Brown v. Armenti

23 Citing cases

  1. Borden v. School Dist

    523 F.3d 153 (3d Cir. 2008)   Cited 129 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Establishment Clause prohibited a football coach from bowing his head while players prayed because of his history of leading the team in prayer

    The rationale for this holding is that the teacher is acting as the educational institution's proxy during his or her in-class conduct, and the educational institution, not the individual teacher, has the final determination in how to teach the students. See Brown v. Armenti, 247 F.3d 69, 74-75 (3d Cir. 2001). In order to determine if the teacher's conduct is considered in-class conduct, we must determine whether the teacher is engaging in one of the "four essential freedoms" that constitute academic freedom.

  2. Kahan v. Slippery Rock Univ. of Pa.

    50 F. Supp. 3d 667 (W.D. Pa. 2014)   Cited 37 times
    Granting summary where "[n]o reasonable jury could infer that SRU treated females more favorably than males based upon the evidence of purported gender stereotypes produced by Kahan, making it impossible for Kahan to satisfy his burden to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination on this basis."

    (ECF No. 78 (SRU brief) at 14–15.) In support of their argument, the Individual SRU Defendants rely on Brown v. Armenti, 247 F.3d 69 (3d Cir.2001), and Bradley v. Pittsburgh Bd. of Educ., 910 F.2d 1172 (3d Cir.1990). Kahan opposes the Individual SRU Defendants' motion on the ground that his First Amendment claim is based upon conduct “significantly broader” than “forcing Kahan to raise [Tommy Winslow's] grade.”

  3. Ziccardi v. City of Philadelphia

    288 F.3d 57 (3d Cir. 2002)   Cited 148 times
    Holding that "we lack jurisdiction to consider whether the district court correctly identified the set of facts that the summary judgment record is sufficient to prove"

    We reject the appellants' suggestion that Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), somehow narrowed Johnson. Saucier never referred to Johnson and said nothing whatsoever about appellate jurisdiction. Nor do we read Brown v. Armenti, 247 F.3d 69 (3d Cir. 2001), as supporting appellants' position. In Brown, we quoted Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 313, 116 S.Ct. 834, 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996), stating that Johnson held "that determinations of evidentiary sufficiency at summary judgment are not immediately appealable merely because they happen to arise in a qualified-immunity case."

  4. Ali v. Woodbridge Twp. Sch. Dist.

    Civil Action No. 17-2210 (D.N.J. Apr. 30, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    The Third Circuit has consistently held that there are "recognized limitations upon free speech" in the educational setting. Brown v. Armenti, 247 F.3d 69, 74 (3d Cir. 2001); see Edwards v. Cal. Univ. of Penn., 156 F.3d 488, 491 (3d Cir. 1998) ("[A] public university professor does not have a First Amendment right to decide what will be taught in the classroom."). A teacher's in-class conduct is not protected speech.

  5. Howell v. Millersville Univ. of Pa.

    283 F. Supp. 3d 309 (E.D. Pa. 2017)   Cited 28 times
    Finding adverse employment action element met where a plaintiff's demotion left the plaintiff with "significantly diminished material responsibilities"

    The First Amendment does not protect a teacher's in-class conduct because during class, the teacher acts as the educational institution's proxy, and the educational institution, not the individual teacher, has the final say in how to teach students. SeeBrown v. Armenti , 247 F.3d 69, 74–75 (3d Cir. 2001). The institution, not the teacher, has control over the "four essential freedoms" that comprise academic freedom: the right of an institution to choose "who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study."

  6. Lyons v. Vaught

    875 F.3d 1168 (8th Cir. 2017)   Cited 33 times
    Granting defendant summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, and noting that plaintiff "failed to show, using the particularized inquiry required, that his right to make this speech in these circumstances was clearly established"

    Lyons relies on pre- Garcetti cases from other circuits involving professors' speech about academic integrity and grade inflation. See Brown v. Armenti, 247 F.3d 69, 75, 79 (3d Cir. 2001) ; Coats v. Pierre, 890 F.2d 728, 732 (5th Cir. 1989) ; Johnson v. Lincoln Univ., 776 F.2d 443, 452 (3d Cir. 1985). But these cases did not address whether the speech at issue was pursuant to the plaintiffs' job duties, an issue that would have changed the analysis and perhaps the result in each case, as post- Garcetti cases in those circuits illustrate.

  7. Oliver v. Roquet

    858 F.3d 180 (3d Cir. 2017)   Cited 79 times
    Holding appellate jurisdiction existed despite factual component of the court's qualified immunity ruling

    In In re Montgomery County , this Court joined numerous other Courts of Appeals in holding that a district court's "implicit denial of the Appellants' immunity claims is sufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction." Wright v. Montgomery Cty. (In re Montgomery Cty .), 215 F.3d 367, 370, 374 (3d Cir. 2000) ; see also Brown v. Armenti , 247 F.3d 69, 72 n.1 (3d Cir. 2001) ("Even though a district court does not explicitly address the immunity claims [in denying summary judgment], we nonetheless have jurisdiction to review the implied denial of those claims."). And qualified immunity may be implicitly denied when a government official otherwise entitled to immunity is nonetheless subjected to "the burdens of such pretrial matters as discovery."

  8. Johnson-Kurek v. Abu-Absi

    423 F.3d 590 (6th Cir. 2005)   Cited 12 times

    The First Amendment concept of academic freedom does not require that a nontenured professor be made a sovereign unto himself.Parate, 868 F.2d at 827 (internal citations omitted); see also Brown v. Armenti, 247 F.3d 69, 75 (3d Cir. 2001) ("Because grading is pedagogic, the assignment of the grade is subsumed under the university's freedom to determine how a course is to be taught. We therefore conclude that a public university professor does not have a First Amendment right to expression via the school's grade assignment procedures.").

  9. Atkinson v. Taylor

    316 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2003)   Cited 953 times
    Holding that inmate, who shared cell with two constant smokers for seven months, was exposed to unreasonably high levels of ETS

    II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Review by this Court is plenary when a denial of qualified immunity turns solely on a question of law. Brown v. Armenti, 247 F.3d 69, 72 (3d Cir. 2001). We recently reiterated that this Court lacks jurisdiction to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence when reviewing a denial of summary judgment based on a lack of qualified immunity.

  10. Brunelle v. City of Scranton

    Civil No. 3:15-cv-960 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 12, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    In cases where a plaintiff fails to provide particularized facts to oppose a government official's assertion of qualified immunity, a motion for summary judgment should be granted. Brown v. Armenti, 247 F.3d 69, 78 (3d Cir. 2001). The existence of factual disputes, supported by evidence in the record, may render qualified immunity unavailable in some cases.