Munroe v. Cent. Bucks Sch. Dist.
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
Citation | 805 F.3d 454 |
Docket Number | No. 14–3509.,14–3509. |
Parties | Natalie MUNROE, Appellant, v. CENTRAL BUCKS SCHOOL DISTRICT; N. Robert Laws, Superintendent of Schools Central Bucks School District; Abram Lucabaugh, Principal Central Bucks High School East. |
Decision Date | 04 September 2015 |
Stanley B. Cheiken, Esq. (Argued), Jenkintown, PA, Counsel for Appellant.
Kimberly A. Boyer–Cohen, Esq. (Argued), Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Philadelphia, PA, Counsel for Appellee.
Sean A. Fields, Esq., Pennsylvania School Boards Association, Mechanicsburg, PA, Counsel for Amicus Appellee Pennsylvania School Board Association.
BEFORE: AMBRO and COWEN, Circuit Judges RESTANI* , Judge.
Plaintiff Natalie Munroe filed this First Amendment retaliation action against Defendants Central Bucks School District (“School District”), School District Superintendent N. Robert Laws, and Central Bucks East High School (“CB East”) Principal Abram Lucabaugh. The School District fired Munroe, an English teacher at CB East, after her blog—in which she made a number of derogatory comments about her own students—was discovered. She appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granting the Defendants' summary judgment motion. We agree with the District Court that, pursuant to the Pickering balancing test, Munroe's speech did not rise to the level of constitutionally protected expression. Accordingly, we will affirm.
In 2006, Munroe was hired by the School District and assigned to teach English at CB East in Doylestown, Pennsylvania. Her performance evaluations indicated that she was generally considered to be an effective and competent teacher. For example, an October 2006 review praised her abilities and work habits. In June 2008, Lucabaugh wrote a letter of recommendation in support of Munroe's application for admission to a graduate program. He described Munroe as a “woman of utmost integrity, character, and intelligence,” “a consummate educator with a sparkling future,” and “a woman whom I respect both personally and professionally.” (A175.) The School District granted Munroe tenure in March 2010.
In August 2009, Munroe began a blog entitled Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket? Blogging under the name “Natalie M,” she did not expressly identify either where she worked or lived, the name of the school where she taught, or the names of her students. According to Munroe, her blog was meant to be viewed by friends that she had asked to subscribe. She did not intend for it to be read by the public at large. For most of the blog's history, there were no more than nine subscribed readers, including Munroe herself and her husband. However, no password was required to access the blog.
Munroe wrote a total of eighty-four blog posts between August 2009 and November 2010, “most of which had nothing to do with her school or work.” (Appellant's Brief at 6 (citing A208–A254, A412–A452).) Intended as a vehicle to keep in touch with friends, Munroe mostly addressed personal matters like her food and film preferences, her children, and her regular yoga classes. On a number of occasions, she wrote about her co-workers, the School District administration, her students, and their parents.
In what the District Court called “one memorable passage,” Munroe v. Cent. Bucks Sch. Dist., 34 F.Supp.3d 532, 538 (E.D.Pa.2014), Munroe explained that she was entering grades, discussed the grading process, and, finally, offered some comments she would like to see added to the so-called “canned” comment list used to fill out students' report cards. At the top of this January 20, 2010 blog post, there was a depiction of a school bus with a “Short Bus” sign and the following heading: “I DON'T CARE IF YOU LICK THE WINDOWS, TAKE THE SPECIAL BUS OR OCCASSIONALLY PEE ON YOURSELF ... YOU HANG IN THERE SUNSHINE, YOU'RE FRIGGIN SPECIAL. ” (A245). Munroe then stated the following:
On April 3, 2010, Munroe blogged about all of the “Things From This Day That Bothered Me.” These “Things” were almost all work-related:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hewlette-Bullard ex rel. J.H-B. v. Pocono Mountain Sch. Dist.
...at summary judgment stage that student's speech was protected by the First Amendment); cf. Munroe v. Central Bucks Sch. Dist. , 805 F.3d 454, 466 (3d Cir. 2015) (stating in employment discrimination context that "whether or not speech is protected by the First Amendment constitutes a questi......
-
Riley's Am. Heritage Farms v. Elsasser
...normal operations, or has eroded the public trust between the school and members of its community. See Munroe v. Cent. Bucks Sch. Dist. , 805 F.3d 454, 475–76 (3d Cir. 2015). Because schools act in loco parentis for students, see Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton , 515 U.S. 646, 655, 115 S.C......
-
Riley's Am. Heritage Farms, Corp. v. Elsasser
...normal operations, or has eroded the public trust between the school and members of its community. See Munroe v. Cent. Bucks Sch. Dist. , 805 F.3d 454, 475–76 (3d Cir. 2015). Because schools act in loco parentis for students, see Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton , 515 U.S. 646, 655, 115 S.C......
-
Gillis v. Miller, s. 16-1245/1249
...and Eleventh Circuits have each held that evidence of actual disruption is not required. See, e.g. , Munroe v. Cent. Bucks Sch. Dist. , 805 F.3d 454, 472 (3d Cir. 2015) ("The government need not show the existence of actual disruption if it establishes that disruption is likely to occur bec......
-
Cop- Like ("[like]"): The First Amendment, Criminal Procedure, and the Regulation of Police Social Media Speech.
...Cir. 2008); Thaeter v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 449 F.3d 1342,1344,1356 (11th Cir. 2006); cf. Munroe v. Cent. Bucks Sch. Dist., 805 F.3d 454, 458, 480 (3d Cir. 2015) (finding, pursuant to the Pickering balancing test, no First Amendment protection for a public school teacher who mai......
-
Social Media and the Progressive Limitations on Public Sector Employees' First Amendment Right to Free Speech.
...posts made in a semi-private online setting may not meet the requirements of protected speech. In Munroe v. Central Bucks School District, 805 F.3d 454, 458-61 (3d Cir. 2015), the former teacher utilized a somewhat anonymous and private blog forum to unpleasantly and profanely gripe about h......