Supreme Court limits gov't employees' speech rights

[n2doc]

Updated 01:36 p.m., Monday, June 20, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has limited the First Amendment right of government employees, saying a police chief cannot sue over employer retaliation that came after he spoke out on a pay matter.

The high court on Monday overturned a ruling for former Duryea, Pa., police chief Charles Guarnieri. After Guarnieri successfully won a union grievance, city officials denied his request for overtime pay. Guarnieri contended the denial was retaliation for his union grievance, and the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld his victory.

But the high court overturned that decision. The justices ruled 8-1 that government employers can take adverse actions against employees who speak out on private matters.

The case now goes back to the lower courts.

The case is the city of Duryea, Pa. v. Guarnieri, 09-1476.



Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Court-limits-gov-t-employees-speech-rights-1431925.php

Been a stellar day for the right wing today out of the Supremes :puke:

[LiberalFighter]

1. How does a police chief have union representation?

[onenote]

2. It was 8-1 decision with Scalia dissenting

Maybe you want to read the opinion before declaring this a big "right wing" decision.

[n2doc]

3. So...you are saying Alito, Thomas, Roberts are left wing?

Ooookay....

And on edit, I am complaining about ALL of the decisions let out today, all of which I think suck. One RW dissenter does not a liberal opinion make. It has been pointed out several times that the most liberal USSC justices now would have been moderates 25 years ago.

[onenote]

5. No. I'm saying a decision in which Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Breyer

are on one side and Scalia is on the other probably is the great "right wing" victory that you decided it was without reading the decision.

[Capitalocracy]

4. Free speech for corporations

No free speech for you.

[onenote]

6. try reading the opinion. you might learn something

By the way, the Court's decision is consistent with the decisions of every court that has considered the specific issue raised by the case. Scalia (and Thomas, who concurred with the result but agreed with Scalia) would have adopted a truly right wing reading of the law.

[markpkessinger]

7. The article doesn't provide the full context ...

From the opinion:

Charles Guarnieri filed a union grievance challenging his termination as chief of police for the borough of Duryea, a town of about 4,600 persons in northeastern Pennsylvania. His grievance proceeded to arbitration pursuant to the police union collective-bargaining agreement. The arbitrator found that the borough council, Duryea’s legislative body and the entity responsible for Guarnieri’s termination, committed procedural errors in connection with the termination; and the arbitrator also found that Guarnieri engaged in misconduct, including “attempting to intimidate Council members.” App. 37, 38.The arbitrator ordered Guarnieri reinstated after a disciplinary suspension. Id., at 38.

Upon Guarnieri’s return to the job, the council issued 11 directives instructing Guarnieri in the performance of his duties. The council’s attorney explained that the council “wanted to be sure that the chief understood what was going to be expected of him upon his return.” Tr. 19:12–14(Apr. 16, 2008). One directive prohibited Guarnieri from working overtime without the council’s “express permission.” App. 59, ¶1. Another indicated that “he police car is to be used for official business only.” Id., at 60, ¶9.A third stated that the “Duryea municipal building is a smoke free building” and that the “police department is not exempt.” Id., at 61, ¶10. Guarnieri testified that, because of these and other directives, his “coming back wasn’t a warm welcome feeling.” Tr. 65:7–8 (Apr. 15, 2008). Guarnieri filed a second union grievance challenging the directives. The arbitrator instructed the council to modify or withdraw some of the directives on the grounds that they were vague, interfered with the authority of the mayor, or were contrary to the collective-bargaining agreement.

Guarnieri filed this lawsuit against the borough, the borough council, and individual members of the council under 42 U. S. C. §1983. Guarnieri claimed that his first union grievance was a petition protected by the Petition Clause of the First Amendment, and he alleged that the directives issued upon his reinstatement were retaliation for that protected activity.

After this suit was filed, the council denied a request by Guarnieri for $338 in overtime. The United States Department of Labor investigated and concluded that Guarnieri was entitled to be paid. The council offered Guarnieri a check for the amount, but Guarnieri refused to accept it. Instead, Guarnieri amended his complaint to encompass the denial of overtime. Guarnieri alleged that his §1983 lawsuit was a petition and that the denial of overtime constituted retaliation for his having filed the lawsuit.

The way I see it, following a finding of misconduct by the arbitrator, the borough council wanted to clarify performance expectations of the police chief. Those directives all appear to be very reasonable ones. Nevertheless, the police chief filed a second, frivolous grievance claiming those directives created an environment that wasn't "a warm welcome feeling." Guarnieri then filed the §1983 suit (on which the Supreme Court was ruling), alleging that "his first union grievance was a petition protected by the Petition Clause of the First Amendment, and he alleged that the directives issued upon his reinstatement were retaliation for that protected activity." It was after the suit was filed that the council refused the overtime pay request (likely because it had not been expressly approved, as per the directives given to the police chief following his reinstatement). When the Dept. of Labor later investigated and determined the chief was entitled to that pay, the council offered him a check for it. But he refused, instead thinking it could bolster his lawsuit.

This was a police chief abusing public resources who was caught. The council apparently erred in its termination procedures, but that doesn't change the fact of the chief's misconduct. The chief thought he could get one over on the borough, and line his own pockets, by filing this suit, thereby teaching them a lesson.

Anyway, that's my read of it.