davinxtk
May 31st, 2006, 01:52 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0605310058may31,1,6639785.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed
High court curbs free-speech rights of public workers on the job
By David G. Savage
Tribune Newspapers: Los Angeles Times
Published May 31, 2006
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court restricted the free-speech rights of the nation's 21 million public employees Tuesday, ruling that the 1st Amendment does not protect them from being punished for complaining to their managers about possible wrongdoing.
Although government employees have the same rights as other citizens to speak out on controversies of the day, they do not have the right to speak freely inside their offices on matters related to "their official duties," the Supreme Court said in a 5-4 decision.
"When a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, rejecting a lawsuit brought by a Los Angeles County prosecutor.
Lawyers for government whistle-blowers denounced the ruling as a major setback.
"In an era of excessive government secrecy, the court has made it easier to engage in a government cover-up by discouraging internal whistle-blowing," said Steven Shapiro, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union.
However, lawyers for city and state agencies said the decision will prevent routine internal workplace disputes from becoming federal court cases.
The decision threw out most of a lawsuit filed by Deputy District Atty. Richard Ceballos, who said he was disciplined after he wrote memos alleging that a police officer may have lied to obtain a search warrant.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed he was entitled to a trial on his lawsuit because he had spoken on a "matter of public concern." But the Supreme Court reversed that ruling Tuesday.
"The 1st Amendment does not prohibit managerial discipline based on an employee's expressions made pursuant to official responsibilities," Kennedy said.
The court's newest justice, Samuel Alito, cast a crucial vote to form the pro-government majority. In October, the justices first heard the case, but they were apparently split 4-4 when Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stepped down in February. Also joining Kennedy were Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Because Tuesday's decision interprets the 1st Amendment, it applies to governments at all levels, including federal and states agencies, public hospitals and public schools and colleges.
The dissenters said they would have left the courthouse door open to such 1st Amendment suits. "I would hold that private and public interest in addressing official wrongdoing and threats to health and safety can outweigh the government's stake" in running an efficient office, said Justice David Souter.[/url]
High court curbs free-speech rights of public workers on the job
By David G. Savage
Tribune Newspapers: Los Angeles Times
Published May 31, 2006
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court restricted the free-speech rights of the nation's 21 million public employees Tuesday, ruling that the 1st Amendment does not protect them from being punished for complaining to their managers about possible wrongdoing.
Although government employees have the same rights as other citizens to speak out on controversies of the day, they do not have the right to speak freely inside their offices on matters related to "their official duties," the Supreme Court said in a 5-4 decision.
"When a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, rejecting a lawsuit brought by a Los Angeles County prosecutor.
Lawyers for government whistle-blowers denounced the ruling as a major setback.
"In an era of excessive government secrecy, the court has made it easier to engage in a government cover-up by discouraging internal whistle-blowing," said Steven Shapiro, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union.
However, lawyers for city and state agencies said the decision will prevent routine internal workplace disputes from becoming federal court cases.
The decision threw out most of a lawsuit filed by Deputy District Atty. Richard Ceballos, who said he was disciplined after he wrote memos alleging that a police officer may have lied to obtain a search warrant.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed he was entitled to a trial on his lawsuit because he had spoken on a "matter of public concern." But the Supreme Court reversed that ruling Tuesday.
"The 1st Amendment does not prohibit managerial discipline based on an employee's expressions made pursuant to official responsibilities," Kennedy said.
The court's newest justice, Samuel Alito, cast a crucial vote to form the pro-government majority. In October, the justices first heard the case, but they were apparently split 4-4 when Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stepped down in February. Also joining Kennedy were Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Because Tuesday's decision interprets the 1st Amendment, it applies to governments at all levels, including federal and states agencies, public hospitals and public schools and colleges.
The dissenters said they would have left the courthouse door open to such 1st Amendment suits. "I would hold that private and public interest in addressing official wrongdoing and threats to health and safety can outweigh the government's stake" in running an efficient office, said Justice David Souter.[/url]