Alaska Supreme Court Justice Dario Borghesan, second from right, asks a question during oral arguments in a case concerning correspondence education allotments, on June 27, 2024, in the Boney Courthouse in Anchorage. (Photo by Andrew Kitchenman/Alaskaa Beacon)
Neither an Alaska free-speech law nor the First Amendment protect a former North Slope Borough principal fired for making a derogatory version of the local school district’s logo, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled on Friday.
Former Point Lay school principal R. Brett Sterling had sued the North Slope Borough School District in 2022, alleging he was wrongfully fired from his job for incompetence and violating antidiscrimination rules.
Sterling’s case revolves around a January 2022 incident in which he used school equipment to make coasters for himself and a fellow principal who was leaving the district.
Sterling modified the district’s logo, which contains an illustration of children performing a blanket toss and the motto “Striving for Excellence.”
Around the logo, Stirling wrote, “Congratulations You survived NSBSD” and “Time for a f—ing drink,” next to an image of two beer mugs. He replaced the motto with “Striving for Excrement” and the district’s name with “New Stupid Behaviors Starting Daily.”
An image of the coasters spread on social media after a custodian saw the design, with most viewers seeing it as a racist remark toward the predominantly Alaska Native community and region.
After a hearing, the district fired Sterling. He challenged his termination, which was upheld in an administrative hearing. He appealed to Superior Court, arguing that the district violated his due process rights, that the coaster was an expression of free speech, and that the reasons for his firing weren’t supported by sufficient evidence.
In August 2023, Judge David Roghair ruled in favor of the school district and upheld Sterling’s firing. Roghair found that the district was within its right to find Sterling as incompetent because he was unable to perform his work as a principal after the local community saw his design.
Roghair wrote, “Whether or not … Stirling interpreted the coaster to promote any view about Alaska Natives, the facts at hand support that the community was reasonable to interpret the coaster as racially offensive.”
Roghair rejected Sterling’s free-speech argument, noting that the coaster was intended to be a private communication between himself and his friend, not a public message protected by the First Amendment.
In addition, Roghair wrote, “the right to openly critique a government employer without fear of punishment does not extend to offensive or inappropriate speech.”
Sterling appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court, which ruled that “Stirling’s free speech rights are outweighed by the District’s legitimate interests in avoiding workplace disruption, meeting the needs of its students and the public, and maintaining public trust in the school system. We thus hold that Stirling’s termination did not violate his free speech rights.”
Alaska law contains a free-speech rule for teachers that is separate from the First Amendment, but in Friday’s ruling, the court said that rule is “coextensive” with the First Amendment, providing roughly equal protection.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Alaska, has previously ruled that when it comes to free speech in education, a court can consider “whether students and parents have expressed concern that the plaintiff’s conduct has disrupted the school’s normal operations, or has eroded the public trust between the school and members of its community.”
In this case, Sterling’s conduct did cause that disruption, the Alaska Supreme Court said, thus rendering it unprotected by the First Amendment.
The court’s justices did conclude that the school district made a due process error during Sterling’s firing, however, and that as a result he is owed back pay for the period between his pre-firing hearing and his post-firing hearing.
Friday’s order remands the case back to Superior Court for that issue but otherwise upholds the decision to fire Sterling.
Attorneys for both the plaintiff and the defendant did not answer emails seeking comment on Friday.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.