 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Karins v. City of Atlantic City2/18/1998
ected.
In Pickering, the Supreme Court considered whether a public school teacher could be disciplined for writing a letter to the editor of a local newspaper, in which the teacher criticized the board of education and the superintendent of schools for failing to raise adequate new revenue for the schools. Pickering, supra, 391 U.S. at 566-67, 88 S. Ct. at 1733-34, 20 L. Ed. 2d at 815-16. Recognizing that teachers do not automatically relinquish their First Amendment rights based on public employment, the Court held that it is necessary "to arrive at a balance between the interests of the 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." Id. at 568, 88 S. Ct. at 1734-35, 20 L. Ed. 2d at 817.
The Court in Pickering acknowledged that the "core value of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment [is the] public interest in having free and unhindered debate on matters of public importance." In formulating a test for determining when conduct-related speech in public employment is not protected, the Court stated that if "the fact of employment is only tangentially and insubstantially involved in the subject matter of the [employee's communication], it is necessary to regard the as the member of the general public he seeks to be." Id. at 573, 574, 88 S. Ct. at 1737, 1738, 20 L. Ed. 2d at 820, 820-21. Recognizing that the letter authored by the teacher did not impede the proper performance of his daily duties in the classroom, the Court concluded that the school administration's interest "in limiting teachers' opportunities to contribute to public debate is not significantly greater than its interest in limiting a similar contribution by any member of the general public." Id. at 572-573, 88 S. Ct. at 1737, 20 L. Ed. 2d at 819-820. Hence, the Court held that under a proper balancing test the teacher could not be suspended for submitting the letter to the local newspaper because the State's interest in controlling the contribution of the teacher was not significantly greater than controlling the general public. Id. at 574- 75, 88 S. Ct. at 1738, 20 L. Ed. 2d at 821.
The threshold question in applying the Pickering balancing test is whether the employee 's speech may be "fairly characterized as constituting speech on a matter of public concern." Connick, supra, 461 U.S. at 146, 103 S. Ct. at 1690, 75 L. Ed. 2d at 719. The Court in Connick considered whether an assistant district attorney could be discharged for circulating a questionnaire to fellow staff members concerning internal office affairs. Id. at 140, 103 S. Ct. at 1686, 75 L. Ed. 2d at 715. Relying on Pickering, the Court observed that "hen employee expression cannot be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community, government officials should enjoy wide latitude in managing their offices, without intrusive oversight by the judiciary in the name of the First Amendment." Id. at 146, 103 S. Ct. at 1690, 75 L. Ed. 2d at 719.
Once the public interest prong of the Pickering standard has been satisfied, then a court must balance the employee's interest in free speech against the "government's interest in the effective and efficient fulfillment of its responsibilities to the public." Id. at 150, 103 S. Ct. at 1691-92, 75 L. Ed. 2d at 722. That standard was adopted because an employer should not be forced "to allow events to unfold to the extent that the disruption of the office and the destruction of working relationships is manifest before taking action." Id. at 152, 103 S. Ct. at 1691-92, 75 L. Ed. 2d at 723. The Court in Connick fou
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 New Jersey DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|