Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal First Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Shakopee board packet asks MSBA to support superintendent in McNeally First Amendment case
Summary
The Shakopee Public School District included a letter asking the Minnesota School Boards Association to file an amicus brief supporting Superintendent Dr. Mike Redmond in McNeally v. HomeTown Bank (No. 24-1867), arguing an Eighth Circuit panel narrowed application of Pickering.
Get email alerts on the Legal First Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Shakopee Public School District School Board included in its Nov. 10 special meeting packet a letter requesting that the Minnesota School Boards Association file an amicus brief supporting Superintendent Dr. Mike Redmond in McNeally v. HomeTown Bank (No. 24-1867). "We write this letter on behalf of Independent School District No. 720, Shakopee Public Schools' ('District') School Board," the letter states, signed by Christian R. Shafer and Adam J. Frudden.
The letter summarizes the procedural posture: an Eighth Circuit panel reversed the district court's ruling that the Pickering balancing test applied to Tara McNeally, who provided services to the district while employed by HomeTown Bank. Shafer and Frudden argue the panel majority placed undue weight on the monetary flow of payments, citing a separate out-of-circuit food-truck case to justify limiting Pickering's reach. The letter says a concurring judge disagreed, noting McNeally "provided educational services to the District's students" and played a role in delivering core governmental functions.
Shafer and Frudden contend that a narrowed application of Pickering could hinder districts' ability to address inappropriate speech by third-party service providers, co-located providers, volunteers and others who work with students but are paid by outside entities. "Any erosion of the application of Pickering is detrimental to schools," the letter says, urging MSBA to seek en banc review or otherwise support the superintendent.
The letter closes by offering the authors' assistance: "We (Christian and Adam) are available to write the amicus brief, if MSBA would like us to do so," and provides contact information. The meeting packet lists the letter for consideration under Action item 5.1; the transcript does not record a vote or further discussion.
