1. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Elizabeth VanderGarten )
plaintiff ) case No. 4:13CV1012RWS
)
v. )
Mr. Gregory Moyce, in his official ) JURY TRAIL DEMANDED
capacity as the Superintendent of the )
Brentwood School District: )
& )
Mrs. Lenore H. Wood, Mr. john M. )
Spencer, Mr. Francisco Rodriguez, Mrs. )
Belva Dove, Mr. Faizal )
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
INTRODUCTION
This motion is being filed to ask the court to grant plaintiff, Ms VanderGarten’s motion for summary
judgment and deny defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Ms VanderGarten is dismissed by Brent
School District and the Brentwood School Board on the grounds of immorality and public behavior
disruptive to maintenance of an efficient educational environment in the high school on September 3,
2013.Ms VanderGarten’s dismissal was promoted by and was in retaliation for her televised statements
made on July 21, 2013. She made a comment on local television news program on the arrest of Joshua
Haines for possession of child pornography. After the comment, she was noticed that she was dismissed
by the board of School District. Board of School District has violated Ms VanderGarten’ right of freedom
of speech, and makes her suffer the loss of her employment and income, as well as the health and
disability insurance and retirement amount benefits of that employment. Ms VanderGarten is entitled to
such damages and compensations.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Ms VanderGarten was employed by the Brentwood Board of Education as a librarian in Brentwood High
school from September 16, 1995 until June 20, 2012. Her annual performance evaluations at Brentwood
High School have never been below adequate and were often “excellent”. On July 21, 2013, she made a
comment on local television news program on the arrest of Joshua Haines for possession of child
pornography. After the comment, she was noticed that she was dismissed by the board of School District.

2. The board explained that the reason why she was dismissed was based on her comment on TV. In addition
to that reason, Ms VanderGarten did nothing to let her be dismissed by the board.
LEGAL STANDARD
A motion for summary judgment should be granted when “the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure
materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). As established herein,
Plaintiffs are entitled to a grant of summary judgment.
ARGUMENT
A. The board’s dismissal of Ms VanderGarten because of her comment on TV violates her right of
freedom of speech under the first amendment of U.S. Constitution
The courts in United States have recognized during a long period time that public employees are entitled
to the protection of the freedom of speech clause under the first amendment. A public employee, like any
citizen, has strong interest in addressing his or her thoughts on public concerns without adverse
employment decisions. Ms VanderGarten, as a public employee hired by School District of Brentwood,
should have strong interest in addressing her own comments on the arrest of a criminal possessing child
pornography which concerns public issues and the dismissal of Ms VanderGarten from her position in
Brentwood High School as a librarian is improper and infringe her freedom of speech under the first
amendment.
The court of appeal in DC Circuit has held in the case of LeFande v. District of Columbia that a four part-
test should be used to consider whether a public employee’s termination violates his or her first
amendment right:
First, the public employee must have spoken as a citizen on a matter of public concern. Second, the court
must consider whether the governmental interest in promoting the efficiency of the public services it
performs through its employees outweighs the employee's interest, as a citizen, in commenting upon
matters of public concern. Third, the employee must show that her speech was a substantial or motivating
factor in prompting the retaliatory or punitive act. Finally, the employee must refute the government
employer's showing, if made, that it would have reached the same decision in the absence of the protected
speech.

3. These four elements will be explained below respectively.
1. Ms VanderGarten’s comment on TV is protected under the first amendment under the four- part
test
According to the material facts of this case, Ms VanderGarten, as a citizen, made her comment on a
criminal case focused by publics, and her comment is likely to do no harm to her work as a librarian in
Brentwood High School. However, the School District dismissed her after her appearance on TV solely
based on her comment on the criminal case concerning child pornography. There is no doubt that Ms
VanderGarten is an excellent employee in Brentwood High School with perfect grades in annual
performance evaluations and termination should not happen on such kind of employees.
a. Ms VanderGarten’s comment is not made pursuant to her official duty
Ms VanderGarten is speaking as a citizen, not as a librarian on TV. when public employees make
statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment
purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline .Id.
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 418, 126 S.Ct. 1951 In Garcetti ,Deputy district attorney filed § 1983
complaint against county and supervisors at district attorneys' office, alleging that he was subject to
adverse employment actions in retaliation for engaging in protected speech, that is, for writing a
disposition memorandum in which he recommended dismissal of a case on the basis of purported
governmental misconduct. The court held that writing a disposition memo is within the scope of normal
official responsibility of a district attorney, therefore this kind of speech can not be protected by the first
amendment.
Ms VanderGarten is hired as a librarian in Brentwood High School and her duty as a librarian regulated in
the contract including: a) As a leader to create an media environment where collaboration and problem
solving thrive; b) as an instructor partner to work with teachers and others to build and strengthen
connections between student information and research needs. As a librarian, Ms VanderGarten mainly
conducts her responsibility with teachers. Making comment on a criminal case on TV is not in any part of
Ms VanderGarten’s official duty in the contract. Therefore, Ms VanderGarten is simply speaks on TV as a
normal citizen.
b. Ms VanderGarten’s comment is on issues of public concern
Whether an employee's speech addresses a matter of public concern must be determined by the content,

4. form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record. Id. Connick v. Myers, 103 S.Ct.
1684, 1983 Speech by public employees may be characterized as not of “public concern” when it is clear
that such speech deals with individual personnel disputes and grievances and that the information would
be of no relevance to the public's evaluation of the performance of governmental agencies. On the other
hand, speech that concerns “issues about which information is needed or appropriate to enable members
of society” to make informed decisions about the operation of their government merits the highest degree
of first amendment protection. Id. Hall v. Ford, 856 F.2d 255,258, 1988
In Hall, Former athletic director brought action against university officials to challenge his termination for
speaking publicly about various violations of NCAA and UDC rules. The court held that his statement is
within the scope of public concern for a substantial segment of the general public would be interested in
violations of athletic rules, which would reveal whether the current university administration is
mismanaging the athletic program. Like this case, Ms. VanderGarten made a comment publicly on TV
about a criminal case. A criminal case can clearly attract the public attention and the public will be highly
interested in the judgment of the case, so it is the issue about which information is needed or appropriate
to enable members of society” to make informed decisions about the operation of their government merits
the highest degree of first amendment protection.
Furthermore, whether it is a public concern should be detected by content, form, and context of a given
statement. The comment was made on a criminal case on TV, it surely will be focused on by public and
Ms VanderGarten just addressed her opinion on the issue, so her opinion can be considered as opinion on
a public concerning topic.
c. Ms. VanderGarten’s comment will not bring harm to the promotion of efficiency and integrity in
school
Concerning the balance between the interests of a public employee making a speech on public concern
and the public employer’s to maintain the integrity and efficiency of government agency, the court has
discretion to consider it. In Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Tp. High School Dist. 205, Will County, Illinois
391 U.S. 563, the court considered several elements to detect whether a teacher’s speech failed to
promote the efficiency and integrity in school, including the relevance of the speech to other employees,
the confidentiality requirement, and the maintenance of a harmonious environment among employees. Ms
VanderGarten’s comment on TV is about a criminal case, and it has no relationship with any employee in
her school and there is no confidential issue arise out of this case. The comment is not about her official

5. responsibility and her working environment, so it won’t influence the maintenance a harmonious
environment among employees.
d. Ms VanderGarten is dismissed by the board because of her comment on TV
In the dismissal of Ms VanderGarten, her comment on TV almost plays a sole element of her dismissal.
In defendant’s affidavit No.19, defendant clearly pointed out that Ms VanderGarten’s dismissal is because
her comment on TV. As show in the evidence of the annual academic evaluations, Ms VanderGarten is a
perfect librarian and the school won’t dismiss her if she did not make that comment on TV.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing arguments and authorities, plaintiff urges this court to grant plaintiff’s motion
for summary judgment.
Respectfully submitted,
Koby, Perry&Cramer
By: Yiyang Hao
Forsyth Blvd. 7340
St.Louis MO 63105
Attorney for Plaintiff
Dated: March 31, 2014