In an unpublished per curiam decision (one issued by the court without identifying an authoring judge), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (AL, GA, FL) has ruled that although a Georgia employee?s complaints about the appointment of unqualified persons to positions in the school district touched on an important matter of public interest, they did not a constitute speech on a matter of public concern and, therefore, were not entitled to First Amendment protection. The court also rejected her free association claim, holding that her conversations with co-workers, board members, and union officials on the matter of corruption within the district were as an employee rather than as a private citizen. After complaining to co-workers, board members, and union officials that she was being passed over for promotions in favor of unqualified persons, Lori Myles, an employee of the Richmond County Board of Education (RCBOE) filed a lawsuit in U.S. district court alleging that her free speech and free association rights had been violated. The district court granted RCBOE?s motion for summary judgment on both claims.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The appellate court looked at the content, form, and context of Ms. Myles? speech to determine whether it was on a matter of public concern and, therefore, protected by the First Amendment. Acknowledging that the fact that the speech was never disclosed to the public does not automatically mean it was not on a matter of public concern, the court nonetheless found that whether an employee attempts public disclosure is a relevant factor in making the determination. Ms. Myles spoke with co-workers, board members, and union officials, but never in a public venue, like a school board meeting, in an attempt to alert the general public of alleged corruption. An even more salient fact was that her speech related primarily to her inability to obtain a promotion. While her speech did touch on a matter of public interest, the court concluded that her real motive was not to raise an issue of public concern but to further her private interest of improving her employment position. In addition, the court found that the complaint she filed with Georgia?s Professional Standards Commission (PSC) regarding alleged ethical lapses by the superintendent was not protected speech because it was made pursuant to her official duties under state law, which requires educators to report any violations of the state code of ethics to the PSC. The free association claim failed for the same reasons: her association with board members, union officials, and co-workers was as a disgruntled employee upset over being denied promotions.

Myles v. Richmond County Bd. of Educ., No. 07-14468 (11th Cir. Mar. 6, 2008)