Opinion ID: 169475
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Balancing of Interests

Text: [T]here is no easy formula for `weighing' an employee's First Amendment speech against an employer's interest in an efficient and disciplined work environment. Casey, 473 F.3d at 1333. Nevertheless, the question is whether the employer has an efficiency interest which would justify it in restricting the particular speech at issue. Cragg, 143 F.3d at 1346. In performing the balancing, the statement will not be considered in a vacuum; the manner, time, and place of the employee's expression are relevant, as is the context in which the dispute arose. Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 388, 107 S.Ct. 2891, 97 L.Ed.2d 315 (1987). Pertinent considerations include whether the statement impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among co-workers, has a detrimental impact on close working relationships for which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary, or impedes the performance of the speaker's duties or interferes with the regular operation of the enterprise. Id. Arguably, the only public employer interest that can outweigh a public employee's recognized speech rights is the interest in avoiding direct disruption, by the speech itself, of the public employer's internal operations and employment relationships. Flanagan v. Munger, 890 F.2d 1557, 1566 (10th Cir. 1989). In its opinion and order, the district court stated: Moreover, the Teachers have presented no evidence to prove . . . that the employee's interest in engaging in the speech outweighed the employer's interest. . . . Brammer-Hoelter, 2006 WL 827410, at  n. 4. Apparently, this statement is premised on an error of law, as the employer bears the burden of justifying its regulation of the employee's speech. See Connick, 461 U.S. at 150, 103 S.Ct. 1684. Defendants made no argument regarding their interest as employers either in their motion for summary judgment or in their appellate brief. Accordingly, we cannot affirm summary judgment on this basis and must assume that Plaintiffs' interests in speaking on the four remaining matters outweighed Defendants' interests in managing the work environment. See Tran v. Tr. of State Colleges in Colo., 355 F.3d 1263, 1266 (10th Cir.2004) (Issues not raised in the opening brief are deemed abandoned or waived.).