Opinion ID: 762250
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Nunez's conduct is constitutionally protected under the Pickering

Text: 15 balancing test. 16 Even where a public employee's speech implicates a genuine matter of public concern, a public employer may still be justified in firing the employee. In determining a public employee's rights to free speech, courts must strike a balance between the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon 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. Pickering v. Board of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968). The employer's interest outweighs the employee's interest in speaking on a matter of public concern if the employee's speech 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. Rankin, 483 U.S. at 388, 107 S.Ct. 2891. 17 We conclude that Davis did not show that Nunez's speech impaired discipline or harmony among co-workers. Davis testified that the absence of the clerks for two days to attend the training seminar disrupted office routine and exacerbated the court's backlog. Everyone else in the office testified that the backlog existed prior to Nunez's speech, and that the problem was not made worse as a result of her speech. 18 Davis also argues that Nunez's speech impaired his close working relationship with Nunez. There is little merit to this claim. As this court has previously stated, real, not imagined, disruption is required, and the 'close working relationship' exception cannot serve as a pretext for stifling legitimate speech or penalizing public employees for expressing unpopular views. McKinley, 705 F.2d at 1115. A public employer cannot claim disruption of a close personal relationship to cover up animus toward an employee's speech and a desire to silence the employee. 19 Furthermore, Davis did not show that Nunez's symbolic speech interfered with her ability to perform her job or the regular operation of the court. Davis testified that his relationship with Nunez became quite strained after the seminar incident and that the erosion of their relationship had an adverse impact on the court, but Bell testified that Nunez clearly remained loyal to Davis and there was no noticeable difference in Nunez's and Davis's relationship. In fact, Bell said she was shocked when Davis fired Nunez. As the verdict below suggests, the jury simply did not find Davis's testimony credible. 20 In addition, the verdict demonstrates that the jury rejected Davis's justifications for firing Nunez as pretextual. Nunez testified that prior to her termination, Davis told her that she had failed him for a number of reasons, including her failure to change stained ceiling tiles in his office, to clean up leaves outside the office, and to obtain his desired raise of $7,500 from the city council. But the jury found that Nunez's speech-and not Davis' stated reasons-was the substantial motivating factor in Davis' decision to fire Nunez, and that she would not have been fired but for her speech. 21 In short, Davis has offered no credible evidence to tip the scales in his favor, and thus has failed to demonstrate a state interest that outweighs Nunez's First Amendment rights. Nunez's expressive conduct of allowing the court clerks to attend the training seminar is therefore constitutionally protected under the Pickering balancing test.