Declaring the issues it alleged “moot,” a federal judge recently dismissed a free speech rights lawsuit that a Palomar Health director filed against her own organization.
As the 46-page order filed by U.S. District Judge Todd W. Robinson shows, the decision came down to whether or not Palomar director Laurie Edwards-Tate’s First Amendment right to free speech was violated when her colleagues on the board threatened sanctions after she made comments to local media expressing concern about a new terms-of-use statement on the medical provider’s website.
Edwards-Tate sued Palomar in November, requesting an injunction against the public health care district to prevent any such action, noting that her colleagues had already censured her for her comments.
But Palomar’s lawyers noted that the board has backed away from any attempt at sanctions, which could range from taking away committee assignments to ending reimbursements for travel and other expenses.
Robinson’s order finds that Edwards-Tate did not have sufficient legal standing to pursue the case because she had not yet actually suffered the injury of a sanction action based on her speech, just the prior threat of one that had not yet been acted on.
“(Edwards-Tate’s) other allegations, coupled with evidence regarding (Palomar’s) subsequent actions, show that she no longer has an ‘actual or well-founded fear’ of other sanctions being enforced against her, Robinson wrote.
Palomar issued a statement last week that called the order a “judicial rebuke.”
“In light of the significant costs and unnecessary embarrassment Ms. Edwards-Tate already has imposed on Palomar, and the Court’s repeated recognition that her case lacks merit, Palomar Health hopes these rulings end the matter once and for all,” Palomar’s statement said.
But Jeremiah Graham, Edwards-Tate’s lawyer, said in an email that Palomar’s statement misstates the facts of the case. He called the ruling a win for the director.
“This lawsuit was a victory for Ms. Edwards-Tate because the district has agreed, in this litigation, not to violate her First Amendment rights in the future,” Graham said.
