Adams v. Jefferson Union High School District

Background

Tim Adams was a tenured teacher at Terra Nova High School and served as the school’s varsity football coach from 2014 through 2018. The lawsuit arose from his removal as coach. Adams sued Superintendent Terry Ann DeLoria and Principal Megan Carey under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people acting under state authority for violating federal rights.

Adams alleged that Carey removed him because she believed he had turned the football team’s supporters against her. He also alleged that the school district hired a non-teacher, temporary employee as head coach without first making the position available to teachers already employed by the district, as required by school board policy and California Education Code § 44919(b).

The court had previously dismissed Adams’s First Amended Complaint against the Jefferson Union High School District but allowed him to amend. After Adams filed his Second Amended Complaint naming DeLoria and Carey, those defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). That rule tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally recognized claim.

First Amendment Retaliation Claim

Adams claimed that his removal as coach was retaliation for protected speech, in violation of the First Amendment. The court explained that a public employee generally must show, among other things, that he spoke as a private citizen rather than as part of his government job.

The court rejected Adams’s theory that he could recover because Carey mistakenly blamed him for criticism and booing by parents and other team supporters. Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent, the court held that the First Amendment does not provide a retaliation claim when an employee is falsely accused of making statements spoken by someone else. Adams did not allege that he had engaged in the supporters’ criticism, and he stated that he had never engaged in the alleged negative talk.

The court also rejected Adams’s reliance on a case concerning an employer’s mistaken understanding of what an employee actually said. That reasoning did not apply because Adams denied being the speaker rather than alleging that Carey misunderstood the content of his speech. The court further concluded that Adams had not shown a basis to assert the constitutional rights of the parents and other supporters.

As to Adams’s own statement, he alleged that after an on-field brawl he told his student athletes that he was proud of them for supporting one another. The court held that he made the statement at a school football event, in the presence of students, while acting as their coach. The statement therefore was made as a public employee, not as a private citizen, and was not protected for purposes of his retaliation claim. Because Adams failed this required element, the court dismissed the claim without addressing the remaining retaliation factors.

Due Process Claim

Adams also claimed that Board Policy 4121 and California Education Code § 44919(b) gave him a protected property interest in being notified about and considered for the coaching position. The statute provides that limited athletic assignments must first be made available to teachers already employed by the district.

The court relied on the California Supreme Court’s interpretation of that statute, which describes a limited employment preference for currently employed credentialed teachers who apply for the position and meet the qualifications set by the school district. Adams did not allege that he applied for the head-coach position. The court therefore concluded that he did not qualify for the statutory preference and had no constitutionally protected property interest in the position.

Without a protected property interest, Adams could not maintain a procedural due process claim based on the lack of notice or an opportunity to apply. The court accordingly held that this claim failed as well.

Other Defendants and Disposition

The court found that Adams alleged no independent retaliatory conduct by DeLoria beyond her alleged approval or ratification of Carey’s decision. Because both underlying claims failed, the claims against DeLoria and the claims against both defendants in their official capacities also failed.

The court concluded that further amendment would be futile. Adams had already amended once, and the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint showed that he was not the speaker of the supporters’ criticism and had not applied for the coaching position. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.