District 150 did not violate Julie McArdle’s first-amendment rights when they terminated her contract. Evidence presented in court basically confirmed District 150’s statement to the press on April 29, 2009. Specifically, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois found that McArdle was terminated without cause, pursuant to her employment contract, and that the decision to terminate her employment was made before she reported alleged illegal activities of her supervisor, Mary Davis.
McArdle had argued that her termination was in retaliation for blowing the whistle on Davis. But the court found that the timeline of events simply didn’t comport with McArdle’s assertions:
Plaintiff’s own evidence shows that McArdle did not report Davis’ alleged illegal conduct until after learning that the District intended to terminate her contract. When Broderick, the vice-president of the Board of Education [sic], called McArdle on April 21, 2009, McArdle was given actual notice of her supervisor’s decision to exercise the buy-out provision of her contract. The record before the Court illustrates, therefore, that the decision to terminate McArdle had effectively already been made, and McArdle was notified of this decision before she engaged in allegedly constitutionally protected speech. While some of the Board members saw McArdle’s email regarding Davis’ alleged criminal conduct, the superintendent and vice president of the Board had already decided to terminate McArdle’s employment and had effectively and clearly communicated this decision to her before she ever publicized Davis’ alleged criminal activity. Thus, no reasonable factfinder could conclude that the District was motivated by McArdle’s future speech when deciding to exercise the early termination provision of her contract.
Incidentally, the court document erroneously identifies Broderick as the School Board vice president; he was actually the Human Resources administrator.
McArdle also argued that Davis orchestrated her termination by giving her unwarranted bad reviews and giving district administrators a bad report of her performance. However, the court found no evidence for this:
As illustrated in the record before this Court, the District had received numerous complaints from parents and coworkers about McArdle’s actions and statements while principal. McArdle was also informed of these complaints and given an opportunity to correct her actions and attitude before the District chose to terminate her employment. These complaints did not come solely from Davis, and there is no evidence before the Court to establish a genuine issue of material fact that Davis orchestrated these complaints, as argued by Plaintiff. […]
When making its initial determination, [Superintendent Ken] Hinton and [Human Resources Director Tom] Broderick considered numerous complaints made by parents, students, and teachers against McArdle in addition to the performance reviews and personality conflicts reported by Davis. The Board, when finalizing the decision to terminate McArdle, also considered evidence in addition to and not provided by Davis.
In short, McArdle failed to prove there was a conspiracy against her orchestrated by Davis. You can read the full 15-page opinion here:
Summary-Judgment-6-7-2011
