Opinion ID: 788670
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The subject of Herrera's speech: Public concern or personal issue?

Text: 22 We have never before decided expressly whether pro- or anti-union lapel pins constitute speech on a matter of public concern, although we assumed that they do in U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Federal Labor Relations Authority. 25 Noting that we have never explicitly made such a holding, the Hospital insists that, in wearing the pin, Herrera was speaking as an employee, not as a citizen, on matters that address only his personal interest and personal employment conditions. The Hospital's repeated assertions on this point—that Herrera's speech only related to the terms and conditions of [Herrera's] employment and duties ... [it] related solely to his employment and not to a matter of concern to the community— simply do not hold water. 23 First, the speech at issue, constituting as it did a show of support for the union and serving as it did to inform other employees (and those members of the public who saw it) that a union organizing drive was in progress, indisputably concerned the employment terms and conditions of all potential union members, not just Herrera. Furthermore, the goals of union organizing at a functioning public facility will almost always entail potential costs and benefits that directly affect and concern the community at large, not just the employment conditions of that facility's workers. A successful union organizing drive can lead to price fluctuations for services provided by the facility, changes in the types of services offered by the facility, and political pressures centered around worker satisfaction. 26 Obviously, then, it is simply incorrect to characterize a Union Yes button as addressing issues that are solely and inherently personal. 24 Second, as the district court noted in its summary judgment order, courts that have considered this question have typically held that speech regarding union activities is speech on a matter of public concern. In Boddie v. City of Columbus , for example, we recognized the reality that speech in the context of union activity will seldom be personal; most often it will be political speech. 27 Similarly, the D.C. Circuit has noted that [t]he urge to unionize certainly falls within the category of expression that is `fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community ...' 28 And, in Thornhill v. Alabama , the Supreme Court stated that labor relations are not matters of mere local or private concern. 29 Although the Hospital cites case law indicating that publicizing a personal employment grievance is not speech on a matter of public concern, 30 Herrera was not trying to publicize a personal employment grievance: Nothing in the record of this case would indicate that the Union Yes button was related to anything other than the ongoing organizing effort. 25 In contrast, the cases relied on by the district court and cited on appeal by Plaintiffs support the conclusion that speech regarding general union activities is speech on a matter of public concern. 31 We easily conclude that Herrera's wearing of the union lapel pin is appropriately classified as speech regarding general union activities, not speech publicizing a personal employment grievance, and is therefore speech on a matter of public concern. 26 The Hospital attempts to make a corresponding argument that the speech at issue here (Union Yes) did not sufficiently inform the public as to be helpful, so that even if the subject of the speech is of public interest, the content of this particular communication renders it unprotected. 32 The Hospital also contends that Herrera's limited contact with the public supports its argument on this point. We disagree on both contentions. The very fact that a union organizing drive was occurring at the Hospital is particularized information about which the public may be interested, and that information, as well as the viewpoint championed by those who wear the button, is adequately conveyed by the words Union Yes. As for Herrera's limited contact with the public, we have held that speech on a matter of public concern can be protected, even if that speech occurs only in the workplace. 33 Moreover, the Hospital undercuts its own argument by acknowledging that Herrera did come in contact with members of the public (albeit not in any interactive capacity), such as, for example, at the cafeteria, in the hallways, and on the stairs. 34 Ironically, in addressing the Pickering/Connick balancing test, the Hospital inconsistently argues that Herrera had frequent and direct contact with the public. Yet the Hospital conceded in its Trial Brief that Herrera's employment does not entail significant interaction with the public (emphasis added). 35 For non-spoken speech to be communicated, it is visibility by the public that satisfies; interaction is not required. 27