Facts

The San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) and its board commissioners Jenny Lam, Faauuga Moliga, Matt Alexander, Keven Boggess, and Mark Sanchez (defendants) drafted a "Resolution" to remove Commissioner Allison Collins from her position as Vice-President of the San Francisco School Board, and upon giving 24 hours' notice, voted passing the "Resolution." Collins was stripped as her position as vice-president and membership on all committees. Collins made a series of tweets several years before her position as Vice-President. Collins' tweets made inflammatory statements regarding the Asian American community. Collins brought an action against defendants alleging violation of her right to free speech and violation of her Fourteenth Amendment rights based on deprivation of liberty and property. She also brought several state law claims including intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, violation of property interests, and retaliation.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendants deprived her of her constitutional rights by stripping her of her position as Vice-President. Plaintiff contended she apologized for the tweets several years ago. Plaintiff contended defendant SFUSD is liable for the acts of the defendants. Plaintiff contended that her speech was a matter of public interest and concern that addressed the issues of "Bullying" and "Harassment" of Black and Brown children by other students in a predominately Asian American School. Plaintiff contended that she was deprived of liberty of without due process under the Fourteenth Amendment when she was removed from her position as Vice-President. Plaintiff contended that she was deprived of property of without due process under the Fourteenth Amendment when she was removed from her position as Vice-President. Plaintiff contended that qualified immunity is not a defense because her constitutional rights were violated when defendants passed the "Resolution." Plaintiff contended defendants intentionally caused her emotional distress by slandering her as a "racist." Plaintiff contended that defendants were negligent in her removal. Plaintiff contended that defendants violated her "Skelly Rights" when she was deprived of her job without due process.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all of the contentions. Defendants contended they are entitled to immunity. Defendants contended the claims made against board members should be construed as brought against them in their official capacity because the claims "stem from official action of the legislative body." Defendants contended that plaintiff First Amendment claims are barred because the actions taken against her is a customary action taken in the political arena. Defendants contended that it did not deprive plaintiff of liberty without due process because "procedural due process protections apply to reputational harm only when a plaintiff suffers stigma from government action plus alteration or extinguishment of a 'right or status previously recognized by state law.'" under Humphries v. County of Los Angeles. Defendants contended plaintiff is not considered a public employee. Defendants contended that the case should be dismissed because plaintiff cannot succeed on the merits.

Result

Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted.