Latest Breaking News

DonViejo

(60,536 posts) Thu Jun 19, 2014, 03:25 PM Jun 2014

Good news for whistleblowers: Supreme Court extends speech protections for public employees

Source: Reuters

By Reuters
Thursday, June 19, 2014 13:43 EDT

By Carlyn Kolker

(Reuters) – The Supreme Court on Thursday broadened free-speech protections for public-sector employees when they testify at trials, a decision that could give more rights to public workers who assist in government corruption cases.

In a 9-0 vote, the court sided with Edward Lane, a former director of a government-backed community education organization in Alabama, who said he was fired from his job after testifying against a former state legislator at two criminal trials.

Lane had said that the former legislator collected a salary at the community organization, but never came to work.

Two lower courts ruled that Lane’s testimony was not entitled to free-speech protection because it was made as part of his job, throwing out Lane’s retaliation case.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/19/good-news-for-whistleblowers-supreme-court-extends-speech-protections-for-public-employees/

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Good news for whistleblowers: Supreme Court extends speech protections for public employees (Original Post) DonViejo Jun 2014 OP

Damn, 9-0!! Thats a serious majority! And a good one too.nt 7962 Jun 2014 #1

That's pretty convincing when Scalia sides with Sotomayor Jack Rabbit Jun 2014 #2

Lane v. Franks struggle4progress Jun 2014 #3

7962

(11,841 posts)

1. Damn, 9-0!! Thats a serious majority! And a good one too.nt

Reply to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jun 19, 2014, 03:28 PM

Jun 2014

Jack Rabbit

(45,984 posts)

2. That's pretty convincing when Scalia sides with Sotomayor

Reply to 7962 (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 19, 2014, 04:05 PM

Jun 2014

struggle4progress

(118,280 posts)

3. Lane v. Franks

Reply to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:26 AM

Jun 2014

... Sworn testimony in judicial proceedings is a quintessential example of citizen speech for the simple reason that anyone who testifies in court bears an obligation, to the court and society at large, to tell the truth. That obligation is distinct and independent from any separate obligations a testifying public employee might have to his employer ... Here, corruption in a public program and misuse of state funds obviously involve matters of significant public concern ... Respondents do not assert, and cannot demonstrate, any government interest that tips the balance in their favor—for instance, evidence that Lane’s testimony was false or erroneous or that Lane unnecessarily disclosed sensitive, confidential, or privileged information while testifying ...

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

Almost 50 years ago, this Court declared that citizens do not surrender their First Amendment rights by accepting public employment ... Today, we consider whether the First Amendment similarly protects a public employee who provided truthful sworn testimony, compelled by subpoena, outside the course of his ordinary job responsibilities. We hold that it does ... Speech by citizens on matters of public concern lies at the heart of the First Amendment, which “was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people” ... The first inquiry is whether the speech in question — Lane’s testimony at Schmitz’ trials — is speech as a citizen on a matter of public concern. It clearly is. Truthful testimony under oath by a public employee outside the scope of his ordinary job duties is speech as a citizen for First Amendment purposes ... The importance of public employee speech is especially evident in the context of this case: a public corruption scandal ... This does not settle the matter, however. A public employee’s sworn testimony is not categorically entitled to First Amendment protection simply because it is speech as a citizen on a matter of public concern ... Respondent Franks argues that even if Lane’s testimony is protected under the First Amendment, the claims against him in his individual capacity should be dismissed
on the basis of qualified immunity. We agree. Qualified immunity “gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions” ... The relevant question for qualified immunity purposes is this: Could Franks reasonably have believed, at the time he fired Lane, that a government employer could fire an employee on account of testimony the employee gave, under oath and outside the scope of his ordinary job responsibilities? Eleventh Circuit precedent did not preclude Franks from reasonably holding that belief. And no decision of this Court was sufficiently clear to cast doubt on the controlling Eleventh Circuit precedent ... Lane’s speech is entitled to First Amendment protection, but because respondent Franks is entitled to qualified immunity, we affirm the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit as to the claims against Franks in his individual capacity ... or the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion ...

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-483_9o6b.pdf

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-483_9o6b.pdf

Reply to this discussion