In Hartzell v. Marana Unified School Dist., published March 5, 2025, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in favor of the defendant school district and its principal. The plaintiff was a parent who had multiple children enrolled in the school overseen by the defendant principal. The plaintiff had been advocating for improved services in the district, and asserted that the district reacted negatively to her advocacy. One day, two of the plaintiff's children were scheduled to present projects at a school event, in different rooms simultaneously. The plaintiff saw the principal during the event and complained. After a conversation, the principal started walking away. There was conflicting evidence over whether the plaintiff grabbed the principal's wrist or simply touched his arm. A hall monitor ordered the plaintiff to leave the school grounds. The plaintiff was approached in the parking lot by a police officer who told her she was "trespassed from" the school property and could not enter school property; and that the order would remain in effect until the district decided otherwise. In an incident report, the officer stated that he was acting on the school's instructions. After the incident, district personnel discussed the plaintiff's advocacy. The superintendent and an attorney for the district met with the plaintiff and told her she was banned from school grounds indefinitely, with the exception that she could pick up one child if she did not speak to anyone. The order remained in place for over three years. The plaintiff contended the exclusion order was issued pursuant to a district policy that prohibits conduct intended to obstruct, disrupt, or interfere with a school’s operations; physical or verbal abuse or threat of harm to any person on property owned or controlled by the district; and use e of speech or language that is offensive or inappropriate to the limited forum of the public school educational environment. The plaintiff sued the district and the principal, bringing a 1st Amendment retaliation claim against both and a procedural due process claim against the district. The district court granted summary judgment on the procedural due process claim, and granted the principal summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The case proceeded to trial on the plaintiff's Monell claim against the district based on a custom, policy, or practice that was the moving force behind the alleged 1st Amendment retaliation claim. At the close of the plaintiff's case in chief, the court granted the defendants judgment on the Monell claim under FRCP 50(a) (nonsuit).
The 9th Circuit ruled that the district court erred in granting nonsuit on the district's 1st Amendment retaliation liability. The provision of the district policy banning speech that is offensive or inappropriate would be unconstitutional if it applied to ban the plaintiff for criticizing the principal. The plaintiff presented sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the district relied on the policy, rather than the plaintiff allegedly grabbing the principal's wrist, to ban the plaintiff from school premises. The 9th Circuit upheld summary judgment on the procedural due process claim, on the ground that the plaintiff did not have a protected state interest in accessing school property. It also upheld summary judgment for the principal based on qualified immunity. There was no existing binding precedent that clearly established that excluding a parent from school grounds based on a policy banning offensive or inappropriate speech.
Leave a Reply