Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES—N.D. Ill.: School employee’s First Amendment retaliation claim arising from Facebook post may proceed to trial, (Apr 21, 2025)

By Nadine E. Roddy, J.D.

The school district’s evidence supporting the Pickering balancing test was insufficient for a ruling as a matter of law.

A public school employee survived summary judgment on her First Amendment retaliation claim arising from nonrenewal of her employment contract after she posted, on her private Facebook page, an advertisement for a gun raffle in support of her campaign for public office, a federal district court in Illinois has ruled. Her breach of contract claim, however, failed for lack of supporting evidence (Caparelli-Ruff v. Board of Education of East Aurora School District 131, No. 1:22-cv-05567 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 16, 2025)).

Facebook post. A public school employee whose one-year contract was not renewed brought suit against the school district, alleging First Amendment retaliation and breach of contract for a posting she had made on her private Facebook page. The summary judgment evidence showed that while she was employed as the Executive Director of Student Services for the school district, she launched a campaign to run for Regional Superintendent of Schools in a different district. After posting an advertisement on Facebook for a gun raffle fundraiser to support her campaign, she was placed on paid administrative leave and informed that her contract would not be renewed for the following school year on account of poor job performance. The advertisement, which appeared on Facebook in the same time frame as the Uvalde school shooting in Texas, featured a photo of a Beretta 9 mm Luger handgun beside a “head shot” of the employee.

First Amendment claim. The court noted that in order to prove a First Amendment retaliation claim, a public employee must establish three elements: (1) that they engaged in constitutionally protected speech; (2) that they suffered a deprivation likely to deter protected speech; and (3) that their protected speech was a motivating factor in the deprivation. The first element requires a showing that the plaintiff was acting as a private citizen (undisputed in this case) and that the speech involved a matter of public concern. The employee must also prevail in the balance of employee and employer interests required by the 1968 Supreme Court decision in Pickering v. Board of Education.

On the first element, the court determined that the employee’s Facebook post touched on a matter of public concern, as it informed the public of her campaign for a public office, thus making it political speech. Moving on to the Pickering balancing of interests, the court noted seven factors relied upon by the Seventh Circuit: (1) whether the speech would create problems in maintaining discipline or harmony among coworkers; (2) whether the employment relationship is one in which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary; (3) whether the speech impeded the employee’s ability to perform her responsibilities; (4) the time, place and manner of the speech; (5) the context in which the underlying dispute arose; (6) whether the matter was one on which debate was vital to informed decision-making; and (7) whether the speaker should be regarded as a member of the general public. The burden rests on the defendant to show that the balance weighs in its favor, and when the defendant is a school district, consideration of the impact on the school community is an important factor. Further, while courts occasionally receive detailed factual records, other times when faced with a summary judgment motion, the record does not contain sufficient evidence for the court to find the Pickering test satisfied as a matter of law.

In this case, the school district did not put forth sufficient evidence for the court to make findings on the balance of interests. Although it was undisputed that the student population was very similar to that of the Uvalde school, and that there was concern that promoting a gun raffle could stir up anxiety in parents, there was no evidence that it actually did. The court could not assume that parents observed and were upset by a political advertisement for a campaign in a different county. Further, although the employee did not dispute that the advertisement was considered offensive by administrators and staff, the school district failed to identify these individuals. The school district informed the employee that the advertisement and raffle exhibited “poor judgment,” but it produced no evidence that the advertisement had adversely affected her ability to work with students. It was also unclear whether the employee posted the advertisement before or after the Uvalde shooting. Given the absence of evidence in the record and the presence of disputed facts, the school district had not met its Pickering burden and summary judgment could not be granted.

Concerning the remaining elements of the First Amendment claim—whether the employee suffered a deprivation likely to deter protected speech and whether the protected speech was a motivating factor in the school district’s decision—the focus of the parties’ arguments was on whether the administrative leave and the contract nonrenewal were because of poor job performance. Because the facts were material and hotly contested, summary judgment was inappropriate for this reason as well.

Breach of contract claim. No dispute existed that the employee’s one-year employment contract did not have an automatic right of extension or renewal, and that she had received her full salary and benefits for the entire contract term. Further, there was no evidence to support the employee’s contention that she had signed and returned a contract for the following year.

For these reasons, the court granted summary judgment for the school district on the contract claim but denied it on the First Amendment claim.

The case is No. 1:22-cv-05567.

Judge: Harjani, S.

Attorneys: Paul J. Richards (Kavanagh Grumley & Gorbold) for Elizabeth Caparelli-Ruff. Paulette A. Petretti (Himes, Petrarca & Fester) for Board of Education of East Aurora School District 131, Kimberly Kereluik and County of Kane.

Companies: Board of Education of East Aurora School District 131; County of Kane

Cases: PublicEmployees IndividualRights ContractClaims Retaliation Discharge IllinoisNews