Opinion ID: 628036
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Clearly Established First Amendment Principles

Text: 80 With respect to the claim asserted by Frank, it was established prior to 1985 that government employees had a right under the First Amendment, though not an unlimited right, to speak on matters of public concern. See, e.g., Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 146, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 1689-90, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983); Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 1734-35, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968). Where a government employer discharges an employee on account of the employee's speech, the determination of whether the public employer has properly discharged the employee for engaging in speech requires a balance between the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the [government], as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees. Id.; see also Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 384, 107 S.Ct. 2891, 2897, 97 L.Ed.2d 315 (1987). 81 To make out a prima facie case on such a claim, the employee must establish first that her speech can be  'fairly characterized as constituting speech on a matter of public concern,'  id. (quoting Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. at 146, 103 S.Ct. at 1690), and second that that speech was at least a 'substantial' or 'motivating' factor in the discharge, White Plains Towing Corp. v. Patterson, 991 F.2d 1049, 1058 (2d Cir.1993) (quoting Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977)). The first element is a question of law, the second a question of fact. 82 If the plaintiff establishes both elements, the employer may nonetheless escape liability in either of two ways. It may prevail if it can show that it would have made the same decision in the absence of the protected conduct, see Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. at 286, 97 S.Ct. at 575, or if it can show that the employee's conduct interfered with its effective and efficient fulfillment of its responsibilities to the public, Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. at 150, 103 S.Ct. at 1692. With respect to the latter defense, the [government]'s burden in justifying a particular discharge varies depending upon the nature of the employee's expression. Id.