High Court Refuses Case on Parent’s Criticism of District Leader

Article Tools
  • PrintPrinter-Friendly
  • EmailEmail Article
  • ReprintReprints
  • CommentsComments

The U.S. Supreme Court declined last week to hear the appeal of an Ohio superintendent in a lawsuit brought by a parent who says she faced retaliation for publicly criticizing the school district’s treatment of her daughter, who has diabetes.

The court’s refusal without comment to hear the appeal in Evans v. Jenkins (Case No. 07-1210) means that the parent’s suit will go forward on a First Amendment retaliation claim.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in Cincinnati, had ruledRequires Adobe Acrobat Reader unanimously in January for reinstating the First Amendment claim brought by Shara Jenkins against Lloyd Evans, the superintendent of the Rock Hill district in Ironton, Ohio, and the 1,780-student district itself. The appeals court said Ms. Jenkins may have a valid claim that the superintendent had retaliated against her for public criticisms she made that were protected by the First Amendment. The appeals court upheld the dismissal of certain other claims in the suit.

The case arose out of a dispute over whether a school nurse would administer insulin shots to Ms. Jenkins’ daughter and an allegation from the mother that the superintendent had tried to bar the student from the school. Ms. Jenkins wrote a letter to a local newspaper criticizing her daughter’s school, and she filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s office for civil rights, according to court papers. After that, her suit contends, someone in the district filed a complaint about Ms. Jenkins with the local children’s-services agency.

In an appeal of the 6th Circuit decision, lawyers for the superintendent sought to convince the Supreme Court that there was a split among the federal circuit courts over whether a parent’s criticism of public school officials must be on a matter of public concern for it to be considered speech protected by the First Amendment.

See Also
For more stories on this topic see Law and Courts.

Providing parents with constitutional protection for “purely private” complaints “greatly interferes with a public school’s ability to operate efficiently and effectively,” Mr. Evans’ appeal argued.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal is not a decision on the merits of the case, but it does mean that Ms. Jenkins will be able to pursue the First Amendment claim at the trial-court level.

Vol. 27, Issue 38

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.
Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.

Back to Top Back to Top

Most Popular Stories