Mayer v. Monroe County Community School Corp.
Decision Date | 24 January 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 06-1993.,06-1993. |
Citation | 474 F.3d 477 |
Parties | Deborah A. MAYER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MONROE COUNTY COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Michael L. Schultz (argued), Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Thomas E. Wheeler, II (argued), Locke Reynolds LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE and MANION, Circuit Judges.
Deborah Mayer worked for one year as a probationary elementary-school teacher in Monroe County, Indiana. When the school district did not renew her contract for a second year, Mayer filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, maintaining that the school system let her go because she took a political stance during a current-events session in her class, thus violating the first amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, so we must accept Mayer's version of events — which is that she answered a pupil's question about whether she participated in political demonstrations by saying that, when she passed a demonstration against this nation's military operations in Iraq and saw a placard saying "Honk for Peace", she honked her car's horn to show support for the demonstrators. Some parents complained, and the school's principal told all teachers not to take sides in any political controversy. Mayer believes that this incident led the school system to dismiss her; we must assume that this is so.
The district court concluded that, because military intervention in Iraq is an issue of public importance, Mayer had a right to express her views on the subject, but that the right is qualified in the work-place by the requirement that expression not disrupt an employer's business unduly. This is the method of Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968). After concluding that the employer's interests predominate, the district court gave judgment for the defendants. Mayer contends on appeal that the balance under Pickering weighs in her favor. For their part, defendants contend that interest balancing plays no role when the speech in question is part of the employee's official duties. See Garcetti v. Ceballos, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 126 S.Ct 1951, 1960, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006) (); Mills v. Evansville, 452 F.3d 646 (7th Cir.2006). Mayer concedes that the current-events session, conducted during class hours, was part of her official duties; if Garcetti supplies the rule of decision, then the school district prevails without further ado. Mayer insists, however, that principles of academic freedom supersede Garcetti in classrooms, and she relies on a statement in Piggee v. Carl Sandburg College, 464 F.3d 667, 672 (7th Cir.2006), that Garcetti was "not directly relevant" to the college instructor's speech in that case.
Whether teachers in primary and secondary schools have a constitutional right to determine what they say in class is not a novel question in this circuit. We held in Webster v. New Lenox School District No. 122, 917 F.2d 1004 (7th Cir.1990), that public-school teachers must hew to the approach prescribed by principals (and others higher up in the chain of authority). Ray Webster wanted to teach his social-studies class that the world is much younger than the four-billion-year age given in the textbook the class was using; he proposed that the pupils consider the possibility of divine creation as an alternative to the scientific understanding. We held that Webster did not have a constitutional right to introduce his own views on the subject but must stick to the prescribed curriculum — not only the prescribed subject matter, but also the prescribed perspective on that subject matter. Following Palmer v. Board of Education, 603 F.2d 1271 (7th Cir.1979), we held in Webster that "those authorities charged by state law with curriculum development [may] require the obedience of subordinate employees, including the classroom teacher." 917 F.2d at 1007. See also Boring v. Buncombe County Board of Education, 136 F.3d 364 (4th Cir.1998).
This is so in part because the school system does not "regulate" teachers' speech as much as it hires that speech. Expression is a teacher's stock in trade, the commodity she sells to her employer in exchange for a salary. A teacher hired to lead a social-studies class can't use it as a platform for a revisionist perspective that Benedict Arnold wasn't really a traitor, when the approved program calls him one; a high-school teacher hired to explicate Moby-Dick in a literature class can't use Cry, The Beloved Country instead, even if Paton's book better suits the instructor's style and point of view; a math teacher can't decide that calculus is more important than trigonometry and decide to let Hipparchus and Ptolemy slide in favor of Newton and Leibniz.
Beyond the fact that teachers hire out their own speech and must provide the service for which employers are willing to pay — which makes this an easier case for the employer than Garcetti, where speech was not what the employee was being paid to create — is the fact that the pupils are a captive audience. Education is compulsory, and children must attend public...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moeckel v. Caremark, Inc.
... ... See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, ... Shelby County Sch. Dist., 270 F.3d 1036, 1056 (6th Cir.2001) ... ...
-
Kerr v. Hurd
...cases have applied its analysis in academic settings, citing Renken v. Gregory, 541 F.3d 769 (7th Cir.2008); Mayer v. Monroe County Community Sch. Corp., 474 F.3d 477 (7th Cir.2007); and Borden v. Sch. Dist. of Twp. of East Brunswick, 523 F.3d 153 (3rd Cir.2008), cert denied, ___ U.S. ___, ......
-
Johnson v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist.
...F.3d 1192, 1204 (10th Cir.2007); Williams v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 480 F.3d 689, 694 (5th Cir.2007); Mayer v. Monroe Cnty. Cmty. Sch. Corp., 474 F.3d 477, 479–80 (7th Cir.2007) (applying Pickering-based test and holding that “the [F]irst [A]mendment does not entitle primary and secondar......
-
Brown v. Chi. Bd. of Educ.
...must hew to the approach prescribed by principals (and others higher up in the chain of authority).” Mayer v. Monroe Cnty. Cmty. Sch. Corp., 474 F.3d 477, 479 (7th Cir.2007) (citation omitted); see also Clark v. Holmes, 474 F.2d 928, 931 (7th Cir.1972) ( “[A]cademic freedom [is not] a licen......
-
ACLU Picks Its Side, And It’s Not Free Speech
...“[T]he school system does not ‘regulate’ teachers’ speech as much as it hires that speech.” Mayer v. Monroe Cty. Cmty. Sch. Corp., 474 F.3d 477, 479 (7th Cir. 2007). When teachers address students in the classroom in a compulsory K-12 setting, that speech “owes its existence to a public emp......
-
Preparing students for democratic participation: why teacher curricular speech should sometimes be protected by the First Amendment.
...40 VAND. L. REV. 939, 942 (1987). (2.) Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellant Deborah A. Mayer at 6, Mayer v. Monroe County Cmty. Sch. Corp., 474 F.3d 477 (7th Cir. 2007) (No. 06-1993), 2006 WL (3.) Id. at 4. (4.) Id. at 4-5. (5.) Id. (6.) Id. (7.) Id. at 6. (8.) R.J. CHILDERHOSE, HOCKEY FEVER I......
-
Teaching in the Upside Down: What Anti-Critical Race Theory Laws Tell Us About the First Amendment.
...Id. at 342; see also Savage v. Gee, 665 F.3d 732, 738-39 (6th Cir. 2012) (referring to the Garcetti academic exception as "dicta"). (156.) 474 F.3d 477,480 (7th Cir. (157.) See, e.g., Paul Forster, Teaching in a Democracy: Why the Garcetti Rule Should Apply to Teaching in Public Schools, 46......
-
The Deconstitutionalization of Academic Freedom After Garcetti v. Ceballos?
...realm. California Law Review, 91, 1061-1108. Martin v. Parrish, 805 F.2d 583 (5th Cir. 1986).Mayer v. Monroe County Community Sch. Corp., 474 F.3d 477 (7th Cir. 2007a).Mayer v. Monroe County Community Sch. Corp., 552 U.S. 823 (2007b).Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Do......
-
"a Kind of Continuing Dialogue": Reexamining the Audience's Role in Exempting Academic Freedom from Garcetti's Employee Speech Doctrine
...context, the court still narrowed the constitutional rights of "nontenured" professors. Id.68. See Mayer v. Monroe Cty. Cmty. Sch. Corp., 474 F.3d 477, 479-80 (7th Cir. 2007) (holding that primary and secondary school teachers do not have a right to deviate from their school's adopted curri......