RANDALL MCELHANEY v. DUSTIN WILLIAMS; WILLIAM STEPP; NATHAN BROWN; TIMOTHY MARTIN; JOHN PETTIT; PUTNAM COUNTY, TENNESSEE SCHOOL SYSTEM - Articles

All Content

RANDALL MCELHANEY v. DUSTIN WILLIAMS; WILLIAM STEPP; NATHAN BROWN; TIMOTHY MARTIN; JOHN PETTIT; PUTNAM COUNTY, TENNESSEE SCHOOL SYSTEM

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Aug 25, 2023

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Perry A. Craft, LAW OFFICE OF PERRY A. CRAFT, PLLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Daniel H. Rader IV, MOORE RADER FITZPATRICK & YORK, P.C., Cookeville, Tennessee, for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Perry A. Craft, LAW OFFICE OF PERRY A. CRAFT, PLLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Daniel H. Rader IV, Daneil H. Rader III, MOORE RADER FITZPATRICK & YORK, P.C., Cookeville, Tennessee, for Appellees.

Judge(s): GILMAN, READLER, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Cookeville

CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Youth sports are as much about instilling life lessons as they are winning and losing. Child athletes can be forgiven for occasionally losing sight of this bigger picture. But we expect more from their parents.

As this case demonstrates, those expectations are not always met. Randall McElhaney is an enthusiastic supporter of his daughter, who, when this dispute arose, was an infielder on her high school softball team. His passion, however, sometimes gets the best of him. When his daughter was benched, McElhaney sent text messages to her coach criticizing his managerial decisions. In response, school officials banned McElhaney from attending games for the next week.

A dispute over the team’s starting infield soon became much more. McElhaney filed this suit, alleging that school officials retaliated against him for criticizing his daughter’s coach, speech that McElhaney believed was shielded by the First Amendment. Defendants moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. In their minds, McElhaney was not denied a constitutional right, let alone one that was clearly established. Reaching only the clearly established prong of qualified immunity, the district court granted defendants’ motion and entered judgment in their favor.

As we see things, it is clearly established at a low level of generality that when a school employee interacts with a student, speech by the student’s parent about those interactions enjoys First Amendment protection. On that basis, we must reverse the district court. We remand the case to resolve whether retaliation occurred in the first instance.

Attachments: