Opinion ID: 1179762
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Discussion of Key Supreme Court Decisions

Text: The Supreme Court's discussions in Pickering v. Board of Education, supra , Connick v. Myers, supra , and Rankin v. McPherson, supra , provide a useful background for evaluating plaintiff's claim. In Pickering v. Board of Education, supra , a public high school teacher was dismissed for writing a letter to a local newspaper, criticizing the way in which the Board of Education had handled bond issue proposals and its subsequent allocation of financial resources between the school's educational and athletic programs. The teacher's letter also openly criticized the superintendent of schools for attempting to prevent teachers in the district from opposing or criticizing the proposed bond issue. 391 U.S. at 566, 88 S.Ct. at 1733. The Court held that the dismissal of the school teacher was an impermissible infringement on the teacher's protected speech, rejecting the notion that teachers may constitutionally be compelled to relinquish the First Amendment rights they would otherwise enjoy as citizens to comment on matters of public interest. 391 U.S. at 568, 88 S.Ct. at 1734. The Court framed the proper inquiry as arriv[ing] at a balance between the interests of the teacher, as a citizen, in commenting on matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees. 391 U.S. at 568, 88 S.Ct. at 1734. The statements in the letter, the Court said, addressed issues then currently the subject of public attention, which are critical of [the teacher's] ultimate employer but which are neither shown nor can be presumed to have in any way either impeded the teacher's proper performance of his daily duties in the classroom or to have interfered with the regular operation of the schools generally. 391 U.S. at 572-73, 88 S.Ct. at 1736-37 (footnote omitted). The Court held that, absent proof of false statements knowingly or recklessly made by him, a teacher's exercise of his right to speak on issues of public importance may not furnish the basis for his dismissal from public employment. 391 U.S. at 574, 88 S.Ct. at 1737 (footnote omitted). Because no such showing had been made regarding the teacher's letter, the Pickering court held that the teacher's dismissal was impermissible under the First Amendment. Id. at 574-75, 88 S.Ct. at 1737-38. In Connick v. Myers, supra , Myers, an assistant district attorney in New Orleans, was informed by Connick, the district attorney, that she would be transferred to prosecute cases in a different section of the criminal court. Myers objected to the transfer and, in this context, circulated a questionnaire to other employees. 461 U.S. at 140-41, 103 S.Ct. at 1686-87. The questionnaire consisted of fourteen entries and is reprinted in the appendix to the opinion, id. at 155-56, 103 S.Ct. at 1694. Questions 1 through 5 asked employees to describe their work experience with office transfers. Questions 6 through 9 asked employees about the existence of a rumor mill and its effect on office morale. Question 10 asked for an assessment of their confidence in certain named supervisors. Question 11 asked whether employees felt pressure to work in political campaigns supported by the district attorney. Questions 12 through 14 asked whether a grievance committee was needed, whether morale in the office was good, and whether any other issues of concern to the employees needed to be addressed. Id. Connick accused Myers of creating a `mini-insurrection,' considered the questionnaire an act of insubordination, and discharged Myers. Myers filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, contending that her employment was wrongfully terminated because she exercised her First Amendment right of free speech. Id. at 141, 103 S.Ct. at 1686. The Supreme Court disagreed. The Court held that only one entry, Question 11asking whether fellow staff members felt pressured to work on political campaigns on behalf of office-supported candidates touched on a matter of public concern. Id. at 149, 103 S.Ct. at 1691. The other questions were mere extensions of Myers' dispute over her transfer. Id. at 148, 103 S.Ct. at 1690. These questions did not concern the office's performance of its prosecutorial functions, nor did they allege any fraud or wrongdoing. According to the Court: While discipline and morale in the workplace are related to an agency's efficient performance of its duties, 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. These questions reflect one employee's dissatisfaction with a transfer and an attempt to turn that displeasure into a cause celebre. Id. at 148, 103 S.Ct. at 1691. [As such, these questions did] not fall under the rubric of matters of `public concern.' Id. With respect to Question 11, the only entry that did relate to a matter of public concernthe question concerning whether staff members felt pressured to work on political campaignsthe Court applied the Pickering balancing test and struck the balance for the public employer. Id. at 149, 103 S.Ct. at 1691. That is, the isolated statement (Question 11) was afforded protection to the point of requiring the Pickering balancing even though the statement was only one of 14 entries and could arguably be called a pretext for and motivated by the basically personal grievance. According to the Court, despite the limited First Amendment interest involved, Myers' supervisor was justified in discharging Myers based on speech that he reasonably believed would disrupt the office, undermine his authority, and destroy close working relationships[,] id. at 154, 103 S.Ct. at 1694, even absent any evidence of actual disruption. Myers' discharge did not, therefore, offend the First Amendment. Id. In Rankin v. McPherson, supra , the firing of a data-entry employee (deputy county constable) for privately remarking to a co-worker (who happened to be her boyfriend), after hearing of an assassination attempt on President Reagan, if they go for him again, I hope they get him, 483 U.S. at 381, 107 S.Ct. at 2895, was held to violate the employee's right of free speech under the First Amendment to the federal constitution. The Court held that the data-entry employee's remark, taken in context, constituted a matter of public concern, since it was made in the course of a conversation concerning the policies of the President's administration and came on the heels of a news bulletin regarding a matter of heightened public attention, and was protected by the First Amendment. [12] Id. at 386, 107 S.Ct. at 2897. The Court stated that the constable did not demonstrate that the state interest justified firing the data-entry employee: she had purely clerical duties and no law enforcement duties; the statement was made privately in a room not readily accessible to the public; and there was no evidence that the employee's statement had discredited her office or interfered with its efficient functioning. Id. at 388-89, 392, 107 S.Ct. at 2899-2900, 2901.