April 14, 2022 – Carlsbad, CA. Meyers Fozi & Dwork, LLP attorneys Daniel Modafferi and Golnar Fozi successfully defeated claims for money damages against current and former administrators of the Claremont Unified School District, according to a unanimous, published opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of the administrators, on qualified immunity grounds.
The lawsuit arose after the owner of a popular field trip venue in San Bernardino County posted caustic messages on his social media accounts. Evidence produced in the case revealed the social media posts led parents to complain to the school district which, in response to the parent complaints, canceled upcoming field trips to that venue and chose alternative venues instead. The complaint sought millions of dollars in damages for the alleged loss of business revenue, as well as reputational harm.
Under Supreme Court precedent, if public employees of reasonable competence could disagree on the issue, qualified immunity should be recognized, and the claims for damages must be dismissed. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the defendants that it would not have been clear to a reasonable public school administrator in the defendants’ position that the cancellation of the field trips would violate the First Amendment rights of the field trip venue owner. Therefore, the court concluded that the administrators could not be held liable for damages.
The published opinion also sets important precedent for future First Amendment cases, as the Ninth Circuit recognized that public entities are entitled to have their legitimate governmental interests weighed against the First Amendment interests of a private vendor, when the public entity severs a prior business relationship with the vendor. In Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) 391 U.S. 563, the Supreme Court held that this interest-balancing test would apply to First Amendment retaliation claims brought by public employees. Subsequent court opinions expanded the balancing test to First Amendment retaliation claims involving independent contractors. However, no court had ever applied the same balancing test to private vendors. The Ninth Corcuit agreed with the defendants that the same legitimate governmental interests must be protected, regardless of whether the plaintiff was an employee, an independent contractor, or a vendor. This precedent provides additional protection for public entities and public employees who are sued under the First Amendment.
For more information on how the attorneys at Meyers Fozi & Dwork can help you, your business or organization, please do not hesitate to call (760) 444-0039.