The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision earlier this week confirming that an employee can bring a First Amendment Retaliation claim where he suffers an adverse action based upon the employer's mistaken belief that he engaged in protected speech. You can read the decision, Heffernan v. City of Patterson, here.
Heffernan involved a police officer who was demoted because of his employer's mistaken belief that he supported the mayor's rival in an election. In a 6-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision holding that Heffernan's claim that his managers' mistaken belief he was supporting the mayor's rival and his demotion are sufficient basis to raise a First Amendment retaliation claim under Section 1983.
The decision was authored by Justice Breyer, with only Justice Alito and Justice Thomas dissenting. The opinion is unquestionably a huge victory for public employees because it focuses on the employer's motivation for taking the adverse action, not on whether or not the employee actually engaged in protected speech.
The First Amendment generally prohibits government actors from terminating or taking other adverse action against a public employee because the employee engaged in constitutionally protected political activity. Focusing on the Court's prior decision in Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (1994) where the Court held that as long as the employer reasonably believes the employer's speech had involved personal matters and not matters of public concern and dismissed an employee because of the employer's mistaken belief, the First Amendment was not implicated. In other words, the appropriate focus was on the employer's belief and motivation for taking the action. Relying on the reasoning in Waters, the Court held:
"We conclude that, as in Waters, the government’s reason for demoting Heffernan is what counts here. When an employer demotes an employee out of a desire to prevent the employee from engaging in political activity that the First Amendment protects, the employee is entitled to challenge that unlawful action under the First Amendment and 42 U. S. C. §1983—even if, as here, the employer makes a factual mistake about the employee’s behavior."
In dissent, Justice Thomas said that the police officer could not assert a First Amendment claim because the threshold inquiry was always whether the employee has engaged in protected speech. "A city’s policy, even if unconstitutional, cannot be the basis of a §1983 suit when that policy does not result in the infringement of the plaintiff ’s constitutional rights." Thomas also argued that Heffernan's claim failed because he must establish that this policy infringed his constitutional rights to speak freely and peaceably assemble. "Even if the majority is correct that demoting Heffernan for a politically motivated reason was beyond the scope of the City’s power, the City never invaded Heffernan’s right to speak or assemble."
If you have questions about First Amendment rights as a public employee or other Constitutional rights that cannot be infringed by government actors that are enforceable under 42 U.S.C. §1983, please call our office at (801) 758-7604 or contact us online at www.utahtriallawyers.net for more information.
