 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Karins v. City of Atlantic City2/18/1998
nd that the attorney's questionnaire touched on matters of public concern in the most limited sense, and concluded that the government employer properly discharged the attorney because it was reasonably foreseeable that her actions could disrupt the office, undermine authority, and destroy working relationships. Id. at 154, 103 S. Ct. at 1694, 75 L. Ed. 2d at 724-25.
Thus, a two-part balancing test has evolved from Pickering and Connick. First, can the employee 's speech be fairly characterized as relating to a matter of public concern? This is known as the employee's interest prong because it focuses on the interest of an employee, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern. Second, is there a governmental interest, as an employer , in the effective and efficient fulfillment of its responsibilities to the public through its employees? This is known as the public's interest or the governmental interest prong.
To summarize, when private expression is involved, the Pickering/Connick balancing test looks not only to the content of the speech, but also the "manner, time, and place in which it is delivered." Ibid.; Givhan v. Western Line Consol. Sch. Dist., 439 U.S. 410, 415 n.4, 99 S. Ct. 693, 696 n.4, 58 L. Ed. 2d 619, 624 n.4 (1979). The Pickering/Connick balancing test "comes into play only when a public employee 's speech implicates the government's interests as an employer ." Connick, supra, 461 U.S. at 157, 103 S. Ct. at 1695, 75 L. Ed. 2d at 726 (Brennan, J., Dissenting).
Courts in this State have applied the Pickering/Connick standard a number of times. The Appellate Division, in Pietrunti, supra, 128 N.J. Super. 149, applied the Pickering test to determine whether a school teacher could be discharged for making a speech attacking her supervisors at an orientation session. The court stated:
e observe at the outset of this Discussion that neither the constitutional right of a teacher to speak freely on public issues nor the statutory right of school employees to bargain collectively for their own welfare will override the basic obligation of an employee to the employer . . . . The employer-employee relationship restrains the right of the employee to the extent reasonably necessary to retain that harmony and loyalty which is necessary to the efficient and successful operation of the educational system.
[Id. at 166.]
The court concluded that the teacher could not claim constitutional protection for attacking her superiors publicly. Id. at 168.
Likewise in Hall v. Mayor & Dir. of Pub. Safety, 176 N.J. Super. 229 (1980), the Appellate Division applied the same balancing test to determine whether a police officer could be suspended for making statements to a local newspaper criticizing his superior. The court stated that
certain legitimate state interests may limit a public employee 's First Amendment right of speech. Some of these interests are: (1) the need to maintain discipline or harmony among co-workers; (2) the need for confidentiality; (3) the need to limit conduct which impedes the public employee's proper and competent performance of his duties, and (4) the need to encourage close and personal relationships between employees and their superiors.
[Id. at 232.]
Although the court found that the regulation under which the police officer was disciplined was overbroad, the court held that the statement made by the police officer was beyond constitutional protection because it served to create disharmony, thereby impeding the proper functioning of the department. Id. at 233.
In the present case, the racial epithet expressed by Karins was directed at Ras
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.
|
|