Kissner v. Loma Prieta Joint Union School District

Background

David M. Kissner, a former middle school teacher, sued individual defendants associated with the Loma Prieta Joint Union School District after his employment ended. The case originally included 19 claims and 13 named defendants and Does, but the claims and parties were later reduced. The remaining claims included First Amendment retaliation, “stigma-plus” defamation, Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal-protection claims, and civil-rights conspiracy.

Kissner alleged that defendants targeted him because he opposed a student walkout concerning gun control and campaigned against Measure N, a parcel-tax measure. He also alleged that defendants harmed his reputation by releasing statements of charges—including allegations involving “grooming”—in response to California Public Records Act requests. The District later dropped the grooming allegations from the charges presented in the administrative dismissal proceeding.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is entered when the record shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view disputed evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.

First Amendment retaliation

The court granted summary judgment on Claim 1, Kissner’s First Amendment retaliation claim. The court held that Kissner’s opposition to the student walkout and Measure N involved public issues and therefore satisfied the protected-speech part of the applicable test.

The court applied the rule from Mount Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle. Under that rule, a plaintiff must show that protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse action. If the plaintiff makes that showing, the defendants can avoid liability by proving that they would have taken the same action without the protected speech.

The court concluded that Kissner did not show that his political activity was a substantial factor in the decision to terminate him. It also held that, even if he had made that showing, the defendants established that they would have terminated him anyway. The court relied on evidence concerning alleged errors in judgment, failures to follow school policies, insubordination, and other conduct and performance issues.

“Stigma-plus” defamation

The court denied summary judgment on Claim 3 as to Lisa Fraser and Kevin Grier. “Stigma-plus” defamation is a claim that a government official publicly disclosed a stigmatizing statement, the person contests its accuracy, and the disclosure was connected to the loss of a more tangible interest, such as employment.

Kissner alleged that Fraser and Grier released the statements of charges without redactions in response to public-records requests. The court concluded that the alleged grooming statements were public and that their accuracy was contested. The defendants conceded the employment-interest requirement for purposes of their motion, and the court therefore did not need to decide that requirement.

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the public-records disclosures were necessarily required. It noted that the District could have redacted the allegations or notified Kissner’s counsel before disclosure, allowing him to seek relief in state court. The court emphasized that denying summary judgment did not mean Kissner had proved the claim or would ultimately prevail; it meant only that the defendants had not shown entitlement to judgment on the claim at this stage. The court denied the motion as to Fraser and Grier and did not decide the claim’s ultimate merits against them. Kissner did not oppose dismissal of the claim against several other defendants.

Layoff-related claims

The court granted summary judgment on all claims concerning Kissner’s layoff. It held that Grier, Khandewal, Martin, and Fraser were not responsible for the layoff decision. Grier was not employed by the District when the layoff occurred; Khandewal joined the school board after the relevant resolutions; and Martin and Fraser were not board members. The court found no evidence that Martin or Fraser was responsible for the Board’s layoff decision.

The court also held that the defendants who participated in the layoff were protected by absolute legislative immunity. Legislative immunity protects officials from liability for actions within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity. Applying the factors used to distinguish legislative actions from administrative or executive decisions, the court found that the Board’s resolutions were not ad hoc, affected more than Kissner, were formally legislative, and reflected district-wide budget and staffing policy. The court therefore granted the motion as to all claims connected to the layoff.

Other claims and disposition

Kissner did not oppose summary judgment on his equal-protection and civil-rights-conspiracy claims, and he did not address his due-process claim in his opposition. The court stated that he therefore conceded that defendants should prevail on those issues. The order’s stated final disposition was to grant summary judgment on Claim 1 and all claims concerning the layoff, and to deny summary judgment on Claim 3, the “stigma-plus” defamation claim. Judge Charles R. Breyer signed the order.