## Facts

- Donna Cockrel was a tenured fifth-grade teacher at Simpsonville Elementary School in the Shelby County, Kentucky, School District.
- On May 30, 1996, she presented a classroom segment on industrial hemp’s environmental benefits and invited actor Woody Harrelson and hemp farmers to speak.
- School administrators had approved the presentation and use of outside speakers; the event drew extensive media coverage and community controversy.
- After complaints from parents and teachers, the superintendent initiated an investigation and administrators increased scrutiny of Cockrel’s performance, including unusually frequent evaluations that rated her deficient.
- The principal publicly disapproved of the hemp speakers, and the parent–teacher association issued a statement condemning Cockrel’s conduct.
- The superintendent recommended termination for stated reasons including insubordination, conduct unbecoming a teacher, inefficiency, incompetency, and neglect of duty, citing seventeen alleged instances (e.g., disparaging curriculum, name-calling toward the principal, and noncooperation with Title I and staff).
- Cockrel withdrew her request for a tenure hearing; termination became final on July 15, 1997.
- Cockrel sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment retaliation, claiming the stated reasons were pretext for punishing her hemp-related classroom speech and related expressive activity.
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on the First Amendment claim; Cockrel appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Cockrel’s hemp-related classroom presentation and related activity addressed a matter of public concern for First Amendment purposes.
2. Whether, under the Pickering balancing test, Cockrel’s interest in that speech outweighed the school district’s interests in efficient school operations and curricular control on the summary judgment record.
3. Whether genuine disputes of material fact existed under Mt. Healthy as to (a) whether protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the termination and (b) whether the district would have terminated her absent the speech.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment on the First Amendment retaliation claim and remanded.
- The court held that the hemp-related speech could be speech on a matter of public concern.
- On the summary judgment record, the Pickering balance did not entitle defendants to judgment as a matter of law.
- The court found triable factual disputes on causation and the “same decision” defense, including whether the district’s stated reasons were pretextual.

## Legal Principles

- A public employee claiming First Amendment retaliation must show (1) protected speech, (2) an adverse action, and (3) that the speech was a substantial or motivating factor; the employer may avoid liability by proving it would have taken the same action absent the speech (Mt. Healthy framework).
- Speech relates to a matter of public concern when it addresses issues of political, social, or community interest rather than purely internal workplace disputes (Connick/Pickering framework).
- When public-concern speech is shown, courts balance the employee’s speech interests against the government employer’s interests in workplace efficiency and effective operations; generalized community opposition without evidence of material disruption may be insufficient at summary judgment.
- At summary judgment, courts may not resolve credibility disputes or choose among competing inferences on motive and pretext when the record permits a reasonable jury to find retaliation.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that a tenured teacher’s classroom presentation on industrial hemp could constitute protected speech on a matter of public concern and that disputes over retaliatory motive and the district’s asserted nonretaliatory reasons required a trial rather than summary judgment.


Cockrel v. Shelby Cnty. Sch. Dist., 270 F.3d 1036 (6th Cir. 2001)