ 4, 7, 19

    Nurre v. Whitehead,

    520 F. Supp.2d 1222 (W.D. Wash. 2007)..................................................... 20

    Nurre v. Whitehead,

    580 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................... 20

    Nuxoll ex rel. Nuxoll v. Indian Prairie Sch. Dist. #204,523 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2008) ...................................

of 32

Embed Size (px)
Recommended