Lytle
Lytle v. Wondrash
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Thompson, J.
OVERVIEW
Trudi Lytle, an elementary school teacher in the Clark County School District in Nevada (“the District”) brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the District and a group of present and former school administrators. She alleged the defendants had harassed her and violated her First Amendment rights to free speech and access to the courts in retaliation for a prior lawsuit she had filed against the District and four individuals, including the then principal of the elementary school where she taught. Lytle had prosecuted her pri- or action to a favorable conclusion, winning a jury verdict of $135,000 and reinstatement.
The individual appellant-defendants (the “Appellants”) moved for summary judgment, contending they were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied their motion, and this appeal followed.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , see Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 524-25 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985), and we reverse. Lytle is a public employee. Applying the balancing test of Pickering v. Board of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 568 , 88 S.Ct. 1731 , 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968), as required by Brewster v. Board of Educ., 149 F.3d 971 ,…
Dissenting Opinion
Thomas, J.
dissenting:
In a thoughtful opinion, the district court denied qualified immunity to six defendants in this case. Because I agree with the district court’s analysis, I respectfully dissent.
Reliance on Brewster v. Board of Education, 149 F.3d 971 (9th Cir.1998), which grafted a balancing test under Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 , 88 S.Ct. 1731 , 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968), into a quali *1090 fied immunity analysis, is misplaced in this case. The thrust of a Brewster inquiry is whether the purported exercise of First Amendment rights is constitutionally protected in a given context. As the Brewster court put it:
149 F.3d at 980 (citation omitted).
However, that question is not at issue in this case. Indeed, everyone concedes that Lytle’s prior litigation was constitutionally protected speech because it involved a matter of public concern. See Rendish v. City of Tacoma, 123 F.3d 1216, 1223 (9th Cir.1997), cert. denied — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 2368 , 141 L.Ed.2d 737 (1998). Thus, it is inappropriate to apply the balancing discussed in Pickering and Brewster because the question of whether Lytle was engaged in constitutionally protected activity was already settled. A…