F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
JUN 22 2000
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
CATHERINE CLINGER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 99-2017
NEW MEXICO HIGHLANDS
UNIVERSITY, BOARD OF
REGENTS; SELIMO RAEL;
THOMAS KEESING; DAVID
ARCHULETA, in their official and
individual capacities, and LEROY
SANCHEZ,
Defendants - Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
(D. Ct. No. CIV-97-548-LH)
J. Douglas Foster (Kathryn D. Lucero, with him on the briefs), Foster, Johnson,
Harris & McDonald, Albuquerque, New Mexico, appearing for Plaintiff-
Appellant.
Timothy L. White, Atwood, Malone, Turner & Sabin, P.A., Albuquerque, New
Mexico, appearing for Defendants-Appellees.
Before TACHA, MCWILLIAMS, and MAGILL, * Circuit Judges.
TACHA, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff Catherine Clinger appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
I.
In 1992, the New Mexico Highlands University (“University”) hired
plaintiff to serve as an Assistant Professor of Art. As a contractual employee
with probationary status, plaintiff was subject to the University’s tenure policy.
In October 1996, plaintiff applied for tenure and, on December 9, 1996, the Board
of Regents denied her application.
In May 1997, plaintiff filed an amended complaint seeking damages and
injunctive relief. She named as defendants the Board of Regents; Selimo Rael,
the University’s president; and Thomas Keesing, David Archuleta and Leroy
Sanchez, all present or former members of the Board of Regents. Pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff alleged that defendants, in denying her tenure, retaliated
against her for exercising her First Amendment right to free speech and violated
her substantive due process guarantees. Plaintiff also claimed that defendants
The Honorable Frank J. Magill, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court
*
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
-2-
discriminated against her on the basis of sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), and Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). Plaintiff further alleged that
defendants breached her employment contract in violation of New Mexico
common law.
In a bench ruling, the district court granted defendants’ motion for
summary judgment on the First Amendment, substantive due process and sex
discrimination claims. The court dismissed without prejudice the state claim of
contract breach. 1 Plaintiff filed a timely appeal.
II.
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo,
applying the same legal standard as the court below. Bullington v. United Air
Lines, Inc., 186 F.3d 1301, 1313 (10th Cir. 1999). Summary judgment is
appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In applying this standard,
we examine the factual record and draw reasonable inferences therefrom in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Bullington, 186 F.3d at 1313.
1
Plaintiff has abandoned her state claim on this appeal.
-3-
As the moving parties, defendants shoulder the “initial burden to show that
there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Thomas
v. IBM, 48 F.3d 478, 484 (10th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). If defendants meet this burden, it falls to plaintiff to “identify specific
facts that show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. “The party
opposing the motion must present sufficient evidence in specific, factual form for
a jury to return a verdict in that party’s favor.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
A.
“It is clearly established that a State may not discharge an employee on a
basis that infringes that employee’s constitutionally protected interest in freedom
of speech.” Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 383 (1987). Thus, even as a
probationary employee, plaintiff “may nonetheless be entitled to reinstatement if
she was discharged for exercising her constitutional right to freedom of
expression.” Id. at 383-84.
We review plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim under the four-step
test derived from Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), and
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983). Dill v. City of Edmond, 155 F.3d 1193,
1201 (10th Cir. 1998). First, we “must determine whether the employee’s speech
can be ‘fairly characterized as constituting speech on a matter of public
-4-
concern.’” Gardetto v. Mason, 100 F.3d 803, 811 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting
Connick, 461 U.S. at 146). If it can, we must then “balance the employee’s
interest, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern against ‘the
interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public
service[s] it performs through its employees.’” Id. (quoting Pickering, 391 U.S.
at 568). These first two questions are legal in nature and must be resolved by the
court. Id.
If the balance tips in favor of the employee, the employee next must “prove
that the protected speech was a substantial factor or a motivating factor in the
detrimental employment decision.” Id. If the employee makes this showing, then
the burden shifts to the employer to show that it would have made the same
employment decision in the absence of the protected speech. Id. These final
questions concern causation and are properly resolved by the factfinder. Id.
Plaintiff points to four instances of speech between 1994 and 1996 in
support of her retaliation claim: (1) advocacy before the Faculty Senate of a “no
confidence” vote with respect to four members of the Board of Regents in light of
their purported failure to comply with an internal policy on the appointment of a
new president, (2) comments before the Faculty Senate criticizing Regent Keesing
in particular as untrustworthy based on the presidential appointment process, (3)
criticism of Selimo Rael for accepting the position of University President, and
-5-
(4) criticism of a proposed academic reorganization purportedly in conflict with
the Faculty Handbook and the Board of Regents policy manual.
The district court found that plaintiff’s speech did not touch on matters of
sufficient public concern to merit constitutional protection. We agree. “Matters
of public concern are those which can ‘be fairly considered as relating to any
matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.’” Id. at 812
(quoting Connick, 461 U.S. at 146). “Speech concerning individual personnel
disputes or internal policies will typically not involve public concern.” Curtis v.
Oklahoma City Pub. Sch. Bd. of Educ., 147 F.3d 1200, 1212 (10th Cir. 1998).
“On the other hand, speech that seeks to expose improper operations of the
government or questions the integrity of government officials clearly concerns
vital public interests.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
In the first three instances, plaintiff publicly criticized the University
president and the Board of Trustees. In the fourth instance, she spoke out
generally in opposition to a proposed academic reorganization. She claims that
this conduct implicates the public interest under our holding in Gardetto v.
Mason, 100 F.3d 803 (10th Cir. 1996). In Gardetto, we held, inter alia, that the
plaintiff’s efforts to obtain a vote of “no confidence” against a college president
and her public criticism of the president’s reduction-in-force (RIF) plan involved
matters of public concern. 100 F.3d at 813-14. In particular, we found that the
-6-
plaintiff’s call for the “no confidence” vote “implicated broader concerns about
[the president’s] possible misrepresentation of his educational status, his lack of
integrity and leadership, and the corresponding decline in student enrollment” at
the college. Id. at 813. We also concluded that the plaintiff’s opposition to the
RIF touched a matter of public concern because “[t]he speech of persons able to
offer a well-informed perspective on expenditures of public funds may be
especially valuable to public debate on such subjects.” Id. at 814.
We find the instant case distinguishable from Gardetto. The plaintiff in
Gardetto publicly challenged the integrity, qualifications and alleged
misrepresentations of a public official. In this case, plaintiff simply differed with
the Board of Trustees on the internal process they followed in selecting a
president and reorganizing the University. Unlike the plaintiff in Gardetto,
plaintiff here did not challenge the actual credentials or qualifications of the
president; she merely faulted him for taking part in an allegedly unsatisfactory
process. While plaintiff publicly charged Regent Keesing as untrustworthy, she
did so based on his participation in the same internal process. In essence,
plaintiff has challenged the “internal structure and governance” of the University,
and matters of this nature “rarely transcend the internal workings of the university
to affect the political or social life of the community.” Bunger v. University of
Okla. Bd. of Regents, 95 F.3d 987, 992 (10th Cir. 1996). “The First Amendment
-7-
does not require public universities to subject internal structural arrangements and
administrative procedures to public scrutiny and debate.” Id.
Furthermore, in Gardetto, we stressed that criticism of a proposed RIF
implicated the public interest because “speech about the use of public funds
touches upon a matter of public concern.” 100 F.3d at 813 (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). Reviewing the record before the district court, we
find that plaintiff here has not made a credible showing that she spoke out in the
interest of conserving the public fisc or on any other matter that transcended the
internal policies of the university.
Having concluded that none of the proffered speech involves matters of
public concern, we need not, at this stage, evaluate plaintiff’s extended arguments
concerning her qualifications for tenure. “[W]here an employee’s speech cannot
be characterized as speech on a matter of public concern, it is unnecessary for the
court to examine the reasons for her discharge, demotion, or suspension.” Id. at
812.
B.
Plaintiff next contends that defendants violated her substantive due process
rights when they denied her tenure. “In order to present a claim of denial of
substantive due process by a discharge for arbitrary or capricious reasons, a
liberty or property interest must be present to which the protection of due process
-8-
can attach.” Curtis, 147 F.3d at 1215 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Plaintiff contends that she had an implied contract with the University
that created a property interest entitling her to tenure. She claims that the denial
of tenure was arbitrary and capricious and thus violated her substantive
Fourteenth Amendment rights in that property.
As we recently noted, “our circuit precedent does not clearly delineate what
specific property interests in employment are fundamental, and thus protected by
the doctrine of substantive due process.” Hennigh v. City of Shawnee, 155 F.3d
1249, 1257 (10th Cir. 1998). In general, we look to state law to determine
whether a property interest in employment exists. Lighton v. University of Utah,
209 F.3d 1213, 1221 (10th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff’s asserted property interest as a
non-tenured professor is dubious under New Mexico law. Cf. Jacobs v. Meister,
775 P.2d 254, 259-261 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989) (questioning whether a nontenured
university professor is entitled to procedural due process protections). See also
Bunger, 95 F.3d at 990 (“Tenured professors in Oklahoma possess a property
interest in their continued employment that is protected by the Due Process
Clause. However, untenured professors in Oklahoma do not possess this
legitimate claim of entitlement to their reappointment absent a specific
contractual guarantee to that effect.”) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted).
-9-
However, even assuming plaintiff had a property interest in continued
employment with the University, there is no evidence in the record that the
deprivation of that interest was either arbitrary or capricious. In her position as
an assistant professor of art, plaintiff was required to obtain a Master of Fine Arts
(M.F.A.) or demonstrate equivalent experience and a professional record in
printmaking. The evidence in the record indicates that she was aware of this
degree requirement and that she was expected to complete her M.F.A. before
promotion or award of tenure. At the time of the tenure decision, plaintiff had
not obtained her M.F.A., and defendants expressly based the denial of tenure on
her failure to earn the required degree. While plaintiff contends that she had
demonstrated the requisite equivalent experience and was thus not required to
obtain her terminal degree, the Regents obviously disagreed. We therefore find
the Regents’ tenure decision concerning plaintiff neither arbitrary nor capricious.
“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a guarantee against
incorrect or ill-advised personnel decisions.” Curtis, 147 F.3d at 1215 (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
C.
Finally, plaintiff claims that defendants discriminated against her on the
basis of gender, in violation of both Title VII and Title IX. The district court
found that plaintiff failed to produce any direct or circumstantial evidence that
- 10 -
defendants acted with a discriminatory motive. We agree. Even assuming
plaintiff satisfied her Title VII prima facie case, defendants have come forward
with a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for their tenure decision, namely, her
failure to obtain an M.F.A. or demonstrate equivalent experience. Plaintiff has
not presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether the defendants’ proffered reason is pretext for sexual discrimination. See
Bullington, 186 F.3d at 1316.
Because the district court correctly dismissed plaintiff’s Title VII claim, we
need not independently consider her Title IX claim. See Mabry v. State Bd. of
Community Colleges and Occupational Educ., 813 F.2d 311, 316 (10th Cir. 1987)
(“Both Title VII and Title IX prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. . . . We
find no persuasive reason not to apply Title VII’s substantive standards regarding
sex discrimination to Title IX suits.”).
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.
- 11 -