Opinion ID: 204285
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Speech on a Matter of Public Interest & Pickering Balancing

Text: Regarding the subject matter of Dempsey's speech to the newspaper and the Pickering balance between the public's interest and the government entity's need to maintain efficient operations, we conclude the comments to the newspaper related to a matter of public concern and were, on balance, worthy of protection. As already noted, the annexation was a contested and litigated political issue. The fact that the newspaper repeatedly sought out information regarding treatment of the officers suggests the information was material to public discourse. Dempsey criticized Omaha's handling of employment related to the annexation, and [c]riticism, no matter how obnoxious or offensive, of government officials and their policies clearly addresses matters of public concern. Casey v. City of Cabool, 12 F.3d 799, 802 (8th Cir.1993). Further, given the fact that government operations by Elkhorn were winding down, there was little possibility of Dempsey's speech interfering with the efficient provision of services by the City of Elkhorn. Lindsey v. City of Orrick, 491 F.3d 892, 900 (8th Cir.2007) ([A] public employer must, with specificity, demonstrate the speech at issue created workplace disharmony, impeded the plaintiff's performance or impaired working relationships.). [5] Because we conclude in the alternative that Garcetti does not apply and that even if it applies, Dempsey's speech to the newspaper is protected, we must address the remaining elements of the prima facie case.