Jackson Pub. Sch. Dist. v. Jackson Fed'n of Teachers & PSRPS
| Docket Number | 2022-CA-00464-SCT |
| Decision Date | 26 October 2023 |
| Parties | JACKSON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT v. JACKSON FEDERATION OF TEACHERS AND PSRPS |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
BEFORE RANDOLPH, C.J., ISHEE AND GRIFFIS, JJ.
¶1. Jackson Federation of Teachers (JFT) filed a complaint against Jackson Public School District (JPS) and alleged that certain JPS policies violated the free speech rights of its employees. The trial court (1) denied JPS's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, (2) denied JPS's motion to dismiss for mootness, (3) found that JPS's three policies were in violation of article 3, section 11, and article 3, section 13, of the Mississippi Constitution, and (4) issued a permanent injunction enjoining JPS from enforcing the policies. JPS timely appealed. Because JFT failed to establish standing, we reverse the trial court's decision and render judgment in favor of JPS.
¶2. There is no substantial dispute of the facts. The dispute centers around the constitutionality of the policies under the Mississippi Constitution.
¶3. JFT is a labor union representing "member teachers, paraprofessionals, and school-related personnel in the Jackson Public School District." JFT claimed that JPS violated article 3, section 11, and article 3, section 13, of the Mississippi Constitution by restricting "the speech of its employees through a web of formal and informal policies, guidance documents, trainings and instructions" through its Confidential Information Policy (GACC), Staff Ethics Policy (GBA), and Social Networking Websites Policy (GBAA). JFT requested that the trial court find JPS's actions unlawful, order an injunction prohibiting all current and future enforcement of such actions, and require JPS to take affirmative actions to cure the violations. JFT sought financial damages in the form of nominal and punitive damages as well as costs and attorneys' fees.
¶4. JPS moved to dismiss and asserted that JFT lacked standing to bring the suit. After the second hearing, JPS asked the trial court to take judicial notice of certain policy changes by its board of trustees that had occurred after JFT filed suit. The parties agreed that the trial court should consider the record developed at the initial hearing and the two evidentiary hearings and that the trial court would decide whether to dismiss the case or issue a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction.
¶5. The trial court considered three JPS policies: (1) Confidential Information Policy (GACC), (2) Staff Ethics Policy (GBA), and (3) Social Networking Websites Policy (GBAA). The applicable portions of those policies are as follows:
(Emphasis added.) Once defined, the term "confidential information" permeates JPS's policies and training.
(Emphasis added.)
¶6. The trial court granted JPS's motion to take judicial notice of the policy changes, but it denied JPS's motion to dismiss on the grounds of standing and mootness. JFT's petition for declaratory judgment and permanent injunction were granted in part and denied in part. The trial court found that there was no evidence of retaliation by JPS but that JPS's policies were unconstitutionally vague, overly broad, and restrained the speech of its employees. The trial court found that all of the GACC policy and portions of the GBA and GBAA policies were in violation of article 3, section 11, and article 3, section 13, of the Mississippi Constitution because they "unconstitutionally restrict[ed] the protected speech of JPS's employees" and were "a prior restraint on free speech[.]" The trial court further found that "by restricting JPS's employees' speech, the enjoined policies unconstitutionally restrict[ed] JPS employees' right to petition their government." The trial court issued a permanent injunction regarding JPS's enforcement of the GACC policy in its entirety and sections of the GBA and GBAA policies. JPS was enjoined from instructing, training, or informing employees to follow these policies and disciplining, terminating, or otherwise penalizing employees for violations of these policies.
¶7. JPS timely appealed. On appeal, JPS argued (1) JFT lacks standing to challenge JPS's employment policies, (2) JFT's challenge to the policies was moot at the time the trial court entered its declaratory judgment and permanent injunction, (3) JPS's policies are not unconstitutional, and (4) JFT did not meet its burden to obtain a permanent injunction.
I. Standing
¶8. Standing "is a question of law reviewed under a de novo standard." DeSoto Times Today v. Memphis Publ'g Co., 991 So.2d 609, 611 (Miss. 2008) (citing Dep't of Hum. Servs. v. Gaddis, 730 So.2d 1116 1117 (Miss. 1998)). "Standing is a jurisdictional issue, City of Madison v. Bryan, 763 So.2d 162, 166 (Miss. 2000); Frisby v. City of Gulfport (In re City of Biloxi), 113 So.3d 565, 570 (Miss. 2013), and therefore addresses the fundamental question of the power of courts to act." Butler v. Watson (In re Initiative Measure No. 65), 338 So.3d 599, 605 (Miss. 2021). "[S]tanding must exist when litigation is commenced and must continue through all subsequent stages of litigation, or the case will become moot." Id. (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hotboxxx, LLC v. City of Gulfport, 154 So.3d 21, 28 (Miss. 2015)).
¶9. In response to JPS's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, JFT asserts it has standing in its own right and through associate...
To continue reading
Request your trial