732 F.Supp. 91 (D.Kan. 1990), 86-4026, Hullman v. Board of Trustees of Pratt Community College
|Citation:||732 F.Supp. 91|
|Party Name:||Don H. HULLMAN, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PRATT COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Defendant.|
|Case Date:||February 12, 1990|
|Court:||United States District Courts, 10th Circuit, District of Kansas|
Wesley A. Weathers, Weathers & Riley, Topeka, Kan., for plaintiff.
Kelly J. Rundell, Hershberger, Patterson, Jones & Roth, Wichita, Kan., for defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CROW, District Judge.
The case comes before the court on the parties' respective motions to reconsider the court's order filed November 29, 1989, 725 F.Supp. 1536, and on the plaintiff's alternative motion for certification of controlling questions of law for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). In its prior order, the court granted in part the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all of the plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the court's entry of summary judgment on his right to petition claim and on the issue of whether he conditionally accepted the defendant's contract offer for the 1985-1986 school year. Defendant requests reconsideration of the court's denial of summary judgment on plaintiff's first amendment claim. Since defendant's motion raises a number of points which if resolved in a particular way would also affect the substance of plaintiff's motion, the court will address first the defendant's motion. Because of its lengthy discussion of the issues in the November 29th order, the court's ruling and explanation on the motions to reconsider will be brief.
Summarizing the court's holdings on the first amendment claims, plaintiff's complaints over his reassignment, including his comments to the Board in executive session on July 15th, are not protected speech. Plaintiff's criticisms of financial mismanagement of the ASEF and student scholarships made on earlier dates do address issues of public concern. Due to the deposition testimony of Board member, James Van Blaricum, questions of fact exist concerning whether plaintiff's reassignment and nonrenewal were done in retaliation for his criticisms of financial mismanagement and wrongdoing.
Defendant contends the last holding should be altered for either of the following reasons--plaintiff has not alleged in the pretrial order a first amendment claim on his criticisms of financial mismanagement, or additional portions of Van Blaricum's deposition clarify his...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP