Wasson

Opinion by Judge SCHROEDER; Dissent by Judge B. FLETCHER.

The dispositive issue is whether a public employee can maintain a claim that her employer wrongfully retaliated against her for the exercise of First Amendment rights to free speech when she denies having made the speech in question. We conclude that the plaintiff fails to state a First Amendment claim in these circumstances because she cannot show the alleged wrongful conduct was in retaliation for any exercise of her free speech rights.

Sylvia Wasson is a professor in the So-noma County Junior College District (“the District”). She filed this suit against District President Robert Agrella and District Vice President John Roberts after they recommended Wasson’s termination to the District’s Governing Board. It is undisputed that defendants sought to fire Was-son because they believed her to be the author of six publicly disseminated writings that vilified Agrella. Wasson vigorously denies that she is the author of these writings. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss Wasson’s First Amendment claim on the basis of qualified immunity. We affirm on different grounds because we conclude that Wasson has…

Dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. The majority disposes of this case on the grounds that Sylvia Wasson failed to state a claim under the First Amendment. It holds that because she denies writing a series of letters that were imputed to her by her employer, she has no standing to challenge 'and seek recompense for the retaliation she suffered — a threat of firing, placement on forced administrative leave, and public humiliation. The majority completely ignores the chilling effect its holding will have on her as well as other, individuals. *664 seeking to exercise their right to speak anonymously.

The majority would resolve this case by finding that Wasson does not have standing to assert another’s rights to anonymous speech. But the right at stake is her right not to be retaliated against for speech she either made anonymously or did not make at all. She has been injured. The majority finds Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 , 114 S.Ct. 1878 , 128 L.Ed.2d 686 (1994) inapplicable because in Waters the plaintiff acknowledged speaking but disputed what was said. Justice O’Con-nor’s plurality opinion acknowledged that a public employer violates the First Amendment when it does not…