Full opinion text
OPINION AND ORDER SELYA, District Judge. These civil actions present grave and important constitutional issues, and simultaneously raise the nefarious spectre of political infiltration where it least belongs — in the public schools. The litigation can best be characterized as acrimonious. It represents the culmination of conflicts (real and imagined) which, over the years, have rent asunder the tranquility of one of Rhode Island’s most attractive exurban enclaves, pitting neighbor against neighbor and educator against educator. Since the saga unfolds within the confines of a smallish rural community, and since it focuses on interpersonal relationships in an intimate and often perjorative manner, the cast of characters is of particular significance. Therefore, the Court at the outset feels constrained to set forth herein a brief listing of the dramatis personae as viewed through the eyes of the finder of facts. I. DRAMATIS PERSONAE JANET SMITH: A self-styled gadfly and would-be Scituate school teacher, she boasted of “giving the superintendent and the School Committee a hard time.” RICHARD L. HARRIS: Scituate Town Treasurer and kingpin of the local G.O.P.; if you believe his foes, Richard J. Daley is alive, well, and living in Scituate — and has traded his donkey for an elephant. ALBERT A. MANNING: Long-time Scituate school superintendent, who proclaimed himself to be “his own man”; but this litigation questions whether he was king or pawn. NORMAN CURTIS: Principal at Clayville School, he was not thrilled by Manning’s involuntary transfer maneuvre. CARL JOHNSON: Curtis’ counterpart at Hope Elementary School, he was worried about the effect of plaintiff’s activism on the morale of his faculty. JOHN MORRISSETTE: Principal at North Scituate Elementary School (“NSES”), he was center stage for much of the drama • that unfolded. NANCY H. BORDEN: A poised, articulate member of the School Committee, she would probably have cross-questioned Manning if he had recommended plaintiff for a job. ROBERT E. WATSON, JR.: Member of the School Committee, his scribbled notes may have been open to varying interpretations. LESTER L. YOUNG: Brutally frank and plain-spoken, his abecedarian educational philosophy spurred plaintiff to run for political office. SIDNEY R. AMYLON: Literal and precise member of the Scituate School Committee whose familiarity with the Mugwumps endeared him to the Court. ANTHONY A. COI A: Loyal member of the Scituate School Committee, inclined to follow Manning’s recommendations. DR. WILLIAM LAWTON: Distinguished Director of Laboratory Experiences for the Education Department at RIC, he would have made certain that prospective student teachers knew the rules. DR. PAUL F. JOYCE: North Smithfield Superintendent of Schools and an official of the N.W. Region, he termed the plaintiff’s approach as an “unusual” one. MARIE HAWKES: “Teacher of the Year” for Scituate and for the State of Rhode Island; plaintiff’s classroom mentor. VICTORIA RICCI: A teacher’s teacher, her hospitalization helped to precipitate a firestorm. MARJORIE ADKINS: She cleaned out her classroom in December, never to return to NSES. ELIZABETH SHARON CAPOBIANCO: She helped the plaintiff sort out the reading problems which Adkins had left behind. ANN FORNARO: A teacher much in demand, it was bruited about that she would be “bumped” by one with “pull”. MS. SCHOCKNER: Ms. Smith replaced this itinerant art instructor, only to be replaced herself. LINDA PARRILLO: A conscientious and refined educator, she bore the brunt of plaintiff’s wrath in early 1978. JOHN MARTINELLI: Plaintiff’s compatriot on the Democratic Town Committee, he started a petition drive and then skipped off on vacation. NICETTE BALUKJI AN: Californian-turned-Rhode-Islander-turned-NSES-substitute-teacher. MARIE GRISSOM: Concerned for her child, she presented the February 28th parents’ manifesto to no avail. WAYNE SALISBURY: His racket was to find a tennis instructor; despite Manning’s chariness, he served plaintiff to the School Committee. DEBORA GREENGLASS: Both the teachers’ advisory panel and the superintendent put her at the head of the list. BERNADINE DiORIO: Director of Curriculum for the Scituate School Department, and a dedicated professional who testified without embellishment. JEAN DUBE: A highly-rated docent, she opted for the cosmopolitan delights of Woonsocket in lieu of Scituate’s more pastoral splendors. SHERRYL CARLOMUSTO: An applicant for a full-time elementary faculty position, her extra-curricular activities gave her an edge over the competition. NANCY ZITO: Like cream, she floated to the top. JUDITH OSWALD: She brought to the Scituate schools a familiarity with innovation and with open concept education. ELLEN D’AGNENICA: Selected in preference to the plaintiff, she chose to go elsewhere in order to pursue her specialty. CYNTHIA KEATING: She followed in her parents’ footsteps. LINDA MARZAHN: Her efforts to rank teacher aspirants were deemed ultra vires. DONALD CAMPBELL: A mystery man who played Paul Revere in warning the defendants that a lawsuit was coming. MARY CHAT ALIAN: Although a friend of Ms. Smith, her testimony was not foursquare with the plaintiff’s. FREDERICK REISMAN: A local plumber, he claimed to have flushed out an admission that plaintiff was “too hot to handle.” THE UNKNOWN CUSTOMER: Still unidentified, his or her testimony could have resolved any doubt as to who said what to whom during the shoot-out at the North Scituate Pharmacy. II. TRAVEL OF THE CASE. Janet Smith unsuccessfully sought, over a period of years, a full-time teaching position with the Scituate School Department. She concluded that her failure to secure such employment was but a thinly-veiled punishment for her involvement in Democratic politics and for her activism in municipal affairs. Accordingly, she filed suit in 1979 against a bevy of defendants, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and damages for putative violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Some attrition has occurred with the passage of time and with the granting of various pre-trial motions; consequently, the sole remaining defendants in the 1979 action are the town treasurer, the school superintendent, and divers former and present members of the Scituate School Committee. In 1981, the plaintiff brought a second action against Curtis and Johnson, both of whom were, at all times relevant to this action, school principals in Scituate. From these two defendants, plaintiff sought compensatory damages for alleged violations of the same constitutional and statutory provisions. The two cases were consolidated and tried to the Court in January of 1983, the parties having waived trial by jury. At the conclusion of the bench trial, the matter was taken under advisement, and compendious post-trial briefs were prepared and filed. The within opinion constitutes the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For ease in reference, this opinion will treat the two civil actions as if there were but a single multidefendant suit before the Court. III. THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. Prior to dissecting the facts of this case, it is, in the Court’s judgment, useful to recount the applicable law and procedures regulating the administration of public schools. In Rhode Island, each local school district is governed by an elected School Committee. R.I.Gen.Laws § 16-2-5. The School Committee employs a superintendent to administer and supervise the schools, under and subject to its direction. Id. at §§ 16-2-9(b) and 16-2-11. Among other duties, the superintendent “shall recommend teachers, including principals, supervisors, and assistants, to the school committee for appointment to service in the public schools.” Id. at § 16-2-11. The School Committee has final authority, however, for the engagement of teachers. School Committee v. Board of Regents, 429 A.2d 1297, 1301 (R.I.1981); R.I.Gen.Laws § 16-2-18. Any person appointed to a teaching position must possess a “certificate of qualification issued by ... the state board of regents for education.” Id. at § 16-11-1. In addition to full-time teachers, there are two categories of substitute teachers. A per diem substitute is enlisted on a daily basis, for consecutive periods of up to twenty days. Under Rhode Island law, there is no requirement that a regular teacher be replaced by the same per diem substitute each day. School Committee v. Board of Regents, 429 A.2d at 1301. Nor does a per diem substitute have any contractual right to work more than one day at a time. Id. Long-term substitutes, on the other hand, work for consecutive periods ranging from twenty days to one-hundred and thirty days, and are paid more than per diem substitutes. Long-term substitutes customarily receive certain rights under the collective bargaining agreement between the teachers' union and the School Committee; per diem substitutes do not. In virtually every instance, each community is in effect a school district and operates its public schools under and pursuant to this paradigm. Scituate’s school department, is, therefore, a branch — albeit a relatively autonomous one — of the local government; and the members of the School Committee (who serve staggered terms) are chosen by the voters of the town at regular municipal elections. There is no pretense of, nor requirement for, non-partisanship; in Scituate, School Committee candidates can — and almost invariably do — run under party labels as part of a local slate. While the selection methodology for substitute teachers,may vary from community to community, the practice in Scituate has been (i) for each school principal to arrange for per diem substitutes as needed in his or her school, and (ii) for the superintendent of schools to nominate long-term substitutes, who are then approved by the School Committee in the same fashion as full-time teachers. These selection devices antedate plaintiff’s involvement with the Scituate schools, and there is no basis in this case for any suggestion that the methods themselves are constitutionally deficient; plaintiff’s grievances, as will appear infra, are addressed to the manner in which the procedures were applied. Defendant Manning was, at all times relevant to this case, the superintendent of the Scituate schools. Three elementary schools were under his jurisdiction: Hope, NSES, and Clayville. During the relevant time period, defendant Johnson was the principal at Hope, and defendant Curtis was the principal at Clayville. Morrissette, the principal at NSES, was not sued. Defendants Borden, Watson, Young, Amylon and Coia were all members of the School Committee during the pertinent period. IV. GENERAL STATEMENT OF ISSUES. Two generic inquiries confront the Court in this case. It must first be determined to what extent, if at all, the plaintiff engaged in the exercise of constitutionally protected First Amendment rights; and secondly, whether or not any such protected activities were in fact and in contemplation of law the cause of the defendants’ decisions regarding the plaintiff’s employment. Answering these two questions requires the exercise of judicial tamisage by a careful sifting of the facts presented at the trial. V. FINDINGS OF FACT. At all times material to this action, the Republican Party dominated Scituate politics. By way of illustration, Republican-endorsed candidates captured every elected position in the municipal government in every election from 1974 through and including 1980. Each member of the School Committee during that period was elected from the Republican column. Plaintiff and her family moved to Scituate in 1972. Her two children attended NSES. Plaintiff testified that she was “made to feel different” when she registered to vote in the town, because she registered as a Democrat. She also felt “discriminated against” in 1974, when she did not receive certain Republican campaign literature, even though she was known to be a Democrat. Undaunted by the Republican Party’s control of elected offices in Scituate, or perhaps inspired thereby, plaintiff became active in municipal politics. She was a Democratic candidate for the Scituate School Committee both in 1974 and 1978. In the intervening campaigns (1976 and 1980), she made unsuccessful bids for the Scituate Town Council, again under the Democratic banner. In 1982, she ran on the Democratic ticket as the candidate for State Representative, and was defeated once more. She was, throughout, an active member of the Scituate Democratic Town Committee. Plaintiff often attended Scituate Town Council meetings and the annual financial town meetings. She was not noted for her silence at these meetings; to the contrary, she was vocal and outspoken on a variety of issues. She was often at odds with, or demanding explanations of, the decisions and pronouncements of both elected and appointed municipal officialdom. Early on, plaintiff became extremely involved in education issues. She participated in the Parent/Teacher Organization (“PTO”) for NSES. In 1974, she became a volunteer teacher’s aide at NSES, where she toiled with individual third grade students for one and one-half years (and where she did commendable work). In 1975, she organized a parental protest against certain threatened cuts in the school budget. She later served a term as PTO chairperson. She attended School Committee meetings regularly, and voiced her opinions freely on a myriad of issues. Plaintiff portrays herself, throughout this period, as a distaff Don Quixote, tilting with bureaucratic windmills. There is no credible evidence, however, that the town fathers viewed her at this time as either an adversary or as a serious challenge to their hegemony. In June of 1975, for example, the School Committee appointed her to serve on the Citizens Advisory Committee (“CAC”); and plaintiff also became a member of the Philosophy of Education Committee. Parents, teachers, students, school administrators and clergy served on the latter committee, which had been established to develop a statement of goals for the Scituate School Department. Plaintiff decided at this point to make teaching her vocation. Accordingly, she returned to Rhode Island College (“RIC”) in the fall of 1975, and enrolled in the Master of Arts in Teaching program. In the spring of 1976, plaintiff was required to enlist for student teaching for the next semester. She chose the Scituate School Department, grade 3, as her first preference for placement. On the back of her application, she explained her choice by stating that she would need to keep her afternoon non-teaching job while student teaching, and would therefore prefer a placement close to her home. RIC acceded to plaintiff’s preference and tentatively assigned her to student teach in the third grade classroom at NSES, under the supervision of Marie Hawkes. According to Manning, plaintiff at that time discussed with him the possibility of student teaching at NSES. He told her that he had no objection, and inquired why she had asked. She replied: “Because I’m a Democrat.” He assured her that her political affiliations made no difference. Her placement was subsequently approved by Morrissette, Manning, and the School Committee at its April 13, 1976 meeting. Plaintiff testified that she considered this placement to be a “plum” position. After the School Committee’s vote, Manning spoke with plaintiff again. During this conversation, plaintiff expressed surprise at the School Committee’s approval of her placement, as the School Committee members were all Republicans and she was a Democrat. Manning responded to the effect that the School Committee’s action proved the irrelevance of political affiliation. Plaintiff began her student teaching in September of 1976. She received an “honors” grade from both Hawkes and RIC upon completion of her practice teaching that December. It is undisputed that, during the fall of 1976, plaintiff and defendant Harris had a chance meeting at the local pharmacy. Their versions of this encounter differ in several respects. According to plaintiff, she told Harris that she was student teaching and would be applying for a teaching position in January. He allegedly replied, “We cannot hire everyone who applies.” Plaintiff testified that while she took his comment in a waggish vein, she found his use of the term “we ” to be both significant and disturbing. According to Harris, however, when he entered the pharmacy, plaintiff was engaged in conversation with another customer. He asked if she had been out campaigning, to which she nodded in the affirmative. She continued her conversation with the third party, and then said in a loud voice, “They have to hire me for the School Department-I’m the only qualified candidate.” Harris testified that he turned to her and responded that approximately two hundred teachers applied for each vacancy in the school system. Harris further testified that he found plaintiff’s comment offensive because he felt that she was trying to get a reaction from him, even though he had nothing to do with the hiring of teachers for the Scituate schools. Harris made an excellent appearance on the witness stand, and his demeanor impressed the Court. His version of the pharmacy incident is, in the Court’s view, credible. Harris and Manning frequently discussed federal grants which the School Department was receiving, a subject of mutual interest. As town treasurer, Harris was responsible for banking and accounting with respect to these funds. During one of these conversations, Harris mentioned his encounter with plaintiff. Harris stated that he was curious why plaintiff seemed so self-assured of placement when budget constraints, as he understood them, precluded additional teacher hirings at that time. Manning responded that no teaching positions were open. Plaintiff insinuates that it was in this discussion that Harris, wielding his political influence, branded her with the scarlet letter which sealed her fate in future employment endeavors. Manning and Harris both testified, however, that Harris never expressed an opinion regarding plaintiff’s employment; and Manning testified that Harris never ordered him to hire, or not to hire, any applicant for a teaching position. The Court finds these facts to be so, and rejects plaintiff’s conspiratorial view of the Harris/Manning dialogue. In January of 1977, plaintiff applied for a substitute teaching position with the School Department. Manning told her that he would submit her name to Morrissette, Curtis and Johnson for possible per diem assignment. According to plaintiff, Manning then said: “Janet, I received a call from Bob Harris. He does not want you to have any position [in this School Department] that is long-term or permanent.” Manning thereupon offered to help her find a full-time job elsewhere. She thanked him, but told him that she wanted to teach in her own town. Manning disagrees. He testified that he did, at the time of this application, discuss employment with plaintiff, but told her that no teaching positions were immediately available, and encouraged her to apply elsewhere, offering his help. Plaintiff responded that Scituate had to hire her because she was the most qualified, and “the Republicans could do nothing about it.” Manning again pointed out the job situation in Scituate, and told her, paternalistically in his view, “You do not get a job by going around in drug stores telling the town treasurer that the town has to hire you.” Plaintiff asked him if her politics made any difference, to which he replied: “I’m my own man; I make my own recommendations.” The Court accepts Manning’s account of this colloquy. If a political black-ball had in fact been cast, and if Manning were, as plaintiff suggests, a willing pawn of such gamesmanship, his efforts to help plaintiff to secure substitute-teaching placement and his sponsorship of plaintiff anent the N.W. Region would defy all logic. Shortly after this conversation with Manning, plaintiff began teaching in all three of the Seituate elementary schools as a per diem substitute. She was one of the most frequently used per diem substitutes in the Seituate School Department. Her day-today in-classroom work while substituting was performed competently. From January, 1977 to June, 1977, plaintiff substituted for a total of fifty days. She taught for a further twenty-three days during the fall of 1977, and for twenty-eight days during early 1978. Manning was presumably aware of the frequency of her engagements as he reviewed all substitute teacher payroll records. Harris, too, had access to such knowledge, as the pay-checks were processed in the town treasurer’s office. In February of 1977, plaintiff was called to substitute for the elementary school art teacher, who rotated among the three elementary schools. Plaintiff was not certified to teach art. After two weeks of this duty, Morrissette then asked her to teach the sixth grade class at his school: she did so for one week. A school vacation week followed. For one ensuing week, plaintiff was asked to pinch-hit again in the art position. Morrissette needed a per diem substitute for Victoria Ricci’s split third/fourth grade class at his school that same week, and called Ann Fornaro. When Ricci’s continued absence required the appointment of a long-term substitute, Manning gave Fornaro the assignment, since she was already teaching this class. By this time, it had become apparent that the art position, too, would require a long-term substitute, and plaintiff, as the incumbent per diem substitute, hoped that she would be so appointed. Manning, however, insisted that the long-term substitute be an individual duly certified to teach art. This directive was consistent with his policy of requiring all long-term substitute teachers to be certified for the positions assigned in order to insure compliance with state law regarding teacher certification. The principals of the schools, collectively, acting in response to Manning’s mandate, forthwith located a certified art teacher; and, over the weekend of March 5-6, Morrissette called plaintiff and told her that her services were no longer needed for art instruction. Upset and indignant, plaintiff reached first Curtis, and then Manning, by telephone. Plaintiff was infuriated that she had lost not only the art rotation, but the perceived opportunity to become the long-term substitute for Ricci’s third/fourth grade class. On March 9,1977, she called Ricci (who was hospitalized) to discuss the situation. Plaintiff, according to Ricci’s testimony, told her that she had enough “pull” to have Fornaro “bumped” from the long-term substitute position. Ricci testified that she thought plaintiff was talking about “political pull” since plaintiff “was always talking about politics.” Ricci, troubled by this conversation, reported it to Morrissette. He reassured Ricci; and he did not report the incident to Manning. Later that month, plaintiff spoke with Manning and told him that she wanted to attend an executive session of the School Committee to discuss her complaints. He arranged for her to appear at the executive session on March 22, 1977. The minutes of that meeting state in part: Mrs. Smith was upset by the fact that while substituting for Miss Schockner [the art teacher], she refused a possible long-term substitute position for the grade she was trained for, and, therefore, she claims [she] has lost the seniority she would need for a full time position, should an opening occur. The School Committee asked questions, stated that they understood her position and objections, but they had followed the teachers’ contract in placing a certified art substitute in an art position. Minutes of the Scituate School Committee Executive Meeting, March 22, 1977, at 1 (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4). Plaintiff, as noted above, continued to serve betimes as a per diem substitute in the Scituate elementary schools. In late December of 1977, Morrissette was notified by Marjorie Adkins, a second grade teacher at NSES, that she was ill. The class was, at the time, plagued by reading-related problems. Morrissette called Fornaro to substitute for the class, but she was engaged elsewhere. He then called plaintiff, who began teaching the Adkins class as a per diem substitute on January 2, 1978. When plaintiff arrived at the school, she discovered that Adkins, whom Morrissette had recently criticized for poor teaching, had removed all materials and personal effects from the classroom. Plaintiff rebuilt the classroom, began preparing lesson plans, and with assistance from Morrissette and from the departmental reading specialist, Elizabeth Capobianco, realigned the children into proper reading groups. In late January, Adkins submitted her resignation, effective February 1, 1978. Manning and Morrissette met to decide how to fill the Adkins vacancy. Both men testified that, although plaintiff had performed well as a substitute, they hoped to find a more experienced teacher with special reading skills. Manning testified that he also wanted to avoid posting the opening as facially reqüired by the collective bargaining agreement with the Scituate Teachers’ Association (“STA”). He visualized an “involuntary transfer” as a means to achieve this end; having reached this conclusion, he settled on Linda Parrillo as a logical choice. Parrillo, a half-day kindergarten teacher at Clayville, had just received a lay-off notice for the following school year due to uncertainty as to the need for maintaining her class, given a shrinking kindergarten-level school population; she wanted to teach on a full-time basis; she had five years of experience in the Providence school system at the second and third grade levels; she enjoyed a sterling recommendation from her superiors in Providence; and she had an “especially strong” background in reading. Morrissette was ecstatic; he figuratively “jumped” at the chance to have Parrillo teach at his school. He knew her favorably from her work as a substitute there, and had previously authored a laudatory letter of recommendation, praising her reading-related skills. Parrillo, too, was delighted. Other than from plaintiff, the sole demurrer came from Curtis, who was less than pleased with Manning’s plan. Plaintiff’s attack in this litigation on these teacher shifts makes much of the fact that the transfers were implemented despite Curtis’ protest. The Court finds, however, that Curtis had only a single objection: he was disconsolate at the necessity of transferring Parrillo from Clayville because he hated to lose a good teacher. Manning decided to appoint Fornaro, who was then substituting for Ricci, as the long-term substitute for the vacancy created by Parrillo’s transfer. Fornaro was amendable to this translocation. Fornaro had previously taught school in Cranston,'Rhode Island; she had received honors in student teaching “from the best kindergarten teacher in Scituate”; and she was experienced in the “Exceptionally Ready” program then used at the kindergarten level. Curtis had never met Fornaro, but he testified that this was a minor concern. Manning offered Fornaro thirty dollars a day for the half-time position to make it economically feasible for her to accept the offer, and to give Curtis additional help at Clayville. Morrissette enlisted Nicette Balukjian to fill the vacancy in the Ricci classroom created by Fornaro’s defection to Clayville. Balukjian had previously been a full-time teacher in California, and Morrissette had received glowing reports from teachers for whom she had substituted since her arrival in Rhode Island. The orchestration of these changes was delayed somewhat by the occurrence of a mammoth blizzard, which shut down the state and its schools for a week. School resumed on Monday, February 13, 1978. Plaintiff was unaware of the new arrangements until the next morning, when Morrissette told her that February 17th would be her last day as a per diem substitute for the Adkins class, and that Parrillo was being involuntarily transferred to the position. According to plaintiff, Morrissette then said, “Jan, they hate you, what did you ever do to make the School Committee hate you? It’s Harris who’s doing it.” Morrissette flatly denied making these remarks. The Court credits his denial. Plaintiff wasted no time in calling Parrillo and asking her to refuse the position. Parrillo declined to do so. The plaintiff then asked Parrillo for a list of the names and addresses of the children in the kindergarten class at Clayville. Parrillo refused to give her this information. Plaintiff called Parrillo at least twice more during the following week. During one such call, plaintiff boasted to Parrillo that her lawyer had promised that she “would be in that classroom by June.” Parrillo reported at least some of these contacts to Morrissette. Morrissette prepared three memoranda to Manning concerning the calls. Manning, in turn, reported them to the School Committee. The parents of the children in the Adkins class were concerned about continuing teacher shifts in the classroom. John Martinelli, a parent, testified that he talked with plaintiff and with Morrissette about the change. Morrissette told him that it was “out of his hands,” and Martinelli decided to prepare a petition to the School Committee “in protest of their actions.” The petition was dated February 17, 1978, and stated in part: [0]ur children during the current school year will have been taught by three different teachers for various periods of time which has, we feel, disrupted the normal learning process and is not in the best interest of our children. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 8. Plaintiff helped to circulate and to obtain signatures on the petition. Plaintiff admitted under cross-examination that she had a dual motive for so doing: (i) she was concerned for the children from an educational perspective, and (ii) she wanted the job herself. At the next School Committee meeting (February 28, 1978), Marie Grissom, a parent, presented the petition. Plaintiff was in attendance with her attorney. According to paragraph ten of her complaint in C.A. No. 81-0418, Plaintiff sought to “express [] her dissatisfaction over her denial of these positions and attempt [ ] to change the decision of the School Department and/or the School Committee of the Town of Scituate.” She did not, however, speak publicly during this session. In fact, there was no colloquy. The School Committee declined to hold an open forum on the petition at the February 28th meeting; instead, an announcement was made that the matter would be placed on the agenda for the School Committee’s March 7, 1978 meeting. According to exhibits here of record, however, the School Committee did turn its attention to the subject during its executive session on February 28th. At that time, the School Committee considered the petition and voted to send a letter to the parents explaining the transfer(s) and the underlying rationale. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7. Watson’s notes reflect the School Committee’s concerns: Petition a certainty: Martinelli’s husband drafted— Janet Smith pushed— bad mouthing Fornaro— parents being used [,] i.e., sev[eral] changes in teachers will hurt children... Adkins— strong sub v. selected smart replacement talented in grade weakness... . Plaintiff’s Exhibit 10 at 2, 3 (emphasis added). At the March 7, 1978 School Committee meeting, a prepared statement regarding Parrillo’s involuntary transfer was read publicly on behalf of the School Committee. No floor debate was permitted. Prior to the Adkins incident, plaintiff had done most of her work at the behest of Morrissette. Thereafter, plaintiff substituted only once more in the Scituate elementary schools. This date, April 6, 1978, had been scheduled well in advance. Morrissette testified that, although plaintiff had performed well in the classroom, he was troubled by her telephone calls to Parrillo and her circulation of the petition. His faculty was upset over the incident and he was concerned that plaintiff’s presence at the school would create a morale problem. He did not discuss these concerns with either of his fellow principals. In the spring of 1978, Wayne Salisbury, the head of the adult education program for the Scituate School Department, called Manning to tell him that he wanted plaintiff as a tennis instructor for this program. Plaintiff had taught the course in 1974, 1975 and 1976 — each time with School Committee approval. Salisbury testified that in 1978, for the first time, Manning asked him to find an additional nominee or nominees. Manning was fearful that the School Committee might not approve plaintiff’s appointment because of the controversy she had generated. Nevertheless, Salisbury eventually submitted only plaintiff’s name to Manning. Manning recommended her to the School Committee, and her appointment was approved on a four-to-one vote. Borden, who felt that plaintiff lacked judgment and had acted unprofessionally in calling Parrillo, dissented. In June of 1978, the School Committee announced six vacancies for elementary teaching positions, two at Clayville and four at Hope. Plaintiff applied for these positions, as did several hundred other candidates. Johnson and Curtis evaluated the applications and selected fifty-two, including plaintiff, for preliminary interviews. The first-round interviewing team consisted of Johnson, Curtis, three teachers from Hope, and three teachers from Clayville. After the initial week of interviews, the six teacher-members of the team met separately and ranked the twenty-one applicants who had theretofore been interrogated. The teachers gave the highest ranking, a 9-10, to Debora Greenglass. Six applicants, including plaintiff, received a ranking of 8-9. The teachers relayed these rankings to Johnson, who informed Manning. Manning refused to accept these ad hoc ratings, however, stating that the teachers had no authority to rank applicants. No attempt was made by the teachers to grade any applicants who were subsequently interviewed. Once the hiring process was completed, nineteen finalists, including plaintiff, were screened by a quartet comprising Manning, Curtis, Johnson and Bernadine DiOrio, the director of curriculum for the School Committee. This panel, immediately following each interview, evaluated each of the nineteen in ten distinct categories. Manning testified that each principal then voiced his preferences for the positions at his school. In most instances, the principal’s choice prevailed. Manning made recommendations accordingly to the School Committee for final approval. Harris was in no way involved in any facet of the selection process. DiOrio testified that the panel did not discuss any applicant’s political affiliation: to the best of her knowledge, politics were never in issue. DiOrio also testified that the panel did not consider plaintiff’s actions in February, 1977 regarding the art substitute position, her activities in February and March, 1978 surrounding the Adkins classroom, or any of her political activities. DiOrio’s testimony was straightforward, unembellished, and bore the hallmark of authenticity. Neither Curtis nor Johnson preferred plaintiff for any of the positions, even though both men thought she had performed well as a substitute teacher. Johnson testified that he told Curtis, during the screening, that he did not want the plaintiff at his school because she “expressed her opinions too freely.” By this, Johnson meant “opinions in general.” He explained that plaintiff “always seemed to be talking about something or someone.” The Court finds as a fact that Johnson’s concern in this regard was a permissible one — that is, his interest in maintaining harmony, morale, and a spirit of cooperative endeavor at Hope. He was in no way seeking impermissibly to penalize plaintiff for legitimate exercise of her First Amendment rights. Thus, plaintiff was not among the candidates vouchsafed to the School Committee for appointment. Although plaintiff was well qualified, the record demonstrates that each of the teachers presented to the School Committee and offered a job (with the exception of Cynthia Keating) either possessed more teaching experience than did plaintiff or was certified to teach in more than one area, an important consideration for a small school district. A brief discussion of each such individual and of the qualifications of each follows. Fornaro was selected for the kindergarten class at Clayville. This was the same position to which she had been appointed on an interim basis in February of 1978. Fornaro’s credentials are discussed ante; she had, since February, successfully handled the very job in question; and had received unanimous encominums in her final interview for a position. Greenglass, appointed to grade two at Hope was an experienced teacher from Massachusetts. Manning testified that she was an individual with “extraordinary vitality” and had made a “tremendous impression” during her interview. The teachers’ ad hoc committee apparently agreed, as she was their top-ranked candidate. See ante. Jean Dube, one of Manning’s former students, was nominated for the sixth grade position at Hope. She had arguably the best academic record among the applicants, and carried dual certification in both elementary and special education. Manning testified that she was the most impressive candidate among the finalists interviewed. Dube declines the offer of employment, however, as she had been offered, and had accepted, a special education position in the Woonsocket, Rhode Island schools. Sherryl Carlomusto was then nominated for the sixth grade position. She had taught remedial mathematics during the previous year, had excellent academic records, and honors in elementary school student teaching. In addition, she was active in extra-curricular activities in the school system, such as teaching ballet and pottery after regular school hours. Nancy Zito was nominated to teach grade two at Hope, where she had been a long-term substitute for a second grade class during the 1976-77 school year. She had excellent academic credentials and fine student teaching recommendations. Judith Oswald was appointed to grade six at Clayville. She had previously taught in New York and New Hampshire and had good recommendations from these jobs. Morrissette and Curtis had visited the school in New Hampshire where she taught (which was famed for its innovative programs), and had been duly impressed. She had a needed familiarity, as well, with “open concept” education. Ellen D’Agnenica, a reading specialist, was also offered a job. She received a job in her chosen field in another system, however, and so declined the Scituate offer. She was ah experienced teacher with dual certification in reading and elementary education. Cynthia Keating was appointed to grade five at Hope in place of D’Agnenica. She brought to the competition good recommendations for her substitute teaching, strong scholastic credentials, impeccable references and excellent reports on her student teaching. She had also studied Portuguese and was interested in bilingual education. Her parents were well-respected educators. The Court has evaluated the personnel files and other material of record concerning these teachers, and had the benefit of hearing testimony not only from Manning, Johnson, Curtis and DiOrio, but also from Dube, Fornaro, Zito, Carlomusto and from teacher-members of the first-round interview team (Parrillo and Linda Marzahn). The Court is persuaded, as a matter of fact, that the successful aspirants were all competent, highly qualified professionals; that the reasons advanced by Manning for the selections were not pretextual; and that the hiring process was implemented neutrally and objectively. Manning relayed the schedule of nominees to the School Committee on July 28, 1978. On July 31, 1978, he sent the School Committee members a follow-up memorandum which stated, among other things, that: “[Donald Campbell] told me that if Janet Smith doesn’t get a job Tuesday night [the August 1, 1978 School Committee meeting] she is immediately going to sue on the grounds of ‘political discrimination.’ ” Plaintiff’s Exhibit 27 at 27-6. Plaintiff was not appointed and this suit followed. Manning, in response to a detailed hypothetical question, testified that he would not have recommended plaintiff for any one of the six openings even if none of the following had occurred: (i) her conversation with Harris in the fall of 1976; (ii) her actions regarding the art substitute position in February, 1977; (iii) her circulation of the petition for the Adkins class in February, 1978; (iv) her telephone calls to Parrillo regarding the Adkins class; (v) her attendance at the February 28, 1978 School Committee meeting with her attorney; and (vi) her threats to sue the School Committee. According to Manning, plaintiff simply was not among the most proficient of the applicants and was, therefore, not among those selected for recommendation to the School Committee. The Court accepts Manning’s testimony in this regard. Several School Committee members testified regarding the August, 1978 appointments. Borden stated that she had reviewed the records of all of the finalists and was satisfied that those recommended by Manning were the most qualified. She testified that had Manning recommended the plaintiff for one of the positions, she might have voted against her, but probably would have simply questioned him and then accepted his recommendation. Young impressed the Court as being brutally frank. He testified that he voted almost reflexively for all of Manning’s recommendations because “he’s the expert.” Young admitted, however, that he did not know if he would have voted to appoint plaintiff had Manning recommended her. Watson testified that he approved the individuals recommended by Manning because of his faith in the evaluation system which had theretofore been devised to select finalists. Watson was satisfied that the screening was properly carried out. He testified that had plaintiff been nominated through this system, he would have voted in her favor. Sidney Amylon stated that the School Committee’s most important function was the hiring of teachers. The selection process was established so that the best possible candidates would be hired, and he was confident that this had been accomplished. Amylon admitted that he felt plaintiff hurt her chances for a job by her activities surrounding the art substitute and Adkins positions. He testified, however, that had Manning recommended plaintiff, and assured him of her ability to work with other teachers and with the administration, he would have voted for her. Anthony Coia testified that he voted for the six finalists on the basis of Manning’s recommendation. Had Manning recommended plaintiff, he would unhesitatingly have endorsed her for a permanent position. The Court finds that each of these five elected officials testified as to this crucial point in an honest and truthful manner. Plaintiff testified that she had been very depressed and upset when she lost the Adkins class. When she was not selected for one of the six positions in the summer of 1978, however, she felt resigned because she “knew it was coming.” Later that month, she was hired by the Providence school system as a substitute teacher. She taught there for one hundred twenty-two days in the 1978-79 school year and for one hundred thirty days in 1979-80. During this same period, she returned to college on a part-time basis and obtained a second certification (in special education). In 1980, plaintiff obtained a full-time teaching position in Providence, which she still holds. VI. APPLICABLE LAW. A. The Mt. Healthy Standard As an applicant for a public teaching job, and as a substitute teacher for a public school department, plaintiff may establish a claim under the First and Fourteenth Amendments if defendants’ decisions regarding her employment were made because she engaged in constitutionally protected activities. Mt. Healthy City Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 283-84, 97 S.Ct. 568, 574, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977); Perry v. Sinderman, 408 U.S. 593, 597-98, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 2697-98, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972). To establish such a claim, plaintiff must show that her conduct was constitutionally protected and that such protected conduct was a “substantial” or “motivating” factor in the defendants’ decisions. Mt. Healthy City Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. at 287, 97 S.Ct. at 576. If plaintiff meets this initial burden, the Court must then determine whether defendants have shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they would have reached the same decisions as to plaintiff’s employment regardless of the protected conduct. Id. B. First Amendment Considerations The First Amendment protects the right of every citizen to speak his or her mind, free from government censorship or sanction. Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 572-73, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 1736-37, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968); Waters v. Chaffin, 684 F.2d 833, 837 (11th Cir.1982); Pilkington v. Bevilacqua, 439 F.Supp. 465, 474 (D.R.I.1977), aff’d, 590 F.2d 386 (1st Cir. 1979). Yet when the citizen is a government employee, directing the speech towards a government employer, the employee’s First Amendment rights must be balanced against “the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. at 568, 88 S.Ct. at 1734. One consideration involves the nature of the speech in issue, including such factors as whether the speech is defamatory or false; whether the speech relates to matter of public interest; and whether the forum involved is appropriate. Id. at 569-73, 88 S.Ct. at 1735-37. A second consideration involves the actual or potential impact of the speech both upon the employment relationship and upon the efficacy of the public service. Relevant factors include whether the speech was directed at someone with whom the speaker maintained a close working relationship (such as an immediate superior); whether the speech might disrupt discipline or harmony among co-workers; and whether the job is, by its nature, sensitive to differences of opinion. Id. See generally Note, Free Speech and Impermis sible Motive in the Dismissal of Public Employees, 89 Yale L.J. 376 (1979) (“Note ”). When the speech is public, the content of the teacher’s statements must be assessed to determine whether they impede the proper performance of classroom duties or interfere with the regular operation of the schools. Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, 439 U.S. 410, 415 n. 4, 99 S.Ct. 693, 696 n. 4, 58 L.Ed.2d 619 (1979). The likelihood of undercutting a superior’s ability to maintain discipline or of inciting discord among co-workers militates against a finding that the speech is protected. See Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. at 570, 88 S.Ct. at 1735. At the same time, the public nature of the speech highlights salutary First Amendment interests in truth-seeking and in robust public debate. See Pilkington v. Bevilacqua, 439 F.Supp. at 474. It is neither happenstance nor coincidence that-“Veritas!” is the credo of one of this nation’s most venerable and most highly regarded universities; the pursuit of the truth is, indeed, central not only to our republic and to our American way of life but also to the integrity of our educational institutions. Pickering recognized that it is “essential” that those public officials who are most knowledgeable about a matter of public importance by virtue of their involvement with it “be able to speak out freely on such questions without fear of retaliatory dismissal.” Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. at 572, 88 S.Ct. at 1736. Accord Pilkington v. Bevilacqua, 439 F.Supp. at 474. If the speech is directly within the context of the workplace, such as a personal confrontation with an immediate superior, the employer’s “institutional efficiency may be threatened not only by the content of the employer’s message but also by the manner, time, and place in which it is delivered.” Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, 439 U.S. at 415 n. 4, 99 S.Ct. at 696 n. 4. Nevertheless, a professional motivated by a good-faith commitment to excellence should not lightly be inhibited from speaking out, either to supervisors or to coworkers, on matters clearly relevant to the common undertaking. Pilkington v. Bevilacqua, 439 F.Supp. at 478 n. 11. See Bernasconi v. Tempe Elementary School District No. 3, 548 F.2d 857, 862 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825, 98 S.Ct. 72, 54 L.Ed.2d 82 (1977). Some latitude must necessarily be afforded both as a matter of personal dignity and for the ultimate good of the profession. In any event, unless there is a serious threat of disruption to institutional efficiency, an individual “cannot be deprived of constitutional protection because he voiced from within matters that were entirely appropriate for public discussion and of current public interest.” Pilkington v. Bevilacqua, 439 F.Supp. at 476. When the speech is made in private, however, away from the workplace and not to superiors but to fellow employees not directly involved or to acquaintances, another First Amendment interest comes into play. Every individual has a legitimate interest in maintaining a zone of privacy where he or she can speak about work without fear of animadversion. Waters v. Chaffin, 684 F.2d at 837. While not couched in the majestic language customarily associated with our society’s fundamental liberties, freedom of speech does indeed incorporate a right to gripe; but as with freedom of speech in general, such a right can validly be circumscribed within sufficiently cogent perimeters. Freedom to gripe is not exercisable in any manner nor in all events. The government may restrict actions of its off-duty employees in certain ways, but these restrictions may not “unnecessarily impinge upon private, social conversations”, even those conversations which are palpably tactless or disparaging of a fellow employee or of a superior. Id. at 838. In the absence of compelling countervailing considerations, the judiciary should be “loathe to sanction the intrusion of the government’s ear into the private lives of its employees.” Id. at 839. Moreover, substantially greater weight must be attributed to the employee’s interest in free speech if the employee “is commenting on a matter of general interest or acting as a whistleblower exposing corruption among public officials rather than merely trying to advance his own interests as an employee.” Foster v. Ripley, 645 F.2d 1142, 1148 (D.C.Cir.1971). In Foster, for example, the Court of Appeals gave less weight to the employee’s First Amendment interests because he was blatantly engaged in a “mere power struggle [with] his superi- or, in which the employee attempted to subvert his superior’s actions by attacking them through external rather than internal channels.” Id. at 1149. VII. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. For ease in discussion, the Court will bifurcate its conclusions of law as to two generic types of conduct: (i) plaintiff’s partisan political activities and community activism generally (the latter being limited to her pre-1977 civic involvement only); and (ii) plaintiff’s work-related activities (including conduct referable thereto occurring away from the purlieu of the workplace). The last-mentioned classification will, in turn, be discussed in terms of four separate generative incidents: (i) the art substitute rotation; (ii) the Adkins’ classroom; (iii) the adult education program; and (iv) the teacher hirings in mid-1978. While discussed under separate rubrics, the Court has at each stage considered the cumulative effect (if any) of prior protected conduct and of reactions fairly attributable thereto. A. Plaintiff’s Partisan Political Activities Plaintiff has alleged that her overall partisan political activities and her non-work-related participation in community and School Committee affairs constituted protected acts; and that this conduct was, in the aggregate, a “motivating” factor in defendants’ decisions regarding her employment. Plaintiff introduced no probative evidence at trial in support of these allegations; they rest, in the main, upon her own subjective beliefs. Plaintiff’s testimony regarding the importance of partisan politics in selecting Scituate school teachers consisted largely of her comments to Manning in April, 1976, when her student teaching placement was approved, and Manning’s alleged recital of Harris’ ultimatum in early 1977. Plaintiff concedes that Manning made no incriminating remarks during the 1976 meeting; and, as discussed supra, the plaintiff’s version of the January 1977 events is not credible. Plaintiff alleges that her February 14, 1978 conversation with Morrissette also raised the spectre of political taint, but the Court has noted ante its disbelief that the conversation in question took place along the lines described by the plaintiff. No credit-worthy evidence in this record even intimates that partisan political activities were considered by any defendant involved in the selection of either long-term substitute teachers or permanent elementary teachers. DiOrio, a disinterested witness, denied that political affiliation was a factor in the teacher selection process, as did every defendant who was asked. The Court readily acknowledges that parties-defendant are not likely to admit, in so many words, to playing politics with the schools. But in this case, a fair collocation and assessment of the totality of the circumstantial proof patently supports the defendants’ disclaimers. Defendants conceded at trial that political party affiliation may not be a consideration in the appointment or hiring of teachers, as teaching is a non-policy-making position within the meaning of Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507, 517, 100 S.Ct. 1287, 1294, 63 L.Ed.2d 574 (1980), and Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976). Their collective actions in Smith’s case adhered to this standard. Plaintiff’s activities in attending and speaking at financial town meetings and at School Committee meetings are unquestionably protected by the First Amendment. Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. at 572-73, 88 S.Ct. at 1736-37; Waters v. Chaffin, 684 F.2d at 837; Pilkington v. Bevilacqua, 439 F.Supp. at 474. Defendants deny that plaintiff’s general participation in these activities influenced their decisions regarding her employment. The Court accepts their denials as there was no sufficient showing of any antagonism toward the plaintiff simply because she was a community activist. The minutes of the various meetings reflect no untoward enmity, nor do they portray a pattern of hostility. Rather, the evidence showed that after she had become a familiar figure in community affairs, the School Committee asked her to serve as a member of the CAC, and approved her student teaching placement. Manning likewise approved her student teaching placement, accepted her application for substitute teaching, informed the principals of her availability, and offered to help her find a permanent post. As noted above, he sponsored her as the town’s choice for the N.W. Region opening. The School Committee thrice approved her appointment as an instructor in the adult education program (1974, 1975, 1976). The defendants would not have taken these actions if they had wanted to punish or to deter plaintiff’s activism in general. It is plain to the Court that the plaintiff, early on, developed some paranoia concerning the effect which her political leanings and her bent for militancy might have on her quest for a teaching position; and that she herself is convinced that these fears have proven to be well-founded. Such trepidation cannot substitute in a court of law for the niceties of proof. While the plaintiff sees the Scituate school system as a jungle wherein the twin pourridies of political partisanship and repression of dissenting opinion have infected the very roots, no such infestation is apparent from, nor supportable by, the evidence adduced at trial. In these respects, the plaintiff’s mind-set has rendered her unable to see the forest for the trees. The Court finds that the Scituate school system has been run, over the yéars at issue, in a generally responsible manner, and that neither a penchant for repressive totalitarianism nor any undue deference to the political power base of the town have dictated or impinged upon the hiring practices of the School Department. The Court will turn directly to the specific school-related incidents addressed by the trial evidence to see if these support the gravamen of the plaintiff’s case. There are four such series of incidents. They will be discussed chronologically. B. Plaintiff’s Pursuit of Employment At the onset, the Court must note that the plaintiff’s overwhelming interest in each and all of the activities here in question was that she be given a job. This interest was purely personal. It places this plaintiff in stark contradistinction to her counterpart in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. at 564, 88 S.Ct. at 1732, who was dismissed for writing a letter to a local newspaper critical of the school board’s handling of school revenue proposals, or to the social worker in Alicea Rosado v. Garcia Santiago, 562 F.2d 114 (1st Cir.1977), who was penalized for informing superiors of administrative irregularities in the food stamp program, or to the employees in Pilkington v. Bevilacqua, 439 F.Supp. at 474, and Bernasconi v. Tempe Elementary School District, 548 F.2d at 862, who were punished for advocating the rights of their clients. As the plaintiff’s interests in her speech were neither altruistic nor particularly high-minded, see Foster v. Ripley, 645 F.2d at 1148-49, emphasis must be placed on determining whether her speech genuinely threatened the potential employment relationship and the efficient operation of the Scituate schools. See Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, 439 U.S. at 415 n. 4, 99 S.Ct. 696 n. 4. 1. The art substitute imbroglio In early 1977, plaintiff was upset that she was not appointed to the art substitute position or to the long-term substitute position for Ricci’s third/fourth grade class. She took her grievance to Manning, and thereafter to the School Committee during its executive session and complained that she had been treated unfairly in not being appointed to the art position, even though she had no art certification (or alternatively, that she should not have been by-passed for the Ricci classroom). Both discussions were essentially private and in the nature of personal confrontations between plaintiff and her superiors. There was a dearth of evidence that the institutional interests of the Scituate schools were harmed by plaintiff’s confabulations either with Manning or with the School Committee. School superintendents and school boards are frequently subjected to criticism for many different reasons, and the statements by the plaintiff, without more, should not be expected unduly to disconcert these officials. See Meyr v. Board of Education, 572 F.2d 1229, 1233 (8th Cir.1978). As there was no true harm to the schools’ institutional interests, Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, 439 U.S. at 415 n. 4, 99 S.Ct. at 696 n. 4, plaintiff’s First Amendment rights should prevail, notwithstanding her purely personal interests in that speech. The C