Source: https://www.isba.org/committees/governmentlawyers/newsletter/2012/01/publicemployeesandfreespeech
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:37:08+00:00

Document:
With the Supreme Court yet to decide whether the determination of official job duties is a factual or legal question, the issue of public employee free speech is of timely concern, especially when public employment is also a major issue in the national political debate. Public employee free speech is an important issue because it affects the First Amendment rights of over 20 million public workers.1 Also, the general public has an interest in the government working transparently, and punishing employees for speech may have adverse effects such as suppressing useful speech or deterring whistle-blowing.2 In other words, “public employees will speak out on matters of government abuse, waste, or fraud, but only if they are assured that they do not risk those very jobs every time they speak.”3 This essay provides background information on the issue of public employee free speech through brief analyses of the seminal cases heard by the Supreme Court, those being Pickering v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Dist. 205, 391 U.S. 563 (1967), Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983), and Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). Next, I’ll bring your attention to legal trends in the different Circuits, focusing primarily on the Seventh and Ninth since these provide the most insight into the how the issue of official job duties can be determined as a question of law or a question of fact. Lastly, this essay concludes with practice advice for attorneys, including when and how to bring a claim. In all, this essay provides practical insight into this particular area of employment law.
Connick was the next major public employee free speech case taken by the Supreme Court. In Connick, a prosecutor brought a First Amendment claim challenging her termination and alleging that it was in response to her circulating a questionnaire about office policies to her coworkers.11 The fired prosecutor had solicited the opinions of her coworkers on issues such as office morale, the transfer policy, faith in the supervisors, whether or not there should be a grievance committee, and whether any workers felt compelled to assist political campaigns.12 The Court applied the Pickering balancing test and found that the employer’s interest outweighed the interest of the employee as a citizen since the questionnaire was not directly related to matters of public concern.13 In other words, the questionnaire was not protected by the First Amendment because it was very limited in how it addressed issues of public concern.14 Therefore, Pickering and Connick illustrate that the Court is willing to give the government greater authority to control the speech of its workers than the speech of the general public.
This article was originally published in the December 2011 issue of the ISBA’s Labor & Employment newsletter, Vol. 49, No. 3.
1. Helen Norton, “Constraining Public Employee Speech: Government’s Control of Its Workers’ Speech to Protect Its Own Expression,” 59 Duke L.J. 1, 1 (2009).
3. Paul M. Secunda, “Neoformalism and the Reemergence of the Right-Privelege Distinction in Public Employment Law,” 48 San Diego L. Rev. 907, 923 (2011).
4. Pickering v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Dist. 205, 391 U.S. 563, 564 (1968).
6. See id. at 571.
7. See id. at 565.
8. See id. at 573.
10. Secunda, 48 San Diego L. Rev. at 923.
11. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 140-42 (1983).
15. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 413-15 (2006).
18. See Norton, 59 Duke L.J. at 13.
21. Secunda, 48 San Diego L. Rev. at 914-15.
22. Sarah R. Kaplan, Note, “Public Employee Free Speech after Garcetti: Has the Seventh Circuit been Ignoring a Question of Fact?" 5 Seventh Circuit Rev. 459, 470 (2010), at <http://www.kentlaw.edu/7cr/v5-2/kaplan.pdf>. (Last visited Dec. 3, 2011).
24. Posey v. Lake Pend Oreille School District No. 84, 546 F.3d 1121, 1129-31 (9th Cir. 2009) (high school security specialist wrote a letter complaining of inadequate safety at the school and the Court reverses summary judgment and decides that the issue of job duties is a question of fact), See also Kaplan, Note, 5 Seventh Circuit Rev. at 471.
25. Kaplan, Note, 5 Seventh Circuit Rev.at 477, See also Spiegla v. Hull, 481 F.3d 961 (7th Cir. 2007); Davis v. Cook Cnty., 534 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 2008); Biven v. Trent, 591 F.3d 555 (7th Cir. 2010).
26. Kaplan, Note, 5 Seventh Circuit Rev. at 482.
28. See id. at 487.
29. See Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 415.
30. Doug Linder, Exploring Constitutional Conflicts: Free Speech Rights of Public Employees (2011), <http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/publicemployees.htm>. (Last visited Dec. 3, 2011).
37. See Connick, 461 U.S. at 147-48.
38. Doug Linder, Exploring Constitutional Conflicts: Free Speech Rights of Public Employees (2011), <http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/publicemployees.htm>. (last visited Dec. 3, 2011).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.