Getty Images/iStockphoto

A First Amendment case filed by a former financial officer at West Chester University, who claimed the school sacked her for blowing the whistle on allegedly dishonest budgeting practices, has once again failed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the dismissal of Colleen M. Bradley's case against her former boss Mark Mixner, West Chester University and the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education.

Bradley sued West Chester, Mixner, the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE) and other school officials, claiming her contract was not renewed in retaliation for speaking out against the school's budgeting practices.

Bradley claimed she was told by PASSHE officers and Mixner to change a multimillion-dollar surplus on the school's budget report to a multimillion-dollar deficit in order to get more taxpayer funding.

The defendants were granted immunity under the 11th Amendment by U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and dismissed from the case. Bradley appealed.

“We agree with the district court's holding on Eleventh Amendment immunity, and therefore uphold its dismissal of the claims against West Chester and the State System. We disagree with the district court's holding on the protected status of Ms. Bradley's speech, but because we hold that the speech was not constitutionally protected, we uphold its grant of summary judgment in favor of Mr. Mixner,” wrote Judge Matthew Brann, who is a U.S. district judge but is sitting by designation in the Third Circuit.

In his March 2017 opinion, Baylson wrote that when Bradley publicly called the alleged budgeting practice “unethical” at a budget committee meeting, she did so as a private citizen and not a university employee. Both factors needed to prevail for her First Amendment claims to survive.

But Baylson held that while Bradley's speech was protected, she failed to prove it was a factor in the university's decision not to renew her contract. Bradley, who was hired in 2011, allegedly started whistleblowing activities in September 2012. Her contract was not renewed when it elapsed in June 2015.

The circuit disagreed with Baylson's reasoning but upheld his ruling: “Because Ms. Bradley's speech was made as a government employee and not a citizen, she has failed to state a First Amendment claim. Therefore, we uphold the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Mr. Mixner on count I of her amended complaint.”

Glen Mills attorney Daniel Kearney, who represented Bradley, said, ”We're obviously very disappointed with the court's ruling and plan on seeking rehearing and reargument en banc.”

John Knorr III of the state Attorney General's Office defended Mixner and the university defendants. He did not respond to a request for comment.