 |
| English: West face of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. Español: Edificio de la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos en Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
(A rare unanimous opinion!)
Syllabus FN*
FN* The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499.
*1
As Director
of Community Intensive Training for Youth (CITY), a program for
underprivileged youth operated by Central Alabama Community College
(CACC), petitioner Edward Lane conducted an audit of the program's
expenses and discovered that Suzanne Schmitz, an Alabama State
Representative on CITY's payroll, had not been reporting for work. Lane
eventually terminated Schmitz' employment. Shortly thereafter, federal
authorities indicted Schmitz on charges of mail fraud and theft
concerning a program receiving federal funds. Lane testified, under
subpoena, regarding the events that led to his terminating Schmitz.
Schmitz was convicted and sentenced to 30 months in prison. Meanwhile,
CITY was experiencing significant budget shortfalls. Respondent Franks,
then CACC's president, terminated Lane along with 28 other employees in a
claimed effort to address the financial difficulties. A few days later,
however, Franks rescinded all but 2 of the 29 terminations—those of
Lane and one other employee. Lane sued Franks in his individual and
official capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Franks had violated the First Amendment by firing him in retaliation for testifying against Schmitz.
The
District Court granted Franks' motion for summary judgment, holding
that the individual-capacity claims were barred by qualified immunity
and the official-capacity claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that Lane's testimony was not
entitled to First Amendment protection. It reasoned that Lane spoke as
an employee and not as a citizen because he acted pursuant to his
official duties when he investigated and terminated Schmitz' employment.
1.
Lane's sworn testimony outside the scope of his ordinary job duties is
entitled to First Amendment protection. Pp. –––– – ––––.
(a)
Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811,
requires balancing “the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in
commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State,
as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it
performs through its employees.” Under the first step of the
Pickering analysis, if the speech is made pursuant to the
employee's ordinary job duties, then the employee is not speaking as a
citizen for First Amendment purposes, and the inquiry ends.
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 421, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689.
But if the “employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern,”
the inquiry turns to “whether the relevant government entity had an
adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any
other member of the general public.”
Id., at 418. Pp. –––– – ––––.
(1)
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. The
Eleventh Circuit read
Garcetti far too broadly in holding that Lane did not speak as a
citizen when he testified simply because he learned of the subject
matter of that testimony in the course of his employment.
Garcetti said nothing about speech that relates to public
employment or concerns information learned in the course of that
employment. The critical question under
Garcetti is whether the speech at issue is itself ordinarily
within the scope of an employee's duties, not whether it merely concerns
those duties. Indeed, speech by public employees on subject matter
related to their employment holds special value precisely because those
employees gain knowledge of matters of public concern through their
employment. Pp. –––– – ––––.
*2
(2) Whether speech is a matter of public concern turns on the “content, form, and context” of the speech.
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147–148, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708. Here, corruption in a public program and misuse of state funds obviously involve matters of significant public concern. See
Garcetti, 547 U.S., at 425. And the form and context of the speech—sworn testimony in a judicial proceeding—fortify that conclusion. See
United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. ––––, ––––. Pp. –––– – ––––.
(c) Turning to
Pickering 's second step, the employer's side of the scale is
entirely empty. 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. Pp. –––– – ––––.
2.
Franks is entitled to qualified immunity for the claims against him in
his individual capacity. The question here is whether Franks reasonably
could have believed that, when he fired Lane, a government employer
could fire an employee because of testimony the employee gave, under
oath and outside the scope of his ordinary job responsibilities. See
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. ––––, ––––. At the relevant time,
Eleventh Circuit precedent did not preclude Franks from holding that
belief, and no decision of this Court was sufficiently clear to cast
doubt on controlling Circuit precedent. Any discrepancies in Eleventh
Circuit precedent only serve to highlight the dispositive point that the
question was not beyond debate at the time Franks acted. Pp. –––– –
––––.
3.
The Eleventh Circuit declined to consider the District Court's
dismissal of the claims against respondent Burrow in her official
capacity as CACC's acting president, and the parties have not asked this
Court to consider them here. The judgment of the Eleventh Circuit as to
those claims is reversed, and the case is remanded for further
proceedings. P. ––––.
No comments:
Post a Comment