Sorcan v. Rock Ridge School District

Background

Pollyann Sorcan was a member of the School Board of Independent School District No. 2909, Rock Ridge. She repeatedly questioned and commented on District business, supported and opposed District strategies and actions, and advocated positions including fiscal discipline.

On August 9, 2021, the School Board censured Sorcan for allegedly violating District policy and failing to follow the Board Chair’s direction, failing to respect data-privacy laws under District Policies 205 and 406, and acting against the District’s mission while undermining School Board committees. The censure removed her from committee assignments until a date set by the School Board and barred her from attending committee meetings. The censure was lifted on February 13, 2023, although Sorcan continued attending committee meetings to which she was not assigned during the censure period.

Sorcan filed this action on April 26, 2023. She alleged that the censure and the School Board’s interpretation of Minnesota’s Open Meeting Law violated her First Amendment rights to free speech and expression. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not plausibly state a claim for relief. They argued both that Sorcan failed to state a claim and that, even if she had pleaded a First Amendment violation, legislative immunity protected the defendants.

Legislative Immunity for Bill Addy

The court explained that legislative immunity is an absolute protection from suit for legislative acts. The Supreme Court has extended this protection to local legislators. The court concluded that local officials sued in their official capacities may also have legislative immunity when acting in a legislative capacity.

Whether an act is legislative depends on the nature of the act, not the official’s motive or intent. The court considered decisions holding that a governing body’s discipline of one of its members can be a core legislative act when it is self-discipline rather than termination of employment.

The court determined that the School Board’s censure of Sorcan and removal of her committee assignments were self-disciplinary actions. Although the actions were not as clearly legislative as adopting a budget or enacting an ordinance, they did not terminate Sorcan’s employment and were legislative in nature. Because Addy acted in his legislative capacity, the court held that he was immune from suit.

Legislative Immunity for the District

The court stated that a District may be liable under the rule commonly associated with Monell only when a plaintiff identifies a specific policy or practice responsible for the alleged constitutional violation. The plaintiff must identify a persistent pattern of unconstitutional misconduct.

The court held that Sorcan did not identify such a policy or practice. Her allegation concerning one censure and its punishment did not establish a persistent pattern. Her broader allegation that the defendants’ misinterpretation of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law created an unconstitutional policy or practice also did not explain how that interpretation produced a persistent pattern of unconstitutional acts. The court therefore held that the District was entitled to legislative immunity.

Disposition

Because Addy and the District were legislatively immune, the court did not decide whether Sorcan sufficiently pleaded a First Amendment claim. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and ordered that the matter be dismissed with prejudice. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.