Tweets
Contributing Editors

Search
From the Blogs
DISCLAIMER

The information on this site does not constitute legal advice and is for educational purposes only. If you have a dispute or legal problem, please consult an attorney licensed to practice law in your state. Additionally, the information and views presented on this blog are solely the responsibility of Justin Bathon personally, or the other contributors, personally, and do not represent the views of the University of Kentucky or the institutional employer of any of the contributing editors.

« Board Certification for Education Lawyers in Florida | Main | The Rubber Room Balloon »
Tuesday
Jun232009

Blogging Teacher Correctly Demoted

The Ninth Circuit has held in Richerson v. Beckon that a teacher who uses her blog to post comments about other employees can have adverse employment consequences taken against her. The teacher, an instructional coach and curriculum specialist, published posts on her personal blog that talked about issues that arose at work. While she never named names, the subjects of the posts were easily identifiable to her co-workers, who refused to work with her. The principal then transferred her back into a regular teaching role.

The court used Pickering as the central analysis, I was pleased to see:

     Particularly relevant to Richerson’s case are the considerations of whether her speech “disrupt[ed] co-worker relations,” “erode[d] a close working relationship premised on personal loyalty and confidentiality,” or “interfere[d] with the speaker’s performance of her or his duties.”
     It is abundantly clear from undisputed evidence in the record that Richerson’s speech had a significantly deleterious effect in each of these ways.

Right result here and right analysis. This was a relatively simple case that the court didn't mess up by harping over the Internet speech or getting tied up with Garcetti.

H/T - Mitchell Rubinstein

Reader Comments (2)

Wrong result and wrong analysis in our view. We have filed for en banc review by the Ninth Circuit, based on the failure by the panel to use the correct test under Pickering ("actual injury to legitimate interests"). So be on the watch for further developments.

July 5, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterTerry A. Venneberg

I absolutely will Terry. Thanks for commenting. Good luck with the appeal.

July 6, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterJustin B.
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.