Published Online: May 6, 2014
Published in Print: May 7, 2014, as Justices Mull Public-Employee Testimony

News in Brief

Justices Mull Public-Employee Testimony

Article Tools
  • PrintPrinter-Friendly
  • EmailEmail Article
  • ReprintReprints
  • CommentsComments

The U.S. Supreme Court last week stepped back into the area of First Amendment free-speech rights of government workers.

In Lane v. Franks, the justices are considering whether the head of a community college's program for at-risk youths had any First Amendment protection for testimony he gave about a state lawmaker who held a no-show job with the program.

The employee, Edward R. Lane, was fired by Steve Franks, the president of the community college, after he testified at a criminal trial against the legislator. That occurred just before the at-risk program was due to request more funding from the state legislature.

Two lower federal courts ruled against Mr. Lane, holding that his testimony was speech as an employee, not as a citizen speaking on a matter of public concern, which would draw First Amendment protection under the Supreme Court's precedents.

The National Education Association and other public-employee unions filed a friend-of-the-court brief on Mr. Lane's side, saying the case could affect the freedom of teachers and other education professionals to speak openly about controversial issues.

His lawyer, Tejinder Singh, argued that although Mr. Lane testified about things he learned while on his job, such testimony itself was not part of his job responsibilities. Thus, it would not fall under one of the court's recent precedents, Garcetti v. Ceballos, which held that public employees do not speak as citizens when they speak pursuant to their job duties.

Mark T. Waggoner, a lawyer representing Mr. Franks, said that Mr. Lane's testimony "was inseparable from his job duties," and thus not protected by the First Amendment.

By the end, it appeared that the justices were inclined to side with Mr. Lane on the merits, but with Mr. Franks on the question of qualified immunity.

Vol. 33, Issue 30, Page 5

Related Stories
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.

Back to Top Back to Top

Most Popular Stories