U.S. Supreme Court Issues Unanimous Opinion Protecting Government Employee's Free Speech Rights

In a unanimous decision issued by the United States Supreme Court and written by Justice Sotomayor, the U.S. Supreme Court re-emphasized the importance of protecting government employees free speech rights. The Court, in Lane v. Franks, reversed the Eleventh Circuit's decision upholding summary judgment against Mr. Lane and held that Lane's sworn testimony outside the scope of his ordinary job duties was entitled to First Amendment protection because it consisted of speech as a citizen of public concern and the government had no legitimate interest in treating Lane differently because of his speech, in accordance with the Court's decision in Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist., 391 U. S. 563.  Under Pickering, if speech is made in fulfilling an employee’s ordinary job duties, then the employee is not speaking as a citizen for First Amendment purposes. But if the “employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern,” the inquiry turns to whether the relevant governmental entity had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public.

The Court's decision emphasized that 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 tell the truth. That obligation is distinct and independent from any separate obligations a testifying public employee might have to his employer. The Court emphasized that the critical question is whether the speech at issue is itself ordinarily within the scope of an employee’s duties, not whether it merely concerns those duties. 

Under the facts of the case, Mr. Lane was a Director of a youth program for underprivileged youth at an Alabama community college. He conducted an audit of the program's expenses and discovered that an Alabama legislator  had not been reporting for work. Lane then terminated the legislator's employment. Thereafter, Lane was terminated along with one other employee.  He filed First Amendment claims under Section 1983 against Mr. Franks, the President of the College, in his official and individual capacities for retaliation for exercising his free speech rights.  While the Court precluded the lawsuit against Frank on the grounds of qualified immunity, the case is important for its clarification of what is and is not protected speech for government employees, and when speech is ordinarily part of an employee's duties.

For more information about the case, please see the N.Y. Times article on the decision.

If you have questions about your rights as a government employee, please consult an experienced employment lawyer who can assist you and help explain your legal rights. The lawyers at Stavros Law have experience representing public employees in a variety of claims, including administrative proceedings, wrongful termination claims, discrimination claims and constitutional claims.