Livingston v. DeSoto Independent School District
No. 3:20-CV-00764 (N.D. Tex.)
Holding
A school district employee's § 1983 claims for retaliation and due process violations were dismissed where she failed to show that her speech addressed a matter of public concern and failed to allege deprivation of a protected property interest without adequate process.
What This Case Is About
A school district employee sued the DeSoto Independent School District and individual officials under § 1983, alleging she was retaliated against for speaking out and terminated without adequate due process. The court dismissed her claims, finding her speech did not address a matter of public concern and she failed to allege a protected property interest.
The Facts
The plaintiff worked for the DeSoto Independent School District in Texas. She alleged that after she voiced complaints about workplace conditions and reported concerns to district officials, she was subjected to adverse employment actions, including ultimately losing her position. She claimed this constituted First Amendment retaliation and that her termination without adequate process violated her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.
What the Court Decided
The court dismissed the claims. On the First Amendment retaliation claim, the court applied the Pickering-Connick framework governing public employee speech. Under this framework, a government employee’s speech is protected only if it addresses a “matter of public concern” — as opposed to purely personal grievances about workplace conditions. The court found the plaintiff’s speech related primarily to her own employment situation and internal workplace disputes rather than matters of broader public interest.
On the due process claim, the court found the plaintiff failed to adequately allege that she had a constitutionally protected property interest in her continued employment. Under Texas law and the district’s employment policies, the plaintiff needed to show that she had more than a unilateral expectation of continued employment — she needed a legitimate claim of entitlement created by contract, policy, or state law.
Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case
Livingston v. DeSoto ISD illustrates the hurdles government employees face when bringing § 1983 claims:
- Public concern requirement: Government employees do not have unlimited First Amendment protection for workplace speech. To state a retaliation claim, your speech must address a “matter of public concern” — such as corruption, safety risks, or constitutional violations — not just personal grievances about your job.
- Property interest in employment: Not all government jobs create a constitutionally protected property interest. You must show a “legitimate claim of entitlement” — typically from a contract, tenure, or civil service protections — not just a hope or expectation of continued employment.
- Practical tips: If you are a government employee planning to raise concerns, frame your speech around matters of public concern (public safety, corruption, civil rights violations) rather than personal workplace disputes. Document everything and, if possible, make your complaints in writing.
Key Takeaway
Government employees bringing § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claims must show their speech addressed a matter of public concern — personal workplace complaints are not protected — and due process claims require a legitimate property interest in continued employment, not merely a subjective expectation.