Opinion ID: 172871
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Garcetti/Pickering Analysis

Text: [T]he First Amendment protects a public employee's right, in certain circumstances, to speak as a citizen addressing matters of public concern. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 417 (2006); see also Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968). Therefore, a public employer cannot retaliate against an employee for exercising his constitutionally protected right of free speech. Dill v. City of Edmond, Okla., 155 F.3d 1193, 1201 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 146-47 (1983)). When analyzing a free speech claim based on retaliation by an employer, this court applies the five-prong Garcetti/Pickering test. Dixon v. Kirkpatrick, 553 F.3d 1294, 1301-02 (10th Cir. 2009). Under the Garcetti/Pickering analysis, First, the court must determine whether the employee speaks pursuant to his official duties. If the employee speaks pursuant to his official duties, then there is no constitutional protection because the restriction on speech simply reflects the exercise of employer control over what the employer itself has commissioned or created. Second, if an employee does not speak pursuant to his official duties, but instead speaks as a citizen, the court must determine whether the subject of the speech is a matter of public concern. If the speech is not a matter of public concern, then the speech is unprotected and the inquiry ends. Third, if the employee speaks as a citizen on a matter of public concern, the court must determine whether the employee's interest in commenting on the issue outweighs the interest of the state as employer. Fourth, assuming the employee's interest outweighs that of the employer, the employee must show that his speech was a substantial factor or a motivating factor in a detrimental employment decision. Finally, if the employee establishes that his speech was such a factor, the employer may demonstrate that it would have taken the same action against the employee even in the absence of the protected speech. Brammer-Hoelter, 492 F.3d at 1202-03 (internal quotations and alterations omitted). We have noted that [i]mplicit in the [ Garcetti/ ] Pickering test is a requirement that the public employer have taken some adverse employment action against the employee. Belcher v. City of McAlester, Okla., 324 F.3d 1203, 1207 n.4 (10th Cir. 2003).