Hill v. State Department of Education et al (JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG+)

Filing 22

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 1/13/2017. (wcl, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
LISA HILL,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
ALABAMA STATE DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION, et al.,
Defendants.

LISA HILL,

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:15cv852-MHT
(WO)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
ALABAMA STATE DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION, et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:16cv342-MHT
(WO)

OPINION
Plaintiff,

a

former

employee

of

the

Alabama

Department of Education, filed this lawsuit complaining
that during her employment her coworkers intentionally
exposed

her

to

carbon

monoxide,

took

personal

items

from her office, discussed her personal information,
and generally harassed her, and that she was retaliated
against for complaining about it.

She brings state-law

claims

to

for

assault,

conspiracy

commit

assault,

intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion
of privacy, negligence, and other related claims.

She

also brings a federal claim for violation of the First
Amendment, based on her retaliation allegations.

This

lawsuit is now before the court on the recommendation
of the United States Magistrate Judge that plaintiff’s
case

be

dismissed.

Also

before

the

court

plaintiff’s objections to the recommendation.

are

After an

independent and de novo review of the record, the court
concludes

that

the

magistrate

judge’s

recommendation

should be adopted and the case dismissed, but for the
reason that, even if the court views the facts in the
manner

plaintiff

requests

in

her

objections,

plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any viable federal
claim.

2

Plaintiff has not brought a viable First Amendment
claim because her complaints to her supervisors about
her own working conditions were not statements about
matters of public concern.

See Connick v. Myers, 461

U.S. 138, 147 (1983) (“We hold . . . that when a public
employee speaks not as a citizen upon matters of public
concern, but instead as an employee upon matters only
of

personal

interest,

absent

the

most

unusual

circumstances, a federal court is not the appropriate
forum in which to review the wisdom of a personnel
decision taken by a public agency allegedly in reaction
to the employee's behavior.”); see also Morgan v. Ford,
6 F.3d 750, 755 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding that a public
employee’s complaints about sexual harassment did not
constitute

a

matter

of

public

interest

where

she

“primarily spoke as an employee in order to improve her
work environment”).
As

there

is

no

viable

federal

claim,

and

the

statute of limitations for plaintiff’s state-law claims
has not expired, see Ala. Code 1975 § 6-2-38 (providing
3

for two-year statute of limitations for personal injury
cases),

the

court

declines

to

exercise

over plaintiff’s state-law claims.

jurisdiction

Plaintiff is free

to pursue those claims in state court.
An appropriate judgment will be entered.
DONE, this the 13th day of January, 2017.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE