A judge from the Middle District of Pennsylvania has temporarily sided with the son of a basketball coach, who claimed that school board members, angry at him for his involvement in labor negotiations with the teachers union, retaliated against him when they decided not renew his father’s coaching appointment.
Plaintiff James Mahon, IV, had been a board member and president of the
Lake Lehman School District before retiring. But that didn’t stop him from working behind the scenes. For example, he allegedly brokered one deal that allowed for the hiring of a football coach, in exchange for board members agreeing to hire his father, James Mahon, III, as the assistant basketball coach.
Sometime around May of 2007, Mahon, IV, heard from various board members that the board was not happy with his “involvement in the negotiations of the teachers’ contract.”
According to Mahon, IV, board members “told him that if he did not back off on the teachers’ union issues, then Mahon, III, would not be rehired as assistant basketball coach.”
In June of 2007 the school board and superintendent walked away from a tentative agreement with the union, prompting Mahon, IV, to express his frustration with the media.
Meanwhile, Mahon, III’s assistant basketball coaching position was on the school board’s agenda for its meeting on November 7, 2007. “The practice in the school district had been that varsity coaches chose their assistants, and that these choices were approved unless there was a problem with the choice,” wrote the court. “Head Women’s Basketball Coach James Spencer had chosen Mahon, III as his assistant.” The superintendent confirmed “that head coaches recommend a specific assistant coach to the athletic director, human resources department, and superintendent for administrative approval. The prospective assistant coach is then placed on the school board agenda for a vote. (The superintendant) generally assumes that anyone recommended by a head coach, and then approved by the athletic director, and approved by the human resources department, and placed on the agenda — would be approved.”
Accounts differ as to whether the board members agreed privately to not not to renew the father’s coaching contract in an attempt to “aggravate” the plaintiff. Regardless, they decided not to approve the hire, a move that was “unprecedented,” according to the superintendent.
Mahon, IV, and Mahon, III, filed a complaint on November 3, 2009, alleging that the defendants did not renew Mahon, III’s coaching position in retaliation for Mahon, IV’s speech supporting the School District’s teachers, which violated the First Amendment. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 5, 2010. On May 5, 2010, the motion was granted with respect to Mahon, III, because the plaintiffs had not alleged any speech on his part. Accordingly, Mahon, III was dismissed from the case, leaving only Mahon, IV’s claim.
As for the son’s First Amendment claim, the court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, writing that “a reasonable jury could infer that the board member defendants were aware of Mahon, IV’s speech, based on (a board member’s) statement that someone said during executive session that Mahon, IV was speaking out about the contract negotiations. A reasonable jury could also find that, during executive session, (another board member) said that Mahon, III should be denied his position in order to punish Mahon, IV for speaking or to dissuade him from doing the same, and that the other defendant board members agreed with this course of conduct.
“If a reasonable jury found that a (board member) made that statement, causality would necessarily be established: the statement itself establishes that the retaliatory act was taken in direct response to the speech, obviating any inquiry into temporal proximity or historical antagonism. Thus, genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the board members knew of Mahon, IV’s public speech and agreed to retaliate because of that speech. Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be denied with respect to Mahon, IV’s § 1983 claim of First Amendment retaliation.”
James Mahon, IV v. Lake Lehman School District et al.; M.D.Pa.; No. 3:09cv2148, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96664; 8/29/11.
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Don A Bailey, LEAD ATTORNEY, Harrisburg, PA. (for defendants) John E. Freund, III, LEAD ATTORNEY, King Spry Herman Freund & Faul, LLC, Bethlehem, PA.
