Opinion ID: 2994382
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Connick-Pickering Test

Text: It is clearly established that a State may not [retaliate against] an employee on a basis that infringes that employee’s constitutionally protected interest in freedom of speech. Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 383 (1987). A claim under section 1983 for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment requires a three-step analysis: First, the court must determine whether the plaintiff’s speech was constitutionally protected. If so, then the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s actions were motivated by the plaintiff’s constitutionally protected speech. Finally, if the plaintiff can demonstrate that his constitutionally protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the defendant’s actions, the defendant is given the opportunity to demonstrate that it would have taken the same action in the absence of the plaintiff’s exercise of his rights under the First Amendment. Kokkinis v. Ivkovich, 185 F.3d 840, 843 (7th Cir. 1999). Initially we must determine whether Kuchenreuther has a protected First Amendment right under the Connick-Pickering test. See Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983); Pickering v. Bd. of Educ. of Township. H.S. Dist. 205, 391 U.S. 563 (1968); see also Coady v. Steil, 187 F.3d 727, 731 (7th Cir. 1999). First, we must determine whether Kuchenreuther’s speech can be fairly characterized as constituting speech on a matter of public concern. Connick, 461 U.S. at 146. To involve a matter of public concern, Kuchenreuther’s speech must relat[e] to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community. Id. Moreover, we examine each incident separately to determine whether any touched on a matter of public concern. See Gray v. Lacke, 885 F.2d 399, 411 (7th Cir. 1989). If this hurdle is cleared, we apply the Pickering balancing test to determine whether the interests of [Kuchenreuther], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern outweigh the interests of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees. See Connick, 461 U.S. at 142 (quoting Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568). The failure to satisfy either prong of the Connick-Pickering test renders Kuchenreuther’s section 1983 claim meritless.