Coach Bailey served as A.D. in School District No. 69 of Canadian County, Oklahoma for seven years and had received outstanding evaluations.  In 2014, Coach Bailey wrote a letter to a state court judge who was considering the sentence to be imposed on a man convicted of various crimes, including the manufacture of child pornography.  One year later, the coach wrote a second letter when the judge was considering a reduction of the man’s sentence.  Both letters were written on school district letterhead.

Why would a coach get involved in something like this? Why would a coach seek a reduction in the sentence of someone who had pled guilty to the manufacture of child porn?

The coach was the man’s uncle.  He was personally convinced of his nephew’s remorse, and firmly believed that he would henceforth be a model citizen.  That’s why.

A former in-law of the coach who was upset about the nephew’s early release and “other family issues” brought all of this to the attention of the superintendent.  Don’t you love family drama????  The superintendent met with the coach, talked it over and ultimately decided that he could no longer trust Coach Bailey’s judgment.   Coach Bailey was fired.

Now the 10^th Circuit has held that Coach Bailey’s letters were protected by the First Amendment.  He was speaking as a citizen, not as an employee.  He was speaking about the sentence to be given to a criminal defendant, which the 10^th Circuit ruled is a “matter of public concern.”

What about the use of district letterhead?  The court noted that Coach Bailey, as well as other district employees, had used district stationery for similar purposes before.  The court was ruling on a Motion for Summary Judgment, and was required to make inferences from the facts that were favorable to the coach.  Thus at this stage of the game, the court concluded that he was fired for the content of his letter—not the stationery.

So the court reversed the lower court’s decision that was in favor of the school district and sent the case back down to the lower court for further proceedings. For our purposes, the key point is the court’s pronouncement that speaking up about the sentence to be given a criminal defendant is protected by the First Amendment.

The superintendent was sued personally in this case. We’ll talk about that tomorrow. The case is Bailey v. ISD No. 69 of Canadian County, Oklahoma, decided by the 10^th Circuit on July 24, 2018. We found it at 2018 WL 3543064.

DAWG BONE: IT MIGHT BE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED BUT WE STILL THINK THAT IF YOU WANT TO SUPPORT YOUR NEPHEW, THE PORNOGRAPHER, YOU SHOULD USE YOUR OWN STATIONERY.

 Tomorrow: Do you do a Daily Gratitude List?