United States Sixth Circuit

In an action against a school district and a school superintendent raising First Amendment retaliation and privacy claims, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part, but reversed as to one plaintiff's retaliation claim against the superintendent where: 1) the district court incorrectly held that plaintiffs' speech was not constitutionally protected because it did not touch upon a matter of public concern; 2) the superintendent's alleged actions, dismissing plaintiff's child from school, being involved in making a false report to Children Services, and refusing to provide home-school education through the services of a tutor, would chill a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in speech; and 3) defendant allegedly admitted that plaintiff's complaints prompted him to be involved in reporting her to Children Services.

Appellate Information

• Decided 01/17/2008
• Published 01/17/2008

Judges

• Before: DAUGHTREY and COLE, Circuit Judges;  COLLIER, Chief District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Michael Garth Moore, Law Office of Michael Moore, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellants.  R. Gary Winters, McCaslin, Imbus & McCaslin, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellees.   ON BRIEF:  Michael Garth Moore, Law Office of Michael Moore, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellants.  R. Gary Winters, Ian R. Smith, McCaslin, Imbus & McCaslin, Cincinnati, OH, for Appellees.