Opinion ID: 618676
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: First Amendment Protections for Public Employees

Text: `[W]hile the government enjoys significantly greater latitude when it acts in its capacity as employer than when it acts as sovereign, the First Amendment nonetheless prohibits it from punishing its employees in retaliation for the content of their protected speech.' Reuland v. Hynes, 460 F.3d 409, 415 (2d Cir.2006) (quoting Locurto v. Safir, 264 F.3d 154, 166 (2d Cir. 2001)). Recognizing both that public employees do not relinquish the First Amendment rights they would otherwise enjoy as citizens simply because of their public employment, Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968), and that government offices could not function if every employment decision became a constitutional matter, Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 143, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983), courts try to arrive at a balance between the interests of the teacher, 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, 391 U.S. at 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731. In Pickering, the Supreme Court held that 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. Id. at 574, 88 S.Ct. 1731. In the circumstances of that case, the interest of the school administration in limiting teachers' opportunities to contribute to public debate [was] not significantly greater than its interest in limiting a similar contribution by any member of the general public. Id. at 573, 88 S.Ct. 1731. As Pickering indicated, for speech to be protected by the First Amendment, it must be on a matter of public concern, which includes speech relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community. Connick, 461 U.S. at 146, 103 S.Ct. 1684. In contrast, when a public employee speaks not as a citizen upon matters of public concern, but instead as an employee upon matters only of personal interest, courts should not review the wisdom of a personnel decision taken in response. Id. at 147, 103 S.Ct. 1684. This is because the First Amendment does not require a grant of immunity for employee grievances not afforded. . . to those who do not work for the State; it merely ensure[s] that citizens are not deprived of fundamental rights by virtue of working for the government. Id. To determine [w]hether an employee's speech addresses a matter of public concern, courts look to the content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record. Id. at 147-48, 103 S.Ct. 1684. More recently, the Supreme Court has held that First Amendment protection applies only when the public employee speaks as a citizen and not in her role as employee. Statements made pursuant to official duties are not protected. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 421, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006). Restricting speech that owes its existence to a public employee's professional responsibilities does not infringe any liberties the employee might have enjoyed as a private citizen. It simply reflects the exercise of employer control over [speech] the employer itself has commissioned or created. Id. at 421-22, 126 S.Ct. 1951. Our Court has explained that, even if a public employee's speech is not required by, or included in, [his] job description, or [made] in response to a request by the employer, he speaks as an employee and not as a citizen if the speech is `part-and-parcel of his concerns' about his ability to `properly execute his duties.' Weintraub v. Bd. of Educ., 593 F.3d 196, 203 (2d Cir.2010) (quoting Williams v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 480 F.3d 689, 694 (5th Cir.2007)). Weintraub held that the filing of a union grievance by a teacher, regarding school administrators' handling of discipline problems in his classroom, was not protected because it implicated the teacher's core duties of maintaining class discipline. Id. at 198.