Opinion ID: 1213837
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: although the employee's speech encompassed a matter of public concern, the potential injury to the city's ability to operate its police department outweighed the employee's interest in expression.

Text: Acevedo argues that under the Supreme Court's recent pronouncement in Waters v. Churchill, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 1878, 128 L.Ed.2d 686 (1994), the Board was required to find that the police chief reasonably and honestly believed that his speech was unprotected before it could uphold his termination. However, Waters is a plurality opinion. [8] Therefore, we rest our pronouncement today upon the prior Supreme Court precedent announced in Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983). The United States Supreme Court established the test in Connick for determining whether speech by a government employee may, consistently with the First Amendment, serve as a basis for disciplining or discharging that employee. In Connick, the United States Supreme Court held that for a government employee's speech to be protected, it must encompass a matter of public concern and the employee's interest in expression must outweigh any injury the speech could cause to the interest of the state as an employer in promoting the efficiency of public services performed through its employees. The First Amendment [9] protects speech by public employees which touches on matters of public concern. [10] Although the government as an employer has broader powers concerning its employees' speech than the government as sovereign has respecting the speech of citizens, [11] a government agency may not discharge an employee on a basis which infringes that employee's constitutionally protected interest in free speech. [12] The threshold question in determining whether a discharge impermissibly infringed upon the employee's First Amendment rights under Connick is whether the employee's speech related to a matter of public concern. Here, the City concedes this issue. It recognizes that Acevedo's allegations of corruption in the law enforcement and legal community are matters concerning the public interest. [13] Therefore, we must address the second part of the Connick inquiry  whether the employee's interest in expression outweighs any injury the speech could cause to the interest of the state as an employer in promoting the efficiency of public services performed through its employees. In Connick, a former assistant district attorney brought a civil rights action in which she contended that her employment was terminated because she exercised her constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech. The discharge was found not to violate the attorney's right of free speech where when her transfer was recommended, she strongly opposed the transfer, expressing her views to several of her supervisors. She then prepared a questionnaire which she distributed to other attorneys concerning office transfer policy, office morale, need for a grievance committee, level of confidence in supervisors and whether employees felt pressure to work in political campaigns. Except for the question regarding pressure upon employees to work in political campaigns, the Supreme Court found that the questionnaire did not fall under the rubric of matters of public concern. Here, two officers testified that Acevedo asked them to break the chain of command by reporting any instances of perceived wrongdoing to him rather than to their supervisors. [14] In exchange for these documented reports, Acevedo indicated that the officer's careers would be advanced. [15] One of the officers told the Board that he began to avoid Acevedo because these conversations were affecting his attitude towards the police department. [16] These statements, like the actions reviewed in Connick, indicate that Acevedo's speech was highly disruptive to the operation of the police department. In balancing Acevedo's interest in protected speech against the potential disruptiveness of the speech to police department operations, we find that the department reasonably and in good faith believed Acevedo should be terminated for his disruptive speech. [17]