Issue
In Lytle v. Carl (2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,883, 9th Cir., (Nev.), Sept. 1, 2004), the United States Court of Appeals considered the issues of whether an assistant super-intendent was a “final policymaker” and whether he retaliated against a teacher for filing a previous lawsuit.
Facts
Teacher, Trudi Lytle, succeeded in a lawsuit against her employer, Clark County School District, on a claim that she was fired for exercising her free speech rights. After she was reinstated, she filed a second lawsuit claiming School District retaliated against her because of her first lawsuit. A jury ruled in favor of Teacher and School District appealed.
Appellate Court Decision
Teacher claimed a violation of her right to access to the courts, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. School District argued it could not be held liable because the assistant superintendent who retaliated against Teacher was not a “final policymaker.” “For a person to be a final policymaker, he or she must be in a position of authority such that a final decision by that person may appropriately be attributed to the District.” Here, the Court focused on policymaking regarding employment-related decisions. The Board of Trustees for School District had delegated to the superintendent authority over employee discipline. In turn, the assistant superintendent has responsibility for “administrative operations and staff relations,” including discipline. The Board does not discipline employees. Therefore, the Court concluded that the assistant superintendent was a final policymaker with respect to personnel decisions. The Court rejected School District’s argument that the assistant superintendent was not a final policymaker because his employment-related decisions were subject to review by the Board or through the grievance process under the collective bargaining agreement.
The Court then determined that the assistant superintendent retaliated against Teacher or ratified retaliation by other District employees, through the following actions: investigation and denial of request for sick leave; public reprimand and new requirement that Teacher ask permission to go into other teachers’ classrooms; progressive discipline; requirement that Teacher keep daily log of activities; and failure to investigate complaints.
The Court therefore affirmed the jury verdict in favor of Teacher.
Legal Alert Email Disclaimer
Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.