Law & Courts

Court Mulls Protection for Public-Employee Speech

By Andrew Trotter — October 18, 2005 4 min read

A case testing the limits of the First Amendment’s protections for speech by government employees came before the U.S. Supreme Court last week, as the justices considered whether extending constitutional protection to job-related speech would interfere with the operations of public agencies, including school districts.

The Oct. 12 arguments in Garcetti v. Ceballos (Case No. 04-473) concerned an assistant prosecutor in Los Angeles County, Richard Ceballos, who claimed that his superiors retaliated against him in 2000 after he alleged in a memorandum that a county sheriff’s deputy had significantly misrepresented the facts on an affidavit to obtain a search warrant. Mr. Ceballos later provided the memorandum to a defense attorney in the case, and testified at the hearing on a motion to challenge the search warrant.

See Also

View the related item,

Read the related story,

Justices Seek U.S. Views on Expert Fees Under IDEA

After being allegedly demoted and ill-treated by his supervisors afterward, Mr. Ceballos sued, arguing that he was entitled to First Amendment protection for his speech. The case follows a line of Supreme Court cases on government employees’ speech that started with a landmark 1968 ruling in Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205. In that case, the court held that a teacher who was speaking as a citizen on an issue of public concern was protected by the First Amendment from retaliation.

But another major decision, in the 1983 case of Connick v. Myers, held that government employees’ speech on matters of personal concern, such as typical workplace gripes, would not subject an employer to First Amendment scrutiny.

The question in the new case is whether speech that is part of the employee’s job is subject to First Amendment protection. That category can cover such speech as whistleblowing on alleged wrongdoing by employees, such as in Mr. Ceballos’ case, as well as potentially other areas of job-related speech.

A Professor’s Lectures

The National Education Association filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case on the employee’s side, saying that “to teach is to communicate—often on matters of the greatest public importance and controversy.” Barring a public employee’s on-the-job speech from ever having First Amendment protection, the 2.7 million-member teachers’ union said, “would have a devastating impact on teachers.”

But the National School Boards Association, in a brief filed on the side of Los Angeles County, said it was important for schools to be able to control their employees’ speech, especially regarding the curriculum.

“Schools should be able to discipline or terminate employees who refuse to execute their responsibilities in the manner prescribed by the school board without undue fear of First Amendment claims based on speech made in fulfilling the employees’ job duties, that happens to implicate a matter of public concern,” the NSBA’s brief says.

In the Los Angeles County case, a federal district court held in favor of the district attorney’s office, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco, reversed that decision. The appeals court held that Mr. Ceballos’ speech in his memo was protected because it “addressed a matter of public concern and that his interest in the speech outweighed the public employer’s interest in avoiding inefficiency and disruption.”

The county argues that an employee is acting as the state when he speaks during the performance of his duties, in contrast to speech outside of those duties, as a citizen. The Bush administration also argued on the county’s side last week, arguing that a public employee has no First Amendment interest in speech expressed as part of his job duties.

Those arguments appeared to resonate with several Supreme Court justices last week.

Cindy S. Lee, the lawyer for Los Angeles County, argued that Mr. Ceballos’ case did not fall under Pickering because “job-required speech is not protected by the First Amendment, so there’s no need to go into the balancing.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked Ms. Lee whether a “public-university professor who is fired for the content of his lectures” would have a First Amendment case.

“Certainly that is part of his job, right?” the chief justice said.

Ms. Lee said such an employee would not be entitled “presumptively” to constitutional protection. Chief Justice Roberts suggested that such on-the-job speech by an individual could be viewed as speech by the government itself.

“If you pay the piper, you get to call the tune. In this case, it was just in-sourced [to its own employee],” he said in an exchange with Bonnie I. Robin-Vergeer, Mr. Ceballos’ lawyer.

Ms. Robin-Vergeer replied, of her client: “He spoke to the government, not as the government.”

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy seemed especially concerned about the effect that a ruling in favor of Mr. Ceballos would have on government workplaces. He said to Ms. Robin-Vergeer: “What you’re saying is that the First Amendment has an official function inside the office. … The First Amendment isn’t about policing the workplace.”

Ms. Robin-Vergeer replied that it is important for employees to be able to speak about government agencies because they, more than others, have critical knowledge about their operations. She mentioned the Federal Emergency Management Agency as an example of an agency that would benefit in its operations from the speech of whistleblowers.

Internal Channels

But Chief Justice Roberts said that submitting every case to First Amendment scrutiny in court would be expensive and interfere with employment-related responsibilities of the government.

Some justices appeared concerned, however, about the Bush administration’s broad position that there was no First Amendment protection for on-the-job speech.

Justice John Paul Stevens suggested it was odd that an employee might have protection for raising concerns about his agency’s operations in an outside speech as a citizen, while having no protection for raising concerns within internal channels.

A decision in the case is expected by next July.

Related Tags:

A version of this article appeared in the October 19, 2005 edition of Education Week as Court Mulls Protection for Public-Employee Speech

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Professional Development Webinar
Building Leadership Excellence Through Instructional Coaching
Join this webinar for a discussion on instructional coaching and ways you can link your implement or build on your program.
Content provided by Whetstone Education/SchoolMint
Teaching Webinar Tips for Better Hybrid Learning: Ask the Experts What Works
Register and ask your questions about hybrid learning to our expert panel.
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Families & the Community Webinar
Family Engagement for Student Success With Dr. Karen Mapp
Register for this free webinar to learn how to empower and engage families for student success featuring Karen L. Mapp.
Content provided by Panorama Education & PowerMyLearning

EdWeek Top School Jobs

2021-2022 Teacher (Districtwide)
Dallas, TX, US
Dallas Independent School District
[2021-2022] Founding Middle School Academic Dean
New York, NY, US
DREAM Charter School
DevOps Engineer
Portland, OR, US
Northwest Evaluation Association
User Experience Analyst
Portland, OR, US
Northwest Evaluation Association

Read Next

Law & Courts Supreme Court Backs Suits Challenging School Policies That Seek Only 'Nominal' Damages
The high court rules 8-1 that students may pursue suits over government policies even when the agency has dropped the challenged policy.
6 min read
supreme court IMG
iStock/Getty
Law & Courts Biden Administration, Education Groups Back School District in Student Online Speech Case
A Pennsylvania district and its allies argue that administrators need to be able to discipline students for threatening or bullying speech.
5 min read
supreme court SOC
Getty
Law & Courts Federal Appeals Court Upholds School's Removal of 4th Grader's Essay on LGBTQ Rights
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit backs a principal who said the essay was age-inappropriate for inclusion in a school booklet.
4 min read
Image shows a courtroom and gavel.
imaginima/E+
Law & Courts U.S. Supreme Court Is Asked to Take Up Harvard's Consideration of Race in Admissions
Lower courts rejected claims by Students for Fair Admissions that the Harvard policies discriminate against Asian-American applicants.
3 min read
Rowers paddle along the Charles River past the Harvard University campus in Cambridge, Mass. on March 7, 2017.
Rowers paddle along the Charles River past the Harvard University campus in Cambridge, Mass.
Charles Krupa/AP