F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PU BL ISH
January 22, 2007
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
QU INTINA DESCH ENIE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BOA RD O F ED U CA TIO N O F CENTRAL
CONSO LIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 22;
RANDY J. M ANNING, individually and in his
No. 05-2270
capacity as School B oard President; GARY D.
RAY, individually and in his capacity as School
Board V ice President; STA N LEY R. KING,
individually and in his official capacity as
School Board Secretary; LIND A B ESETT,
individually and in her capacity as
Superintendent of Schools; JA Y MORTENSEN,
individually and in his capacity as Assistant
Superintendent of Schools; and DENNIS
NICHOLSO N, individually and in his capacity as
Assistant Superintendent of Schools,
Defendants - Appellees.
A PPE AL FR OM T HE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR T HE D ISTRICT OF NEW M EXICO
(D.C. NO . CIV-03-1226)
Earl M ettler, M ettler & Lecuyer, P.C., Albuquerque, New M exico, for Plaintiff-
Appellant.
Daniel J. M acke (Kevin M . Brown with him on the brief), Brown & German,
Albuquerque, New M exico, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before M U RPH Y, BROR BY, and TYM K O VICH , Circuit Judges.
M U RPH Y, Circuit Judge.
I. Introduction
Quintina Deschenie, a former employee of Central Consolidated School
District (“CCSD”), sued the C CSD Board of Education and individual members
of the Board and district administration (collectively, the “Board” or “School
Board”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In her complaint, she alleged the
defendants took adverse employment actions against her in retaliation for
engaging in speech protected by the First Amendment. The United States District
Court for the District of New M exico granted summary judgment to the
defendants. It concluded certain instances of D eschenie’s speech were
unprotected, and those which were protected were not causally related to the
adverse employment actions taken by the School Board. Deschenie appeals the
district court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendants. This court
has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm s the district court’s
grant of summary judgment.
-2-
II. Background
Deschenie was the Director of Indian Education and Bilingual Education
for CCSD from August 2000 through June 2003. From June 2003 through
November 2003, she was the Bilingual Education Coordinator. CCSD is a school
district located mostly within the Navajo Indian Reservation in San Juan County,
New M exico, and 6500 of its 7000 students are Navajo. The curriculum of CC SD
includes a bilingual education program funded by the state.
On August 7, 2002, Randy M anning, the president of the School Board,
spoke at a C CSD administrator’s retreat. During this speech, M anning referred to
the bilingual education program as a “sacred cow” which needed to be looked at
critically, and he discussed the possibility of changes to the program for children
in kindergarten through third grade. Deschenie was present at this meeting and
interpreted these statements as indicating an intent to eliminate the bilingual
education program. Following the meeting, she and two other CCSD employees
spoke to M anning and expressed disagreement with his proposals.
Subsequently, on August 16, 2002, Deschenie wrote a letter to M anning
which she sent by email. 1 In this letter, she expressed concerns with the current
state of the bilingual education program and gave suggestions on how to improve
1
In their motion for summary judgment, the defendants contend neither
M anning nor Superintendent Linda Besett received this letter. Because Deschenie
produced this letter in her response to the motion, however, there is evidence to
the contrary. View ing all evidence in the light most favorable to Deschenie, this
court assumes the letter w as delivered for purposes of this review.
-3-
the alleged deficiencies. Among other things, her concerns included the lack of
access to the programs for many students, the inadequate number of staff, the
inadequate salaries for staff, and the high level of staff turnover. She also
informed M anning that, as a whole, CCSD was not complying with the state
bilingual program requirements of forty-five minutes of daily home-language
instruction.
On October 7, 2002, Deschenie attended an Indian Education Committee
meeting in her capacity as a school administrator. At this meeting, M anning
spoke in an effort to clarify his position on bilingual education. He explained that
although he had concerns with the bilingual education program, he did not intend
to eliminate the program. Deschenie also spoke at this meeting and repeated her
concerns that the program w as not complying with state standards and was not
adequately supported w ithin C CSD.
Following the October 7 meeting, the issue began attracting publicity and
public controversy. Deschenie wrote a guest column for the local newspaper on
December 15, 2002, in which she again expressed the importance of the bilingual
education program and the need for increased support from the administration and
the community. This guest column identified Deschenie as the Director of
Bilingual and Indian Education for CCSD and was approved in advance by the
Superintendent, Linda Besett.
-4-
Four months later, in response to an editorial praising Native American
education in the schools, Deschenie wrote a thank-you note to the editor of the
local paper which had published the editorial. In this note, Deschenie stated
teaching Navajo language and culture was a “lonely battle when the powers-that-
be knock the job.” Although Deschenie did not intend for this email to be
published, it was published as a letter to the editor on April 30 without prior
district approval. 2 On M ay 15, at a School Board meeting, members of the School
Board criticized Deschenie for publishing the letter to the editor.
In the meantime, there is evidence Deschenie’s job performance began to
decline. On M ay 12, 2003, Besett received an email from the New M exico State
Department of Education that explained bilingual education funding applications,
due on April 25, had not yet been received. It was D eschenie’s responsibility to
ensure these applications were submitted on time. Shortly thereafter, on M ay 29,
Besett proposed dividing Deschenie’s position into two separate positions: an
Indian Education Coordinator and a Bilingual Education Coordinator. Under this
proposal, Deschenie’s responsibilities were split and she became the Bilingual
Education Coordinator. Besett also placed Deschenie on a growth plan that
identified D eschenie’s unsatisfactory performance in managing resources,
2
In its brief, the Board claims it had a policy prohibiting media
submissions by district employees without prior approval, but Deschenie has
raised a genuine issue as to whether such a policy was in place. View ing all
evidence in the light most favorable to Deschenie, this court therefore assumes
the publication of this letter did not violate any official district policy.
-5-
working productively with others, and adhering to established timelines and
procedures.
Throughout the summer, there were numerous other problems relating to
Deschenie’s work performance. These included the rejection of the bilingual
education applications on two occasions, the failure to assist in submitting the
Indian education funding applications, 3 and the failure to attend a meeting she had
scheduled to discuss the bilingual funding applications with principals.
Deschenie disputes whether these problems can be attributed to her job
performance. Specifically, she argues the bilingual education applications were
rejected primarily due to the program’s inadequate staffing, an issue out of her
control.
On September 26, Besett gave Deschenie an additional set of tasks to
complete as soon as possible and instructed her to compile a list of students in the
bilingual program by October 6. Deschenie did not meet this deadline and
provided incomplete data when she submitted the information three days late.
Deschenie argues the volume of tasks given her was unrealistic and was intended
to cause her to fail. After a few more meetings between Deschenie and Besett, in
3
Deschenie contends it was not her responsibility to submit the Indian
education funding applications because this duty was shifted away from her when
her position was split. Nevertheless, she admitted Besett told her to complete
these applications because no one had yet been hired for the other position. Thus,
it is undisputed these applications w ere her responsibility at the time they were to
be submitted.
-6-
which the two discussed Deschenie’s job performance, Besett notified Deschenie
of her termination on November 12, 2003.
Deschenie and three other plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District
Court for the District of New M exico pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the
School Board, M anning, Besett, and other individual defendants had unlaw fully
retaliated against them for exercising their First Amendment rights. The
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as to Deschenie, 4 arguing (1)
Deschenie’s speech was not protected as a matter of law; (2) if the speech was
protected, the Pickering balancing test weighed in favor of the defendants; (3) the
only adverse employment action was the termination; and (4) the speech was not a
motivating factor for any action taken by the defendants. The district court
granted the motion. In doing so, it concluded three instances of speech were
unprotected as a matter of law, and it found no genuine issue whether the
protected speech was a substantial motivating factor in any adverse employment
action.
III. Analysis
This court reviews a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment de
novo, using the same legal standard applicable in the district court. Baca v. Sklar,
398 F.3d 1210, 1216 (10th Cir. 2005). Summary judgment is appropriate only “if
4
The other three plaintiffs had previously been dismissed from the lawsuit.
One plaintiff dismissed her claims voluntarily, and summary judgment was
granted in favor of the defendants as to the other two.
-7-
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 making this determination, this court view s all
evidence and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.
Baca, 398 F.3d at 1216. M ere allegations, however, are insufficient to survive a
motion for summary judgment. Id. In cases involving the First Amendment, “an
appellate court has an obligation to make an independent examination of the
whole record in order to make sure that the judgment does not constitute a
forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression.” Barker v. City of Del City,
215 F.3d 1134, 1137 (10th Cir. 2000) (quotation omitted).
It is well-established that a public employee does not waive all her First
Amendment rights by accepting public employment. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S.
Ct. 1951, 1957 (2006). The Supreme Court has also long recognized, however,
that the government’s interest in regulating the speech of its employees differs
significantly from its interest in regulating the speech of the public in general.
Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968). In determining whether a
public employer impermissibly retaliated against a public employee in violation
of her First Amendment rights, this court applies the four-part test derived from
Pickering and Connick v. M yers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983). Dill v. City of Edmond,
155 F.3d 1193, 1201 (10th Cir. 1998).
-8-
First, this court “must determine w hether the employee’s speech involves a
matter of public concern.” Id. Second, if this threshold requirement is satisfied,
this court then balances “the employee’s interest in commenting upon matters of
public concern against the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the
efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” Id.
(quotation omitted). Third, if the employee’s interest outweighs that of the
government, “the employee then must show that the speech was a substantial
factor or a motivating factor in the detrimental employment decision.” Id. at
1201-02 (quotation omitted). Fourth, if the employee shows the protected speech
was a substantial factor, the burden shifts to the employer to show “it would have
taken the same action against the employee even in the absence of the protected
speech.” Id. at 1202. The first two steps of this analysis are questions of law to
be resolved by the court, while the third and fourth steps are questions of fact for
the jury. Gardetto v. M ason, 100 F.3d 803, 811 (10th Cir. 1996).
In this appeal, Deschenie argues summary judgment was inappropriate
because her speech was protected as a matter of law and because she has raised a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether the speech was a substantial factor in
the subsequent adverse employment decisions. To evaluate her claim, this court
must first “identify the speech which resulted in the alleged retaliation.” Hulen v.
Yates, 322 F.3d 1229, 1237 (10th Cir. 2003). The district court in this case
identified five specific instances of speech, and only these five instances of
-9-
speech have been addressed by Deschenie on appeal. 5 These alleged instances of
protected speech include: (1) the oral comm ents made to M anning on August 7,
2002; (2) the email sent to M anning on August 16, 2002; (3) the statements made
at the Indian Education Committee meeting on October 7, 2002; (4) the guest
column published on December 15, 2002; and (5) the letter to the editor published
on April 30, 2003.
A. First Four Instances of Speech
In its order granting summary judgment, the district court determined the
first two instances of Deschenie’s speech were unprotected as a matter of law and
the next two instances were not substantial factors in any adverse employment
action taken by the School Board. W ith respect to the first four instances of
speech, this court need not decide whether the first two prongs of the Pickering
analysis are satisfied because Deschenie has presented insufficient evidence to
raise a genuine issue of material fact as to the third prong. Thus, this court may
assume, without deciding, the first tw o prongs are satisfied.
The third step in a claim of First Amendment retaliation requires the
employee to show “the exercise of constitutionally protected speech w as a
5
In the district court, Deschenie listed a number of other instances of
allegedly protected speech, including general comm ents about the importance of
the Indian Education and Bilingual Education programs, the rights of Native
Americans, and CCSD ’s compliance with Navajo employment laws. The district
court denied protection for these instances of speech because they were too
“amorphous” to allow a proper analysis of the content, context, and form.
-10-
substantial motivating factor in the employer’s decision to adversely alter the
employee’s conditions of employment.” M aestas v. Segura, 416 F.3d 1182, 1188
(10th Cir. 2005). To meet this burden, the employee “need not prove that his
speech was the sole reason for [the] defendants’ action,” but need only show the
speech played a substantial part in the adverse employment action. Copp v.
Unified Sch. Dist. No. 501, 882 F.2d 1547, 1553 (10th Cir. 1989). In the context
of a summary judgment motion, the employee must “establish genuine issues of
material fact as to whether his protected speech substantially motivated” the
adverse employment actions. Baca, 398 F.3d at 1220.
The parties first dispute w hich actions taken by the Board constitute
adverse employment actions for purposes of Deschenie’s First Amendment
retaliation claim. The district court determined only the position reclassification
and the termination constituted sufficiently adverse actions. On appeal,
Deschenie urges this court to recognize the M ay 15 reprimand, in addition to the
position reclassification and the termination. 6 On the other hand, the School
Board contends only the termination may be considered an adverse employment
action. Because this court concludes there is no link between the first four
6
In the proceedings below, Deschenie listed numerous other alleged
adverse actions, including deprivation of supporting staff, thwarting of program
activities, false accusations, and negative evaluations. At oral argument,
however, she conceded only the three listed here qualified as adverse actions, and
the others were relevant only to show the hostility expressed toward her by the
Board.
-11-
instances of speech and any of these actions, it is unnecessary to decide this issue
for purposes of Deschenie’s claim.
To prevail on her appeal as to the termination, Deschenie must present
sufficient evidence linking her termination to any of these four instances of
speech. M aestas, 416 F.3d at 1188. In support of her position, Deschenie relies
mostly on circumstantial evidence, including her ongoing criticism of the School
Board and the Board’s opposition and hostility toward her speech. As evidence
of this hostility, she offers w ritten correspondence by Besett to the State
Superintendent, in which Besett appears to blame the public criticism of the
administration on Deschenie. In addition, Deschenie attempts to cast doubt on the
stated reasons for her termination. Deschenie contends she was given an
unrealistic w orkload in the summer of 2003 in an effort to produce a paper trail
sufficient to fire her. She also argues the rejection of the bilingual funding
applications was not her fault, but rather a direct consequence of the inadequacies
of the bilingual program she sought to improve.
Under the facts of this case, however, the lengthy time period between the
protected speech and the termination, combined with Deschenie’s intervening
poor job performance, are insurmountable. An inference of retaliatory motive
may be undermined by “a long delay between the employee’s speech and [the]
challenged conduct” or by “evidence of intervening events.” Id. at 1189. Here,
both of these circumstances are present. The four instances of speech preceded
-12-
the termination by fifteen months, fifteen months, thirteen months, and eleven
months, respectively. The termination was therefore too temporally remote to
permit an inference of retaliatory motive w ithout additional evidence. Further,
the Board has presented overwhelming evidence Deschenie’s job performance
suffered greatly in the months between the last of these instances of speech and
the termination. During this time, Deschenie repeatedly missed deadlines, failed
to perform assigned tasks, and received poor performance evaluations. Although
Deschenie argues the Board’s stated reasons are pretextual and Besett’s actions
toward Deschenie were designed to cause her to fail, she has presented
insufficient evidence to support this conclusion. 7 In opposing a motion for
summary judgment, “[s]peculation or hunches amidst rumor and innuendo will
not suffice.” Id. Significantly, there is no evidence in the record of any
statements made by the Board to directly suggest Deschenie was terminated
7
Deschenie contends the bilingual education applications were rejected
only because of inadequate staffing and CCSD’s lack of compliance with state
requirem ents. B ecause staffing was not her responsibility, she argues, it follow s
that the rejection of these applications could not constitute a legitimate non-
retaliatory reason for her termination. In her deposition, however, Deschenie
admitted some applications were also rejected because of missing data and
inaccurate information. Further, it is undisputed the applications were not
initially submitted on time. W hile it may not have been her responsibility to
prepare the applications, Deschenie recognized it was her responsibility to
complete a final review of the applications and ensure the applications were
correct and complete by the due date. Thus, even if inadequate staffing was
partially to blame for the rejection of the applications, there were additional
problems with the submission of the applications which directly implicated
Deschenie’s job performance.
-13-
because of her speech. Thus, Deschenie has failed to raise a genuine issue of
material fact as to w hether her termination was substantially motivated by these
first four instances of speech.
W ith regard to the reprimand and position reclassification, Deschenie’s
claim as to the first four instances of speech fails for the same reasons discussed
above. The reprimand and position reclassification followed the four instances of
speech by nine months, nine months, seven months, and five months,
respectively, and Deschenie’s failure to submit the bilingual education
applications by the April 25 deadline constituted a significant intervening event.
Further, to the extent Deschenie’s speech was mentioned at the time of these
actions, it was her April 30 letter to the editor and not these previous four
instances that was discussed. 8 Therefore, Deschenie has failed to present
sufficient evidence to permit an inference that the Board’s actions were in any
way motivated by the first four instances of allegedly protected speech.
B. April 30 Letter to the Editor
The fifth and last instance of protected speech claimed by Deschenie is her
email to the editor of the local newspaper, which was published as a letter to the
8
Although Deschenie stated the Board mentioned “other articles” in the
M ay 15 board meeting, she admitted it did not specifically reference any of the
previous instances of speech. Based on the timing of the meeting and the strong
emphasis on the April 30 letter to the editor at that meeting, this passing reference
is not sufficient to raise a genuine issue whether the D ecember 15 article was a
substantial motivating factor in the Board’s actions.
-14-
editor on April 30. The district court concluded this letter involved matters of
public concern, but determined it was unprotected speech under the second prong
of the Pickering analysis. Focusing on the letter’s identification of Deschenie as
a CCSD official and the Board’s interest in clearing official statements with the
administration, the district court determined the Pickering balancing test weighed
in favor of the School Board.
1. Reprimand and Position R eclassification
Assuming the April 30 letter to the editor involved a matter of public
concern, this court must next “balance the employee’s interest in comm enting
upon matters of public concern against the interest of the State, as an employer, in
promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its
employees.” M cFall v. Bednar, 407 F.3d 1081, 1089 (10th Cir. 2005) (quotation
omitted). In performing this balancing test, the court must consider “the manner,
time, and place of the speech, as well as the context in which the dispute arose.”
Weaver v. Chavez, 458 F.3d 1096, 1100 (10th Cir. 2006). For the balance to tip
in favor of the government employer, the employer bears the burden of showing
the infringement on the employee’s speech was necessary to prevent disruption
and ensure efficient public services. Cragg v. City of Osawatomie, 143 F.3d
1343, 1346 (10th Cir. 1998). Further, this court may require a stronger showing
of justification by the government when the employee’s speech more substantially
implicated matters of public concern. Id.
-15-
In evaluating the government interest in restricting the speech, the court
may consider “whether the statement impairs discipline by superiors or harmony
among co-workers, has a detrimental impact on close working relationships for
which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary, or impedes the performance
of the speaker’s duties or interferes with the regular operation of the enterprise.”
Rankin v. M cPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 388 (1987). This court will generally “defer
to a public employer’s reasonable predictions of disruption,” as long as the
predictions are supported by specific evidence. Cragg, 143 F.3d at 1347; see also
Weaver, 458 F.3d at 1100. W hen the adverse employment action takes place
several months after the employee’s speech, however, it is no longer reasonable
for the government to rely on predictions of disruption which did not materialize.
Kent v. M artin, 252 F.3d 1141, 1145-46 (10th Cir. 2001); see also id. at 1145
(“Our cases applying the ‘reasonable prediction of disruption’ standard have done
so in the context of a termination soon after the employee’s exercise of speech,
when the intent of the termination was to avoid actual disruption.”). Rather, once
a sufficient time has passed, the government employer may satisfy its burden only
by showing specific evidence of actual disruption. Id. at 1145-46 (“[The
‘reasonable prediction of disruption’] standard is inapplicable when an employer
has allowed an employee to continue to w ork after the protected expression.”);
Hulen, 322 F.3d at 1239.
-16-
Turning first to Deschenie’s interest in the April 30 letter to the editor, this
court concludes her interest is significant but not overwhelming. By the time this
letter was written, the issue of bilingual education had become a topic of high
interest to the general public. As the director of the bilingual education program,
Deschenie’s position on the issue was particularly valuable in informing the
public debate. Further, Deschenie’s speech sought to expose to the public the
School Board’s lack of support for the bilingual education program. W hile such
expression may not weigh as heavily in the employee’s favor as directly exposing
government corruption, it is nevertheless significant. See Conaway v. Smith, 853
F.2d 789, 797 (10th Cir. 1988) (“[S]peech that seeks to expose improper
operations of the government . . . clearly concerns vital public interests.”). This
is especially true, given the importance of the bilingual education program to the
comm unity and its connection to state education funding. Likewise, it would be
difficult to identify a manner of speech more closely connected with matters of
public concern than publication in a local newspaper.
W eighing against Deschenie’s interest, however, are the specific content of
the speech and the manner in which the speech took place. The letter did not
explicitly allege lack of compliance with state law, as Deschenie had previously
done. Instead, the letter merely expressed her personal support for Navajo
education and her own frustration with the lack of support she and her staff
received from the administration. In addition, Deschenie did not intend for the
-17-
letter to be published. Thus, her motive was not to inform the public on the
matter, but to engage in private speech with a friend. W hile such speech may still
implicate matters of public concern under the first step of the analysis, it does not
weigh as heavily in the Pickering balancing test.
In the proceedings below, the Board attempted to further minimize
Deschenie’s interest by arguing her statements were knowingly false once
M anning clarified he intended to improve the bilingual program, rather than
eliminate it. Because an employee has no First Amendment interest in making
statements which are deliberately or recklessly false, such statements must be
given little weight in the balancing inquiry. Dill, 155 F.3d at 1202. The letter to
the editor, however, did not claim the Board was eliminating the program, but
instead explained Deschenie’s concerns about the program’s lack of support.
Given the circumstances, the evidence supports a conclusion that Deschenie’s
concerns about the program were reasonable and not knowingly or recklessly
false.
The court now turns to the Board’s interest as an employer in restricting
Deschenie’s speech. Assuming the reprimand and position reclassification
constituted adverse actions, these adverse actions occurred within a month after
the publication of the letter to the editor. Therefore, at this point in time, the
Board could justify any adverse action taken against D eschenie by its “reasonable
predictions of disruption.” This court has noted previously that “[a] government
-18-
employer is not required ‘to allow events to unfold to the extent that the
disruption of the office and the destruction of w orking relationships is manifest
before taking action.’” Weaver, 458 F.3d at 1100 (quoting Connick, 461 U.S. at
152). If the employer’s concerns are “reasonable and formed in good faith” and
not “purely speculative allegations,” these concerns may form a justifiable basis
for regulating employee speech. Gardetto, 100 F.3d at 815-16.
As noted above, this court must consider the employer’s interest in light of
the manner, time, place, and context of the employee speech. Based on these
considerations, the Board had a strong interest in restricting Deschenie’s speech
because of the potential disruption which could arise from its apparent
inconsistent positions regarding the bilingual education program. The letter to the
editor was published as signed by Deschenie in her capacity as a school
administrator. W hen a government employee purports to speak on behalf of the
government employer, the employer has a strong interest in controlling the
speech. M oore v. City of Wynnewood, 57 F.3d 924, 933 (10th Cir. 1995). It is
irrelevant that Deschenie did not intend for this letter to be so published because
the speech, as ultimately printed, included her title, thus connecting CCSD to the
letter.
Deschenie’s position as Director of Indian Education and Bilingual
Education also weighs heavily in favor of the Board’s interest in restricting her
speech. The Supreme Court has explained “[t]he burden of caution employees
-19-
bear w ith respect to the words they speak will vary with the extent of authority
and public accountability the employee’s role entails.” Rankin, 483 U.S. at 390.
Here, not only was Deschenie speaking as a school official, but she was the
school official in charge of the very program the speech concerned, making her
statements even more capable of interfering with the Board’s official position.
The manner in which Deschenie spoke further increased the potential for
disruption. By going outside internal channels and airing her concerns publicly
without district approval, Deschenie chose a method of expression which
inherently had greater potential for disruption than other alternatives. 9 See Lytle
v. City of Haysville, 138 F.3d 857, 865 (10th Cir. 1998).
Finally, the highly public nature of the issue and the public’s confusion
over the intent of the School Board w eigh heavily in favor of the Board’s interest
in setting forth its position as clearly as possible. Deschenie herself admitted in a
deposition there had been a public misconception the bilingual program w ould be
eliminated. An email from the head of the bilingual program stating “the pow ers-
that-be” criticize the teaching of Navajo language and culture, whether intended
to be published or not, would surely have the potential to fuel this misconception.
9
As noted above, the Board cannot rely on its alleged policy requiring all
statements made on behalf of CCSD to receive district approval because
Deschenie disputes the existence of such a policy. Even assuming no such policy
was in place, however, Deschenie’s failure to notify the administration of the
letter still increases the likelihood of disruption and weighs in favor of the School
Board’s interest in restricting the speech.
-20-
Given all of these circumstances, it was reasonable for the Board to predict
disruption arising from the publication of the letter to the editor at the time of the
reprimand and position reclassification. Thus, its interest in avoiding this
disruption outweighed Deschenie’s speech interest at that time, and her April 30
letter to the editor does not merit First Amendment protection for purposes of the
reprimand and position reclassification.
2. Termination
Although the School Board’s interest outweighed Deschenie’s interest at
the time of the reprimand and demotion, it does not necessarily follow that this
balance of interests could not shift over time. W hile reasonable predictions of
disruption may be sufficient to justify government action occurring soon after the
employee speech, this rule is inapplicable after several months have passed. See
Kent, 252 F.3d at 1145. By the time the Board terminated Deschenie, six months
had passed and a prediction of disruption could no longer justify an adverse
employment action. Id. Rather, at the time of the termination, the Board could
meet its burden under the second prong of the Pickering/Connick test only by
establishing actual disruption resulting from the A pril 30 letter to the editor.
In this case, however, this court need not decide whether speech which is
unprotected at one point in time because of its potential for disruption may
become protected over time if no actual disruption materializes. Even assuming
the April 30 letter to the editor was protected speech for purposes of the
-21-
termination, the court again concludes the link between the termination and the
speech is too attenuated to support a claim. Thus, even if this instance of speech
proceeds past the second prong of the Pickering analysis, it fails at the third step
for the same reasons as the first four instances of speech discussed above.
Although the April 30 email was closer in proximity to the termination than
any of the other instances of speech, it still preceded the termination by six
months, which is too long to allow an inference of retaliatory motive. 10 In
addition to her arguments addressed above, Deschenie points to statements made
at the M ay 15 meeting criticizing the April 30 letter to the editor as direct
evidence of a retaliatory motive. W hile this criticism may link the reprimand or
even the position reclassification to the speech, it is insufficient to connect the
speech to the termination which occurred six months after that criticism. Based
on the long delay between the termination and the speech, and the intervening
employment problems, this court holds Deschenie has failed to raise a genuine
issue of material fact as to whether the termination was substantially motivated by
her April 30 speech.
IV. Conclusion
10
In her brief, Deschenie relies heavily on the close time proximity
between the April 30 letter to the editor, the M ay 15 board meeting, and the M ay
29 position reclassification. In light of this court’s holding that the April 30 letter
to the editor was not protected for purposes of the reprimand and position
reclassification, however, this time proximity is irrelevant. For purposes of this
portion of the opinion, the only relevant dates are the April 30 letter to the editor
and the November 12 termination.
-22-
For the foregoing reasons, this court affirm s the district court’s grant of
summary judgment to the defendants.
-23-