Employee/mom disciplined for son's actions

A student attended school at the same school where his mother worked as secretary to the principal. The student used his mother’s school computer to send an email to a computer technician at the district, requesting help running two batch files and asking whether the technician had ever heard of a “denial of service” attack. Shortly thereafter, the district began experiencing network problems. The computer belonging to the student’s mother was removed from the network and the problem was resolved.

Later that day, the principal informed the student that he was being blamed for the attack and would be suspended until the investigation was complete. His mother joined the meeting and was presented with a letter from the district regarding the allegations. The parents then met with the superintendent, who informed them that he intended to recommend that the student be sent to the alternative school for 45 days. The parents complained about this and contested the allegations, but the board approved the recommendation and assigned the student to alternative school for 45 days. The mother was reassigned to a different position after several teachers expressed concern that personal information may have been compromised due to the student’s access to his mother’s computer. She called the superintendent to protest the reassignment and her son’s punishment and allegedly called the superintendent a “liar” and used profanity towards him during the conversation. The superintendent fired her over the phone.

The parents sued the district on behalf of both the student and the mother, claiming that the student had been denied due process during the disciplinary process and that the mother had been terminated in retaliation for protected First Amendment speech. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuit. The court found that the student had been given sufficient due process because he had been given numerous opportunities to meet with school officials, to hear the charges and to explain and respond. It then found that the mother’s termination was proper. The First Amendment protects public employees from retaliation only if the employee’s speech is on a matter of “public concern.” The mother’s complaints regarding her reassignment and her son’s discipline were not matters of public concern.