The panel replaced its prior opinion, filed on September
4, 2013, and published at 729 F.3d 1011, with anew opinion,
denied a petition for panel rehearing, and denied a petition for
rehearing en bane on behalf of the court, in an action brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a tenured associate
university professor who alleged that university
administrators retaliated against him in violation of the First
Amendment for distributing a short pamphlet and drafts from
an in-progress book.
The panel held that Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410
(2006), does not apply to speech related to scholarship or
teaching. Rather, such speech is governed by Pickering v.
Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968). The panel
concluded that the short pamphlet was related to scholarship
or teaching and that it addressed a matter of public concern
under Pickering. The panel concluded, further, that there was
insufficient evidence in the record to show that the inprogress
book triggered retaliation against plaintiff. Finally,
the panel concluded that defendants were entitled to qualified
immunity from damages, given the uncertain state of the law
in the wake of Garcetti.
"Demers v Austin, ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,"
Journal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy: Vol. 0
, Article 14.
Available at: https://thekeep.eiu.edu/jcba/vol0/iss9/14