![]() Schiessle, 717 F.2d at 421 (citing LaSalle Nat'l Bank, 703 F.2d at 259). Cromley's motion to disqualify must be affirmed under either an abuse of discretion or de novo standard of review. After a complete review of the record, we conclude that the district court's decision to deny Ms. Chicago Musical Instrument Co., 689 F.2d 715, 721 (7th Cir. However, when all evidence is submitted in the form of affidavits, and when the district court does not hold an evidentiary hearing or make findings of fact to which we must defer, "district courts enjoy no particular advantage over appellate courts in their formulation of ethical norms." Freeman v. Our review of the district court's decision whether to disqualify an attorney is usually a deferential one: We shall reverse that determination only if the district court abused its discretion. Accordingly, the district court granted summary judgment to all defendants. Cromley would have been selected as English Department Chair, Associate Chair, or Chapter I Coordinator. Nor could it conclude reasonably that Ms. As an alternate holding, the district court held that, even if the protected speech had been a substantial factor, a trier of fact could not conclude reasonably that, "but for the single call to DCFS," there would have been no merger. Cromley's protected speech had not been a substantial factor in the Board's decision. The district court concluded, therefore, that Ms. Cromley or Meints in a supervisory position over the other. Cromley's administrative rather than on her teaching abilities the clear concern was the possible repercussion resulting from placing either Ms. The court noted that the School Board's decision focused on Ms. Cromley's phone call to DCFS) was a substantial and motivating cause of the merger and of her failure to attain leadership positions. The district court then considered whether there was sufficient evidence for a trier of fact reasonably to conclude that the protected speech (Ms. Cromley's supervisors could take into account the impact of that harsh evaluation on continuing relationships in the school when deciding whether to allow her to continue in a supervisory capacity. Cromley's earlier complaints about Meints to the school administration and to DCFS (for which Meints had received an oral reprimand), was a persistent re-raising of a closed issue rather than protected speech pertaining to matters of public concern. With respect to this latter communication, the court reasoned that this critical evaluation, following Ms. Cromley's written annual evaluation of Meints several weeks later was private communication that was not protected speech. Cromley's call to DCFS was protected speech. The court noted that, under this analysis, the parties did not dispute that Ms. It acknowledged that this analysis requires that, in order to be afforded First Amendment protection, the employee's speech must relate to a matter of public concern and the employee's right to speak out must outweigh the government's interest in promoting effective and efficient public service. The court set forth the framework for analyzing a public employee's First Amendment right of free speech. Meints for leadership positions.īy Order of January 6, 1993, the district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. In light of these clashes, the principal and assistant superintendent agreed that they could not recommend either Ms. Cromley and both the principal and the superintendent. There was evidence, as well, of friction between Ms. Until 1987 she had been praised and reappointed each year as Chair of the Reading Department however, her principal's 1986-87 evaluation of her work reported personnel problems in the department and concerns over her effectiveness in the department. Cromley's later applications to serve as Chapter I Coordinator, Associate English Department Chair, and English Department Chair were denied. ![]() Cromley that the Reading Department was being merged with the English Department and would be chaired by a teacher from the English Department. On March 27, 1987, school officials notified Ms. Meints, in turn, sent an angry rebuttal to the plaintiff, principal, and union representative. Cromley, as Reading Department Chair, gave Meints a harsh written evaluation, in which she noted the students' allegations.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |