« Class action removal - "less" means "more" | Main | ERISA, bigamy, and choice of laws »
Garcetti v. Ceballos - Employee speech loses constitutional protection (5-4)
May 30, 2006 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo
No surprise as to the outcome. Dramatic statement as to the constitutional rule.
In Garcetti v. Ceballos (US Supreme Court 05/30/2006) the Court said:
We hold that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.
Ceballos, a deputy DA, sued his employer claiming retaliation in violation of the 1st amendment.
Ceballos wrote a memorandum to his supervisor in which he claimed that a deputy sheriff had lied in an application for a search warrant. Ceballos claimed that he was demoted in retaliation for this.
The US Supreme Court held that Ceballos was not speaking "as a citizen," and his statement has no constitutional protection. None at all.
Because Ceballos' speech had no constitutional protection, there was no need to apply the balancing test used in Pickering v. Board of Educ., 391 US 563 (1968) and Connick v. Myers, 461 US 138 (1983).
| Employment Law Memo notified its readers about this case shortly after it was decided on 05/30/2006. |
Four Justices wrote three DISSENTING opinions arguing that Ceballos' speech should not be categorically excluded from 1st amendment protection, and that a balancing test should be applied.
Other comments on the Garcetti v. Ceballos case:
- Workplace Prof Blog: Garcetti v. Ceballos Decided; Public Employee Free Speech Takes a Hit
- SCOTUSblog: Today's Opinion and Order List
- New York Times: Justices, 5-4, Limit Whistleblower Suits
|
|
« Class action removal - "less" means "more" | Main | ERISA, bigamy, and choice of laws »
|
Editor: Ross Runkel, Professor of Law Emeritus. email Ross@LawMemo.Com, Phone 503-399-8028. Copyright LawMemo, Inc.
|
