Source: http://volokh.com/2011/08/12/the-first-amendment-and-the-government-as-employer/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 10:17:27+00:00

Document:
3. the damage caused by the speech to the efficiency of the government agency’s operation does not outweigh the value of the speech to the employee and the public (the so-called Pickering balance). Connick v. Myers (1983) (p. 567).
• Thus, if the speech is on a matter of private concern, or the speech is said as part of the employee’s duties, the government can do what it pleases.
• Likewise, if the government prevails on the Pickering balance, it can do what it pleases.
Related rule: The government generally may not discriminate based in employment or contracting based on the employee’s membership in an expressive association. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (firing); Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980) (firing); Rutan v. Republican Party, 497 U.S. 62 (1990) (applying Elrod and Branti to hiring); O’Hare Truck Serv., Inc. v. City of Northlake, 518 U.S. 712 (1996) (applying the government employee cases to government contracting decisions).
• But the interest in employees’ political loyalty may justify such discrimination when “party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public office involved.” Branti.
1. When is speech treated as being on a matter of public concern?
b. Even speech that refers to things that might interest the public• for instance, maladministration of a government office• may be found not to be “of public concern.” Connick.
c. Footnote 5 in Connick says that “The question of whether expression is of a kind that is of legitimate concern to the public is also the standard in … a common-law action for invasion of privacy.” See also City of San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S. 77 (2004) (repeating this analogy). Query, though, whether this is right: If a local newspaper had simply published Myers’ statements about her supervisors (statements that the Court found to be not of public concern), and even if the statements revealed personal facts about the supervisors (in the course of criticizing the supervisors’ trustworthiness), could the newspaper have been held liable for invasion of privacy?
• Speech aimed at gathering ammunition for controversy with superiors, Connick.
• “Employee grievance[s] concerning internal office policy,” id.
• Discussing with coworkers unlawful pressure to work in political campaigns, id.
• Complaining to one’s boss about alleged discrimination by the employer, when this is “not tied to a personal employment dispute,” Givhan v. Western Line Consol. School Dist., 439 U.S. 410 (1979).
• Writing a letter to a newspaper about the allocation of government agency funds among various departments, Pickering v. Board of Ed., 391 U.S. 563 (1968).
• Testifying before the legislature about whether a college should be elevated to four-year status, Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972).
• Publicizing a principal’s memorandum about teacher dress and appearance, Mt. Healthy City Board of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977).
• Saying to a coworker friend that one wishes the President had been assassinated, Rankin v. McPherson (1987) (p. 575).
• United States v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454, 466 (1995), suggests that speech said “to a public audience, … outside the workplace, and involv[ing] content largely unrelated to [the speaker’s] government employment” should generally be treated as being on a matter of public concern.
f. Communication to the public at large is more likely to be seen as speech on matters of public concern than communication to one’s coworkers. However, communication even to one person might be protected if the content is of sufficiently public concern, Givhan.
g. Connick suggested that the speaker’s motive might be central to the public concern inquiry; consider its stress that Myers “did not seek to inform the public,” and that “the focus of Myers’ questions is not to evaluate the performance of the office but rather to gather ammunition for another round of controversy with her superiors.” Some lower courts since Connick have at times focused largely on the speaker’s motive, though others have not.
2. How are courts to do the obviously mushy Pickering balance?.
• or violates an explicit work rule (id. at n.14).
b. The more the speech is on a matter of public concern, the stronger the required showing of interference.
c. “Employee speech which transpires entirely on the employee’s own time, and in non-work areas of the office … might lead to a different conclusion” (id. at n.13).
Discussion of the Mohammed Cartoons Not “Speech Involv[ing] Matters of Public Interest or Concern”?

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