.

Do you generally first learn of office changes and developments through rumor? The degree to which speech is of interest to the public may be relevant in determining whether a public employer may constitutionally be required to tolerate some degree of disruption resulting from its utterance. Were the transfers as they effected [sic] you That night Myers prepared a questionnaire soliciting the views of her fellow staff members concerning office transfer policy, office morale, the need for a grievance committee, the level of confidence in supervisors, and whether employees felt pressured to work in political campaigns. He immediately In Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983), we set forth a test for determining whether speech by a government employee may, consistently with the First Amendment, serve as a basis for disciplining or discharging that employee. addresses matters that, in the Court's view, are not of public concern.

This is not a case like Givhan, where an employee speaks out as a citizen on a matter of general concern, not tied to a personal employment dispute, but arranges to do so privately. Ante, at 152. self-expression; it is the essence of self-government." 654 F.2d 719 (1981).

Supp., at 759. Pickering, its antecedents, and its progeny lead us to conclude that if Myers' questionnaire cannot be fairly characterized as constituting speech on a matter of public concern, it is unnecessary for us to scrutinize the reasons for her discharge. therefore did not offend the First Amendment.... Questionnaire distributed by respondent on October 7, Our task, as we defined it in Pickering, is to seek "a balance between 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."

`No suggestion can be found in the Constitution that the freedom there guaranteed for speech and the press bears an inverse ratio to the timeliness and importance of the ideas seeking expression.'

"[A policeman] may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he 507 F. . With him on the brief was Victoria Lennox Bartels. In this case, we decide whether the Connick test should be applied to what the government employer thought was said, or to what the trier of fact ultimately … his authority, and destroy close working relationships. She also met with Connick who urged her to accept the transfer.

In my view, however, whether a particular statement by a public employee is addressed to a subject of public concern does not depend on where it was said or why. "The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to the security of the Republic, is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system." are operated for fear that doing so will provoke their dismissal.

Do you think as a matter of policy, they should have been? See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D, Comment j (1977): "The scope of a matter of legitimate concern to the public is not limited to `news,' in the sense of reports of current events or activities. These questions reflect one employee's dissatisfaction The explanation for the Constitution's special concern with threats to the right of citizens to participate in political affairs is no mystery. We concluded: Because the speech at issue addressed matters of public importance, a similar standard should be applied here. >> The District Court got off on the wrong foot in this case by initially finding that, "[t]aken as a whole, the issues presented in the questionnaire relate to the effective functioning of the District Attorney's Office and are matters of public importance and concern." Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74-75 (1964).

The Court concludes that her dismissal does not violate the First Amendment, primarily because the questionnaire addresses matters that, in the Court's view, are not of public concern. We stated there that the First Amendment expresses "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."

."). Finally, the context in which the dispute arose is also significant. Also relevant is the manner, time, and place in which the questionnaire was distributed. The Public Health And Welfare — Civil Rights — Generally — Civil Action For Deprivation Of Rights. To the extent that the Court's opinion may be read to suggest that the dismissal of a public employee for speech unrelated to a subject of public interest does not implicate First Amendment interests, I disagree, because our cases establish that public employees enjoy the full range of First Amendment rights guaranteed to members of the general public.

Because protecting the dissemination of such information is an essential function of the First Amendment, I dissent. Id., at 415, n. 4. the following morning, Myers typed and copied the questionnaire. Ibid.

Because the questionnaire addressed such matters and its distribution did not adversely affect the operations of the District Attorney's Office or interfere with Myers' working relationship with her fellow employees, I dissent. Healthy City Board of Ed. In order to protect public employees' First Amendment right to voice critical views on issues of public importance, the courts must make their own appraisal of the effects of the speech in question.

Shortly after noon, Dennis § 1983 (1976 ed., Supp. 2. See n. 4, infra. _____________________________________________________.

If so, how do you think it effects [sic] office morale? Connick then left the office. Although such particularized balancing is difficult, the courts must reach the most appropriate possible balance of the competing interests. Bishop v. Wood, supra, at 349-350. that the State can prohibit and punish such expression by all persons in Myers' questionnaire touched upon matters of public concern in only a most limited sense; her survey, in our view, is most accurately characterized as an employee grievance concerning internal office policy.

personnel? Connick then left the office. . Although the Court finds most of Myers' questionnaire unrelated to matters In this case, with but one exception, McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford, 155 Mass. She said she would "consider" it.

Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 190 (1964) (opinion of BRENNAN, J.). The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters. Court has frequently reaffirmed that speech on public issues occupies the

Healthy City Board of Ed. It extends also to the use of names, likenesses or facts in giving information to the public for purposes of education, amusement or enlightenment, when the public may reasonably be expected to have a legitimate interest in what is published.". Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966). The classic formulation of this position was that of Justice Holmes, who, . In his view, the questionnaire was a "final act of defiance" and that, as a result of Myers' action, "there were going to be some severe problems about the changes." Id., at 568.

endobj

`Great secular causes, with smaller ones, are guarded.'" YOU CAN FREELY EXPRESS YOUR OPINION WITH ANONYMITY GUARANTEED. We view the questions pertaining to the confidence and trust that Myers' co-workers possess in various supervisors, the level of office morale, and the need for a grievance committee as mere extensions of Myers' dispute over her transfer to another section of the criminal court. Please feel free to express any comments or feelings NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 913 (1982); Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 467 (1980). . In all of these cases, the precedents in which Pickering is rooted, "After I satisfied myself that not only wasn't she accepting the transfer, but that she was affirmatively opposing it and disrupting the routine of the office by this questionnaire. In making such a delicate inquiry, we must bear in mind that "the citizenry is the final judge of the proper conduct of public business."