## Facts

- Marjorie H. Rowland was hired in August 1974 as a non-tenured vocational guidance counselor at a public high school under a one-year contract.
- At work, Rowland told an office secretary that two students she counseled were homosexual and later told the secretary that she was bisexual and had a female partner.
- Rowland also told the assistant principal and several teachers that she was bisexual.
- In December 1974, the principal met with Rowland and suggested she resign; she refused and told teachers she was asked to resign because she was bisexual.
- Rowland was suspended in December 1974; in April 1975 the school board did not renew her contract.
- Rowland later accepted a guidance counselor position at a junior high school in the district but did not receive a renewal there either.
- A jury found the district suspended and did not rehire Rowland solely because she was bisexual and disclosed that fact to coworkers, and not for any other reason; the jury also found her disclosure did not interfere with school operations or job performance.
- The jury also found Rowland acted unprofessionally by revealing to school employees the names of students who had disclosed to her that they were gay.

## Issues

1. Whether the district violated the First Amendment by suspending Rowland and not renewing her contract based on workplace statements disclosing her bisexuality.
2. Whether the district’s actions denied Rowland equal protection by treating her adversely because of her sexual orientation and/or disclosure of it.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment for Rowland.
- The court held Rowland’s workplace disclosures about her sexual orientation were not speech on a matter of public concern under public-employee First Amendment doctrine; therefore, no First Amendment violation occurred.
- The court held Rowland failed to establish an Equal Protection Clause violation based on the record and applicable scrutiny.
- The Supreme Court denied certiorari; two Justices dissented from the denial.

## Legal Principles

- A public employee’s retaliation claim based on speech generally requires that the speech address a matter of public concern; otherwise, the speech is not constitutionally protected for this purpose.
- When speech is not of public concern, courts need not conduct balancing between the employee’s speech interests and the employer’s operational interests.
- Sexual-orientation-based equal protection claims in this setting were evaluated without treating sexual orientation as a suspect or quasi-suspect classification; the challenged action is upheld if rationally related to legitimate governmental interests.
- In assessing equal protection challenges to public-school employment decisions, courts may consider administrators’ discretion and job-related concerns, including professional conduct affecting counseling relationships and student confidentiality.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit set aside a jury-based § 1983 judgment for a non-tenured school counselor, concluding that her workplace disclosures of bisexuality were private, not public-concern speech, and that the district’s employment actions did not amount to unconstitutional discrimination under equal protection.


Rowland v. Mad River Loc. Sch. Dist., 730 F.2d 444 (6th Cir. 1984)