McNeally v. HomeTown Bank

Background

Tara C. McNeally attended Shakopee Public Schools Board meetings and spoke against a student-masking requirement and a proposed operating levy. She also helped create a Facebook group opposing mandatory masking and criticized Board Chair Kristi Peterson in a Facebook post.

The complaint alleged that Superintendent Michael Redmond warned McNeally that associating with parents opposing the levy could harm what she had worked for. After McNeally posted her criticism of Peterson, Redmond met with Lindsey Puffer, McNeally’s supervisor at HomeTown Bank, and directed Puffer to ask McNeally to delete the post. When McNeally refused, Redmond restricted her access to school-district property, except when she was present as a parent. Puffer then suspended McNeally without pay, and HomeTown later terminated her employment.

McNeally asserted a First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all defendants. Section 1983 allows claims against people who, while acting under state authority or jointly with state officials, violate federal rights. She also asserted a Minnesota claim against Redmond for tortious interference with her employment agreement. Redmond, HomeTown Bank, and Puffer moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a plausible claim.

First Amendment retaliation claim against Redmond

The court held that McNeally plausibly alleged the elements of First Amendment retaliation: protected activity, adverse action that could deter an ordinary person from continuing that activity, and a connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.

The court found that Redmond’s alleged actions had concrete consequences. His restriction on McNeally’s access to district property allegedly prevented her from working at HomeTown’s branch inside Shakopee High School, attending school-board meetings in person, and voting at locations on district property without his permission. The court also found it plausible that Redmond’s actions contributed to McNeally’s suspension and termination. The alleged timing, Redmond’s communications with Puffer, his instructions to have McNeally delete the post, and his letter restricting her access supported an inference that retaliation was the cause of the employment actions.

The court further held that Redmond was not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage. Qualified immunity can protect a government official from personal liability unless the complaint plausibly shows a violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established when the conduct occurred. The court concluded that existing law gave a reasonable official fair notice that the government could not retaliate against protected speech by using influence over a person’s employer to cause an adverse employment action. The court also concluded that existing law clearly established a right not to be excluded from a public school-board meeting because of criticism of a board member or advocacy on matters before the board, absent allegations of threatening or disruptive conduct.

Claims against HomeTown Bank and Lindsey Puffer

The court rejected HomeTown Bank and Puffer’s argument that McNeally had not plausibly alleged a constitutional violation or their joint participation with government officials. A private party may be liable under Section 1983 when it willfully participates in joint activity with state officials and reaches a mutual understanding to pursue an unlawful objective.

The court found more than parallel conduct or a mere opportunity to conspire. The complaint alleged that Redmond and Puffer met, that Puffer conveyed Redmond’s demand that McNeally delete the Facebook post, that Redmond instructed Puffer to suspend McNeally after she refused, and that Puffer suspended McNeally shortly after receiving Redmond’s letter. The allegations that HomeTown later terminated McNeally, including while another Shakopee location was allegedly short-staffed, supported a plausible inference of a shared retaliatory purpose.

Tortious interference claim against Redmond

Under Minnesota law, tortious interference with a contract requires an existing contract, the defendant’s knowledge of it, intentional procurement of its breach, lack of justification, and damages. The claim can apply to an at-will employment agreement.

The court held that McNeally plausibly alleged that Redmond caused or proximately contributed to her suspension and termination. It also found that she plausibly alleged malice for purposes of Minnesota official immunity. Official immunity generally protects public officials performing discretionary duties unless they commit a willful or malicious wrong. The court concluded that the allegations supporting a violation of a clearly established First Amendment right also plausibly showed that Redmond had reason to know his conduct was prohibited. Redmond’s proposed justifications did not resolve the claim at the motion-to-dismiss stage, particularly because he did not identify a lawful justification for allegedly causing McNeally’s suspension and termination.

Disposition

Judge Eric C. Tostrud denied Michael Redmond’s motion to dismiss and denied HomeTown Bank and Lindsey Puffer’s motion to dismiss. The order was a pleading-stage ruling: it found the allegations sufficient to proceed and did not finally decide liability or damages.