Supreme Court Declines Case On Public Employee’s Speech Rights
Denying certiorari, the United States Supreme Court
has left undisturbed a Second Circuit decision that a statement made to a
magazine reporter by an assistant district attorney that the district in which
he was employed was the best place to be a homicide prosecutor because it had
more dead bodies per square inch than anyplace else constituted a statement on a
matter of public concern, for purposes of his § 1983 action alleging adverse
employment actions in retaliation for exercise of his First Amendment rights.
The Court of Appeals stated that, to determine
whether a public employee's speech rights have been violated by an adverse
employment action, it applies a two-part test, first determining as a matter of
law whether the speech relates to a matter of public concern. If so, the adverse
action nevertheless does not violate the employee's rights if the employee's
speech is reasonably likely to disrupt the effective functioning of the office,
and the employee is fired to prevent this disruption.
Although a jury found that the assistant district
attorney was not motivated by a desire to address a matter of public concern,
his statement addressed the crime rate in the district, which was a matter of
political, social, or other concern to the community. The speaker's motive, the
Second Circuit concluded, was one factor that could be considered in making the
determination whether the statement was on a matter of public concern, but it
was not dispositive.
Hynes v. Reuland