Settlegoode v. Portland Public Schools
Decision Date | 05 April 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 02-35260.,02-35260. |
Citation | 371 F.3d 503 |
Parties | Pamella E. SETTLEGOODE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Multnomah School District No.1; Susan Winthrop; Robert Crebo; Larry Whitson, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Charles J. Merten, Portland, OR, argued for the plaintiff-appellant.
Bruce L. Campbell, Portland, OR, argued for the defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Janice M. Stewart, Magistrate Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-00-00313-ST.
Before D.W. NELSON, KOZINSKI and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The opinion in this case is amended as follows:
Slip op. 4201, Line 11:
Insert "most of" before "the issues"
Slip op. 4201, Lines 15-16:
Delete "In other words, the section 1983 claim is both necessary and sufficient to sustain the jury's full verdict."
Slip op. 4205, Line 19:
Insert the following as a new footnote 6 at the end of the paragraph:
The remaining footnotes are re-numbered accordingly.
Slip op. 4206, n. 7 (formerly n. 6), Line 6:
Insert ", in part," before "was concerned"
Slip op. 4206, n. 7 (formerly n. 6), Lines 12-16:
Replace
Slip op. 4212, Line 12:
Replace "Because we hold" with "We hold"
Slip op. 4212, Line 14:
Insert "against Winthrop and Crebo" after "1983 claims"
Slip op. 4212, Lines 14-15:
Delete ", we need not address her other claims"
Slip op. 4212, Line 17:
Insert the following as a new footnote 11 after "under section 1983.":
The remaining footnotes are re-numbered accordingly.
The petition for rehearing is otherwise denied and the petition for rehearing en banc is rejected. Fed. R.App. P. 35; Fed. R.App. P. 40. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be accepted. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
We consider the standard of review applicable to various post-trial motions following a jury verdict.
Many facts were hotly disputed at trial. We state them here consistent with the verdict.
Dr. Pamella Settlegoode was hired by Portland Public Schools as an Adapted Physical Education teacher for the 1998-99 academic year on a probationary basis. Hired to teach students with disabilities in various schools in the district, she was an itinerant teacher and therefore conducted her physical education classes at two or three different schools each day. Her job included teaching the disabled students as well as drafting individualized education programs (IEP) for them, as mandated by federal law. See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d).
Settlegoode soon became concerned about the way disabled students were treated in the Portland schools. She had trouble finding a place to teach her high school students; material and equipment were often lacking, inadequate or unsafe. Settlegoode tried to talk to her immediate supervisor, Susan Winthrop, about these problems. Winthrop told Settlegoode that she was the only one who had ever complained about the facilities for disabled students, and Winthrop frequently attempted to change the subject. At the end of her first year of teaching, Settlegoode wrote Winthrop's supervisor, Robert Crebo, a ten-page letter expressing her concern that the Adapted Physical Education program suffered from problems of "[s]ystematic discrimination, maladministration, access, pedagogy, curriculum, equity and parity," and "greatly compromised" federal law. E.R. at 132. She described her negative experiences in several different schools in the district, comparing the treatment of disabled students to that of black students before the Civil Rights Movement. "In sum," she wrote, Id. at 141. Settlegoode also criticized Winthrop in this letter, claiming that Winthrop was dismissive of Settlegoode's concern for her students, and that Winthrop was too tied to the school bureaucracy to be in touch with the needs of disabled students.
Crebo gave Settlegoode's letter to Winthrop for comment. Winthrop replied with a memo to Crebo stating: "It is of concern to me that a staff member with such limited experience has the potential to defame my character and damage my professional reputation." Id. at 144. Winthrop ended with, "I appreciate your support in this." Id. Crebo then asked Winthrop to draft a response to Settlegoode's letter and to investigate Settlegoode's accusations. In the meantime, Winthrop told Settlegoode to stop writing letters, because it was not "an effective means of communicating." S.E.R. at 61.
Crebo's response to Settlegoode's letter defended Winthrop and the school district's treatment of disabled students. The letter ended by stating: Id. at 155.
During Settlegoode's first year of teaching, her performance evaluations were generally positive. In all categories, Winthrop wrote that Settlegoode's performance met minimum standards. She elaborated that Settlegoode's instruction was "well planned, appropriate, and of high interest." Id. at 222. She also wrote that Settlegoode "is supportive of students, giving them good feedback and treating them with respect," and that she "has creative ideas and effectively uses unique materials to enhance activities." Id. With regard to the preparation of IEPs for her students, Winthrop explained that, Id.
Winthrop's evaluations after Settlegoode's letter were much more negative. Settlegoode no longer met minimum standards of performance in several areas, including IEP writing, behavior management practices, ability to maintain maximal instruction time for students, ability to interact positively with administrators, supervisors and colleagues, and ability to interact positively with parents and students. Winthrop noted in the evaluations that Settlegoode Id. at 232.1 Winthrop also wrote that Settlegoode was "strong, outspoken, and demanding," and that she was "not able to listen to constructive criticism, complete a self reflective process, and improve professional behavior." Id. at 235. The evaluation ended by stating that, "[i]f Dr. Settlegoode's work continues at its present quality, renewal of contract for another year cannot be recommended." Id. at 237.
Settlegoode next wrote a fifteen-page letter to Dr. Ben Canada, the superintendent of Portland Public Schools, claiming that she was being retaliated against for complaining about the treatment of her students. She also reiterated her contention that the facilities for disabled students in the school district were inadequate. She claimed these conditions were "discriminatory." Id. at...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williams v. Harvey
...make a contemporaneous objection to an alleged violation of the motion in limine during closing argument); Settlegoode v. Portland Public Schools , 371 F.3d 503, 517 (9th Cir. 2004) (failure to make a contemporaneous objection to an alleged violation of a motion in limine during closing arg......
-
Redmond v. San Jose Police Dep't
...at trial to establish that they would have taken the actions in the absence of her recording the incident. Settlegoode v. Portland Pub. Schs., 371 F.3d 503, 512 (9th Cir.2004); accord Pinard, 467 F.3d at 770. The Court finds that Redmond's testimony, as well as the video recording, constitu......
-
Dodge v. Evergreen School District #114
...co-workers without evidence of "any actual injury" to school operations does not constitute a disruption. Settlegoode v. Portland Pub. Schs. , 371 F.3d 503, 514 (9th Cir. 2004). Other relevant considerations in the school context are whether "students and parents have expressed concern that......
-
Jennings v. Jones
...a district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law in cases involving qualified immunity. See, e.g., Settlegoode v. Portland Pub. Schs., 371 F.3d 503, 503 (9th Cir.2004)("Many facts were hotly disputed at trial. We state them here consistent with the verdict."); Tamez v. City of San Ma......
-
Summation
...theory as “absurd” and “trickery” in a prosecution for first-degree murder and related offenses. Settlegoode v. Portland Public Schools , 371 F.3d 503, 519-20 (9th Cir. 2004). In a teacher’s civil rights action against school defendants, teacher’s attorney did not commit misconduct during h......