You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Panse v. Eastwood

Citation: 303 F. App'x 933Docket: No. 07-3325-cv

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; December 18, 2008; Federal Appellate Court

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil
Peter Panse appeals the dismissal of his First Amendment retaliation claim by the district court under Rule 12(b)(6). The appellate court reviews the dismissal de novo, accepting the complaint's factual allegations as true and drawing inferences in Panse's favor. The district court applied the precedent from Garcetti v. Ceballos, which determined that public employees do not speak as citizens when making statements as part of their official duties, thus limiting First Amendment protections against employer discipline.

The court notes that it remains an open question in the Second Circuit whether Garcetti applies to classroom instruction, contrasting this with decisions from other circuits. However, it ultimately finds that Panse's claim fails regardless of the applicable standard. Panse contended that the district court erred by granting the motion to dismiss without discovery regarding his duties as a high school art teacher. The court concluded that Panse’s statements were made in the course of his official duties, specifically when he encouraged students to participate in an external, for-profit art course. 

The court emphasized that these statements occurred in class, related to his pedagogical responsibilities, and were subject to legitimate restrictions regarding commercial solicitation and potentially inappropriate content. Panse did not contest that these restrictions were reasonably related to legitimate educational concerns. After reviewing other arguments presented by Panse, the court found them to lack merit, affirming the district court's judgment and denying the defendants' request for costs.