Rodriguez vs. Board of Trustees, (5th Cir. 2003)
Linked as:
Text
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 01-40816 Consolidated with No. 01-40817 IMELDA T. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff – Appellant, VERSUS BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LAREDO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; PAUL CRUZ, In His Official and Individual Capacities, Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Laredo Division (L-99-CV-22) March 25, 2003 Before JOLLY, DUHÉ, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Imelda Rodriguez, the former Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Pr ogram Accountability of the Laredo Independent School District (§ 1983 and the Texas Whistleblower Act, T EX . G OV § 554.002. She alleged that Cruz and LISD retaliated against her in violation of her First Amendment r ights and Texas law. More specifically, Rodriguez alleged that she was demoted for demanding strict compliance with standardized testing procedures, reporting deviations from those procedures, and recommending that the district adop t new methods for assessing student progress § 1983 claim against LISD and Cruz under Rule 12(b)(6). At a later stage, the district court granted LISD§ 1983 against LISD and that summary judgment was proper on the Whistleblower claim. 1 Therefore, we summarily affirm the district court§ 1983 First Amendment claim against Superintendent Cruz under Rule 12(b)(6) and remand for further proceedings. CruzÂ’s brief suggested that the district court granted summary In short, the record firmly establishes that we are reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. Because this case is before us on a 12(b)(6) dismissal, we refer only to the complaint for the facts.
THE ALLEGATIONS The complaint alleges that Paul Cruz became the LISD Superintendent in August 1998 . Shortly after his appointment, Rodriguez met with him to discuss past testing irregularities (including th e alleged disclosure of the writing prompt and the recent report of improper assistance at an elementary school), the use of pacing and its recent discontinuance, declining test scores, special education coding, and her insistence on strict compliance with testing regulations. During this initial meeting, Rodriguez recommended that the district administer other tests, including the Gates-McGinitie test for sixth-grade re ading proficiency and the Terra Nova norm-referenced test, to verify the accuracy of the TAAS results and to assure that students were meeting national standards. The complaint further alleges that in September 1998, Cruz denied Rodriguez permission to attend a meeting of administrators with curriculum res ponsibility. Cruz explained that another adminis trator would represent LISD at the meeting and that financial constraints would not permit him to approve more than one administrator for travel to any one event. The complaint alleges that CruzÂ’s explanation was pretextual because he later permitted three administrators to travel to a band competition.
According to the complaint, Rodrig uez continued to advocate for norm-referenced testing in the fall of 1998. But despite Rodriguez’s advocacy, Cruz told LISD principals in October 1998 that he would not req uire norm-referenced testing. Soon thereafter, Cruz announced at a School Board committee meeting that test scores would improve significantly under his leadership, so much so that the LISD would qualify for “exemplary district” status within five years. The complaint alleges that this five-year prediction, along with the rejection of mandatory norm-referenced testing, indicated that Cruz’s “emphasi s would be on testing scores, not on compliance with the requirements of the testing and other programs.” 4 The complaint alleges that earlier on the same day that he made his prediction to the Board, Cruz issued a memorandum removing Rodriguez from her Assistant Superintendent post and assigning her to a previously non-existent administrative position, which placed her in charge of textbooks and janitorial services. This reassignment conflicted with LISD policy because the School Board had not approved the new position at a public meeting.
Rodriguez filed a timely grievance protesting her reassignment. When Cruz denied the grievance, she appealed to the School Board. The Board permitted Rodriguez to make a ten-minute presentation before it, but ultimately took no action. Rodriguez then filed suit against LISD and Cruz, and they moved to dismiss her complaint for failur e to state a claim. The district court granted the motion with respect to Rodriguez§ 1983 claim against Cruz, finding that Rodriguez had not alleged the violation of a right secured by the First Amendment in her complaint and that Cruz was therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Rodriguez appealed.
ANALYSIS A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is subject to de novo review and will not be affirmed § 1983, a public employee must allege facts that could establish that (1) the employee suffered an adverse e mployment action; (2) the employee spoke on a matter of public concern; (3) the employeeÂ’s interest in speaking outweighs his employerÂ’s interest in efficiency; and (4) the employeeÂ’s speech motivated the adverse employment action. 7 Properly limiting our focus to RodriguezÂ’s complaint, we find that it satisfies the minimal pleading standard for each of the elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim. The district cour t therefore erred in dismissing RodriguezÂ’s First Amendment claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Likewise, the district courtÂ’s finding of qualified immunity in this case at the pleading stage was premature. We do not comment on the merits of the case and leave it to the district court to decide what further proceedings are appropriate.
CONCLUSION The judgment of the district court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. 8 AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4
1 See Rodriguez v. Laredo Indep. Sch. Dist. , 82 F. Supp. 2d 679 (S.D. Tex. 2000) (§ 1983 claims against LISD); Rodriguez v. Board of Trustees of the Laredo Indep. Sch. Dist. , 143 F. Supp. 2d 727 (S.D. Tex. 2001) (“ Rodriguez II ”) (granting summary judgment on the Texas Whistleblower claim)
2 See Defs. Mot. Summ. J. at 2 (“[T]he only remaining issue before this Court is plaintiff’s state law whistleb lower claim against LISD.”). 3 Rodriguez II , 143 F. Supp. 2d at 728 n.1
4 Complaint ¶ 4.93
5 Conley v. Gibson , 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)
8 Rodrigue z also appeals the district court§ 54.100[4][c] (3d ed. 2001)
Sponsored links
