## Facts

- Tristan Coomes worked as a special education teacher and manager of a middle school Emotional/Behavioral Disorders (EBD) program in a Washington public school district.
- Her duties included managing the EBD program, communicating with administrators about student placements and program issues, and maintaining substantial contact with parents.
- A dispute arose with the principal and assistant principal over “mainstreaming” EBD students into general education; Coomes believed some placement decisions were delayed for improper financial reasons.
- Coomes sent an email raising concerns about student placements and her treatment by administrators to a union representative and a district HR manager, and the email was forwarded to other teachers and ultimately reached the principal.
- Coomes also communicated her concerns up the administrative chain and discussed program and placement issues with parents in connection with students’ educational programs.
- After these events, she received negative evaluations and reprimands and was approved for a transfer to another school.
- Before the transfer, Coomes experienced a breakdown at work, took several months of medical leave, did not return, and later claimed constructive discharge.
- Coomes sued the district and administrators under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation and asserted a Washington wrongful-discharge claim; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims.

## Issues

1. Whether Coomes’s communications to administrators and parents about EBD placements and program operation were protected First Amendment speech made as a private citizen, or instead unprotected employee speech made pursuant to official duties.
2. Whether summary judgment on the Washington wrongful-discharge claim remained proper after intervening Washington Supreme Court authority changed the governing rule relied upon by the district court.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants on the First Amendment claim.
- The court held Coomes’s communications to administrators were workplace complaints made up the chain of command and were within the scope of her job responsibilities.
- The court also held Coomes’s communications with parents about student programs and placement were part of her assigned duties and likewise unprotected.
- Because the speech was not made as a private citizen, the court did not reach the public-concern or Pickering-balancing steps.
- The Ninth Circuit vacated summary judgment on the Washington wrongful-discharge claim and remanded because intervening Washington precedent (Rose) overruled the case (Korslund) on which the district court relied.
- The court instructed the district court on remand to consider whether to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim(s) after resolution of the federal claim.

## Legal Principles

- Under Garcetti, public employees do not receive First Amendment protection for speech made pursuant to their official duties, even if the content relates to issues that may be of public interest.
- Communications “up the chain of command” about job-related program operations and workplace treatment are typically employee speech rather than citizen speech.
- Speech to third parties (including parents) can be unprotected employee speech when it falls within the employee’s ordinary job responsibilities.
- When intervening state high-court decisions change governing state law, a federal appellate court may vacate and remand state-law rulings entered under superseded precedent; on remand, the district court should reassess supplemental jurisdiction.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit concluded that a special education program manager’s complaints to administrators and parents about student placements were made in the course of performing assigned duties and therefore were not protected by the First Amendment, but it vacated and remanded the Washington wrongful-discharge claim because intervening state authority altered the legal basis for its dismissal.


Coomes v. Edmonds Sch. Dist. No. 15, 816 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 2016)