Big Case #2 - Garcetti v. Ceballos - LawMemo Employment Law Blog

« Big Case #1 - Burlington Northern v. White | Main | Sun Microsystems ex-employee blog »

Big Case #2 - Garcetti v. Ceballos
August 14, 2006 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo

#2 in the Big Cases Series for 2006: Garcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S.Ct. 1951 (05/30/2006)

Facts: Ceballos, a supervising deputy district attorney, concluded that a search warrant affidavit made serious misrepresentations. He relayed his findings to his supervisors and followed up with a disposition memorandum recommending dismissal. His supervisors nevertheless proceeded with the prosecution. At a hearing on a defense motion to challenge the warrant, Ceballos recounted his observations about the affidavit, but the trial court rejected the challenge. Claiming that his supervisors then retaliated against him for his memo in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, Ceballos filed a 42 USC §1983 suit.

Held: When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.

Key quote: "The controlling factor in Ceballos' case is that his expressions were made pursuant to his duties." "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."

Later cases:

Fuerst v. Clarke, ___ F.3d ___ (7th Cir 07/27/2006) (deputy sheriff was speaking in his capacity as a union representative rather than as a deputy sheriff)

Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, ___ F.3d ___ (3rd Cir 07/26/2006) (borough manager's complaints to borough council regarding the mayor: some unprotected, some cannot be determined on a 12(b)(6) motion)

Bailey v. Dept of Elementary & Secondary Educ, 451 F.3d 514 (8th Cir 06/23/2006) (consultant (contractor) complained to supervisor and Commissioner; speech primarily concerned consultant's own interests and "as an employee concerned with being paid for his time")

Mills v. City of Evansville, 452 F.3d 646 (7th Cir 06/20/2006) (police sergeant's statement to managers that the police chief's staffing plan would not work was unprotected)