[WEBINAR] Preparing for Changes in the “Vested Rights Doctrine” - Understanding Plan Design Options
[VIDEO] Legal Update: Is the California Rule in Flux?
[VIDEO] Pension Liability by the Numbers
[VIDEO] Perspectives: The Practical Effects of Today's Pension Programs
In 2006, the Supreme Court’s decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos granted public employers’ broad discretion in regulating their employees’ work-related speech. Before 2006, under the so-called Pickering Connick test, employees...more
Public employers have interests that differ from private employers. While both types of employers seek to increase their revenues, public employers have additional concerns that can take priority over short-term budgetary...more
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Bennett v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville, recently addressed the issue of whether a public employee’s use of a racial slur when discussing politics on Facebook is sufficiently protected by...more
On August 19, 2020, in Marquardt v. Carlton, et al., No. 19-4223, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed summary judgment for the City of Cleveland on a former employee’s claim that the city had terminated...more
Press and Journal, Inc. v. Borough of Middletown, Civil Action No. 1:18-CV-2064 (M.D. Pa. 2018) (Borough faces a civil rights claim for retaliation against newspaper for unfavorable press coverage). BACKGROUND - The...more
A United States District Court (M.D. Fla.) (“Court”) addressed a Motion to Dismiss related to a First Amendment employment retaliation case. See Chustz v. City of Marco Island, 2019 WL 277705. The Court’s January 22nd...more
A city employee’s comments at a public event were not protected under the First Amendment because she spoke as a public employee, not a private citizen, a federal appeals court held in Barone v. City of Springfield. However,...more
First Amendment retaliation claims may be getting harder to pursue for state employees, as courts seem increasingly likely to view speech as part of the employees' roles as public officials rather than as private citizens....more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled on a matter involving “perceived affiliation”, bringing clarity to the matter, where the circuits provided discordant rulings. As a result, personnel actions based upon even mistaken...more
On August 5, 2016, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) does not preclude a First Amendment retaliation claim under section 1983 of the federal Civil Rights...more
Is it still retaliation if your boss fired you for something you didn’t actually do? In Heffernan v. City of Paterson, New Jersey, the U.S. Supreme Court said yes—your boss’s mistake does not get him off the hook for the...more
U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Case Involving Political Campaigning Accusations - A government agency violated the constitutional rights of an employee who was demoted based on the mistaken belief that he violated the...more
For government employers, disciplining and terminating employees can be especially difficult. Not only does the public employer face the same challenges in complying with the standard alphabet soup of employment laws that...more
While the labor and employment law world is abuzz after the decisions in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Harris v. Quinn (cases this Blog will cover in the coming days), the United States Supreme Court also issued a decision...more
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that a public employee cannot be retaliated against by his employer based on testimony provided by him under subpoena in a criminal proceeding. In Lane v. Franks, the...more
U.S. Supreme Court Makes Unanimous Ruling in Lane v. Franks - The First Amendment protects a public employee from adverse employment action taken in retaliation for providing truthful sworn testimony, compelled by...more
Last week the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important decision affecting public employers and employee First Amendment rights to free speech. Lane v. Franks et al., No. 13-483 (U.S. June 19, 2014). Central Alabama Community...more
Eight years ago the United States Supreme Court, in Garcetti v. Ceballos, instructed that speech undertaken pursuant to a public employee’s job duties is “employee” speech and not “citizen” speech, and hence is not protected...more
Providing truthful, sworn testimony outside the course of ordinary job duties is First Amendment speech for the purposes of retaliation lawsuits, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 19, 2004. The ruling prohibits a public...more