Coomes v. Edmonds Sch. Dist. No. 15, No. 13-35747 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against the District and two of its administrators, alleging that she had been wrongfully discharged under Washington law, that her First Amendment rights were infringed, that she was retaliated against for exercising such rights, and that she was entitled to recovery under a variety of other state law claims. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. The court concluded that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, her speech to the school and District administrators is made up of the complaints or concerns raised up the chain of command at plaintiff's workplace about her job that are generally not protected. Moreover, plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the scope of her duties, and the evidence indicates that her communication with District staff fell within her job duties. Further, plaintiff's speech to parents was within the scope of her duties and is not protected by the First Amendment. Therefore, plaintiff failed to meet her burden to show that the relevant speech was made in her capacity as a private citizen, and that the district court’s judgment with respect to plaintiff’s First Amendment claim was proper. The court must vacate the district court’s judgment with respect to plaintiff’s claim for wrongful discharge under Washington law because an intervening authority has overruled the Washington state decision upon which the district court’s analysis was based. Accordingly, the court remanded to the district court for consideration of the wrongful discharge claim in light of Rose v. Anderson Hay & Grain Co. However, because the court affirmed with respect to the federal claim, the district court should first consider whether to continue to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s summary judgment and remanded in an action brought by a public school teacher who alleged that she was wrongfully discharged, in violation of her First Amendment rights and state law, after she voiced concerns about her school’s special education program to her supervisors and her students’ parents. The panel held that even when construing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, her speech to her supervisors and the school district administrators was unprotected “up-the-chain-of-command” complaints, and her speech to parents regarding their students’ educational programs was, by her own admission, part of her job as head of the school’s special education program. The panel therefore concluded that plaintiff failed to meet her burden to show that the relevant speech was made in her capacity as a private citizen, and that the district court’s judgment with respect to the First Amendment claim was proper. Addressing plaintiff’s claim under Washington law for wrongful discharge, the panel held that because an intervening authority had overruled the Washington state decision upon which the district court’s analysis was based, it was required to vacate the district court’s judgment. The panel remanded to the district court for consideration of the COOMES V. EDMONDS SCH. DIST. NO. 15 3 wrongful discharge claim in light of Rose v. Anderson Hay & Grain Co., 358 P.3d 1139, 1143 (Wash. 2015). However, because the panel affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s claim under federal law, it advised the district court to first consider whether to continue to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.