Luethje v. Peavine School District (1989)

No. I-3, 876 F.2d 838 , 842-44 (10th Cir.1989) (teacher's public criticism of school's discipline policy is protected); Luethje, 872 F.2d at 353, 356 (school cook's public criticism of cafeteria sanitation is protected); Wren v. Spurlock, 798 F.2d 1313, 1318 (10th Cir.1986) (teacher’s public letter critical of superintendent's performance is protected); Anderson v. Central Point School Dist.

In Luethje , we stated the proper question was whether the school’s policy “potentially stifled speech of public concern.” Id. at 355 (emphasis added).

All but one case that recites the required-by-law element either (1) found the second prong of the catalyst test was met because the plaintiff demonstrated (or the defendant did not contest) that it would have prevailed on the merits, see Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 262 F.3d at 1081 ; Beard, 31 F.3d at 953 ; Collins, 962 F.2d at 1514, 1517 ; Luethje, 872 F.2d at 354-56; Foremaster, 882 F.2d at 1489 ; (2) found an award of attorney fees inappropriate because the plaintiff …

Dist. of Adair County, 872 F.2d 352, 355 (10th Cir. 1989).

Dist. of Adair County, 872 F.2d 352, 354 (10th Cir.1989)).

Supre, 792 F.2d at 962 ; Collins v. Romer, 962 F.2d 1508, 1514 (10th Cir.1992); Luethje v. Peavine School Dist. of Adair County, 872 F.2d 352, 354 (10th Cir.1989); Nadeau, 581 F.2d 275 ; see Stewart v. Donges, 979 F.2d 179, 182 (10th Cir.1992); Foremaster v. City of St.

Supre, 792 F.2d at 962 ; Collins v. Romer, 962 F.2d 1508, 1514 (10th Cir.1992); Luethje v. Peavine School Dist. of Adair County, 872 F.2d 352, 354 (10th Cir.1989); Nadeau, 581 F.2d 275 ; see Stewart v. Donges, 979 F.2d 179, 182 (10th Cir.1992); Foremaster v. City of St.

In determining whether the lawsuit was causally related to the change in behavior, the sequence or chronology of events is an important factor in determining whether the "plaintiff's actions were a significant catalyst or a substantial factor in causing defendants to act." Luethje v. Peavine School District, 872 F.2d 352, 354 (10th Cir.1989).

The lawsuit need not have been the sole reason for prompting the City to terminate the electric subsidy but must have been a “substantial factor or a significant catalyst.” Supre v. Ricketts, 792 F.2d 958, 962 (10th Cir.1986); Luethje, 872 F.2d at 354 (defendant’s change in policy was “to quell the disharmony caused by plaintiff’s complaints”).

Plaintiffs maintain that this timing and chronology of events should be used to indicate that the filing of this lawsuit was a substantial catalyst or substantial factor for the Defendant’s action, citing Luethje v. Peavine School Dist. of Adair County, 872 F.2d 352, 354 (10th Cir.1989), as well as several other cases.

See, e.g., Stewart v. Baldwin County Board of Education, 908 F.2d 1499, 1506 (11th Cir.1990) (resolving Pickering balance in favor of school employee who spoke in nondisruptive manner at employee meeting where the school could not show any interruption of school functions); Luethje, 872 F.2d at 355 (Pickering balancing favored school employee where, although the employee’s complaints created a community controversy, there was no evidence that her speech impaired discipline o…

Accord Luethje v. Peavine School Dist., 872 F.2d 352 , 355 (10th Cir.1989) (Pickering balance favored school employee where, although the employee's complaints created a community controversy, there was no evidence that her speech impaired discipline or the effective operation of the school); Piver v. Pender County Bd. of Educ., 835 F.2d 1076 , 1081 (4th Cir.1987) (assertion that speech by teacher at public meeting might result in turmoil insufficient to justify termination …

Because the Nadeau test only applies to a plaintiff "who does not receive a judgment on the merits," J & J Anderson, Inc. v. Town of Erie, 767 F.2d 1469, 1473 (10th Cir.1985); Operating Eng'rs Local Union No. 3 v. Bohn, 737 F.2d at 863; accord Luethje v. Peavine School Dist., 872 F.2d 352 , 354 (10th Cir.1989), Dahlem's prayer for attorney's fees will not be judged by the Nadeau test. 3 8 Our inquiry is more straightforward.

Because the Nadeau test only applies to a plaintiff “who does not receive a judgment on the merits,” J & J Anderson, Inc. v. Town of Erie, 767 F.2d 1469, 1473 (10th Cir.1985); Operating Eng’rs Local Union No. 3 v. Bohn, 737 F.2d at 863; accord Luethje v. Peavine School Dist., 872 F.2d 352 , 354 (10th Cir.1989), Dahlem’s prayer for attorney’s fees will not be judged by the Nadeau test. 3 Our inquiry is more straightforward.

See, Luethje, 872 F.2d at 354, (“[T]he sequence of events ... strongly indicates that plaintiff’s suit was, at the very least, a significant catalyst or substantial factor in causing defendants to change their policy”).

See id. at 929 n. 5 (citing Luethje v. Peavine School Dist., 872 F.2d 352 , 355 (10th Cir.1989) (Pickering balance favored school employee where, although the employee’s complaints created a community controversy, there was no evidence that her speech impaired discipline or the effective operation of the school); Piver v. Pender County Bd. of Educ., 835 F.2d 1076 , 1081 (4th Cir.1987)(assertion that speech by teacher at public meeting might result in turmoil insufficient to …

To satisfy the first prong of this test, “[t]he lawsuit need not be the only reason for the defendant’s changed conduct, but it must be a ‘substantial factor or significant catalyst.’ ” Colorado Environmental Coalition, 796 F.Supp. at 459 (citing Foremaster, 882 F.2d at 1488 ); see also, Luethje v. Peavine School Dist., 872 F.2d 352 , 354 (10th Cir. 1989) (defendant’s change in policy was “to quell the disharmony caused by plaintiffs complaints”).

See also Luethje v. Peavine School District, 872 F.2d 352, 354-56 (10th Cir.1989).

See also Luethje v. Peavine School Dist., 872 F.2d 352 , 355 (10th Cir.1989).

Pickering v. Board of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 568 , 88 S.Ct. 1731, 1734 , 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968); see also Luethje v. Peavine School Dist. of Adair County, 872 F.2d 352, 355 (10th Cir.1989).