Daniel Case (talk | contribs) start underlying dispute |
m ugly double parentheses are not quite necessary here |
||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
|LawsApplied=[[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. Amendment I]] |
|LawsApplied=[[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. Amendment I]] |
||
}} |
}} |
||
'''''Connick v. Myers''''' ({{ussc|461|138 |
'''''Connick v. Myers''''' ({{ussc|461|138}}), is a 1983 [[United States Supreme Court]] decision concerning the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] rights of public employees who speak publicly within the workplace context. It was first brought by Sheila Myers, an [[Orleans Parish, Louisiana]], assistant district attorney. She had been [[termination of employment|fired]] by her superior, [[District Attorney]] [[Harry Connick Sr.]], when, after receiving a transfer she had fiercely resisted in private conversations with him and his chief assistant district attorney, she distributed a questionnaire to her fellow prosecutors asking about their experience with Connick's management practices. At trial, Judge [[Jack Murphy Gordon|Jack Gordon]] of the [[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana|Eastern District of Louisiana]] found the firing had been motivated by the questionnaire and was thus an infringement on her right to speak out on matters of public concern as a public employee. After the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|Sixth Circuit]] affirmed the verdict, Connick appealed to the Supreme Court. |
||
The justices reversed the lower courts by a 5-4 margin. Justice [[Byron White]] wrote for the [[majority opinion|majority]] that most of the matters Myers' questionnaire had touched on were of personal, not public, concern and that the action had damaged the harmonious relations necessary for the efficient operation of the district attorney's office. [[William J. Brennan, Jr.|William Brennan]] argued in [[dissenting opinion|dissent]] that the majority's application of [[precedent]] was flawed. He argued that ''all'' the matters in the questionnaire were of public concern, and feared a [[Chilling effect (law)|chilling effect]] on speech by public employees about such matters would result. |
The justices reversed the lower courts by a 5-4 margin. Justice [[Byron White]] wrote for the [[majority opinion|majority]] that most of the matters Myers' questionnaire had touched on were of personal, not public, concern and that the action had damaged the harmonious relations necessary for the efficient operation of the district attorney's office. [[William J. Brennan, Jr.|William Brennan]] argued in [[dissenting opinion|dissent]] that the majority's application of [[precedent]] was flawed. He argued that ''all'' the matters in the questionnaire were of public concern, and feared a [[Chilling effect (law)|chilling effect]] on speech by public employees about such matters would result. |
||
For the next two decades later the case was the dominant one in assessing other cases where a public employee's free-speech rights were at issue, such as the later ''[[Rankin v. McPherson]]''.<ref name="Freedom Forum page">{{cite web|last=Hudson|first=David|title=Connick v. Myers: Reflections on landmark public employee free-speech case|url=http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13651|publisher=[[Freedom Forum]]|date=April 10, 2001|accessdate=February 10, 2011}}</ref> In 2006 its scope was reaffirmed and clarified in ''[[Garcetti v. Ceballos]]'', a similar case in which a prosecutor in a large city alleged he had been retaliated against for speaking out at work about a matter of public concern. |
For the next two decades later the case was the dominant one in assessing other cases where a public employee's free-speech rights were at issue, such as the later ''[[Rankin v. McPherson]]''.<ref name="Freedom Forum page">{{cite web|last=Hudson|first=David|title=Connick v. Myers: Reflections on landmark public employee free-speech case|url=http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13651|publisher=[[Freedom Forum]]|date=April 10, 2001|accessdate=February 10, 2011}}</ref> In 2006 its scope was reaffirmed and clarified in ''[[Garcetti v. Ceballos]]'', a similar case in which a prosecutor in a large city alleged he had been retaliated against for speaking out at work about a matter of public concern. |
||
==Underlying dispute== |
==Underlying dispute== |
Revision as of 17:43, 10 February 2011
Connick v. Myers | |
---|---|
Argued November 8, 1982 Decided April 20, 1983 | |
Full case name | Harry Connick Sr. v. Sheila Myers |
Docket no. | 81-1251 |
Citations | 461 U.S. 138 (more) 103 S. Ct. 1684, 75 L. Ed. 2d 708 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Case history | |
Prior | Judgement for plaintiff, 507 F. Supp. 752, (1981, E.D. La.); affirmed (654 F.2d 719, CA6) |
Holding | |
Assistant district attorney's distribution of questionnaire on workplace satisfaction was largely a matter of personal interest; her dismissal for same did not violate her First Amendment rights. Sixth Circuit reversed | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | White, joined by Burger, Powell, O'Connor and Rehnquist |
Dissent | Brennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun and Stevens |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. Amendment I |
Connick v. Myers (461 U.S. 138), is a 1983 United States Supreme Court decision concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees who speak publicly within the workplace context. It was first brought by Sheila Myers, an Orleans Parish, Louisiana, assistant district attorney. She had been fired by her superior, District Attorney Harry Connick Sr., when, after receiving a transfer she had fiercely resisted in private conversations with him and his chief assistant district attorney, she distributed a questionnaire to her fellow prosecutors asking about their experience with Connick's management practices. At trial, Judge Jack Gordon of the Eastern District of Louisiana found the firing had been motivated by the questionnaire and was thus an infringement on her right to speak out on matters of public concern as a public employee. After the Sixth Circuit affirmed the verdict, Connick appealed to the Supreme Court.
The justices reversed the lower courts by a 5-4 margin. Justice Byron White wrote for the majority that most of the matters Myers' questionnaire had touched on were of personal, not public, concern and that the action had damaged the harmonious relations necessary for the efficient operation of the district attorney's office. William Brennan argued in dissent that the majority's application of precedent was flawed. He argued that all the matters in the questionnaire were of public concern, and feared a chilling effect on speech by public employees about such matters would result.
For the next two decades later the case was the dominant one in assessing other cases where a public employee's free-speech rights were at issue, such as the later Rankin v. McPherson.[1] In 2006 its scope was reaffirmed and clarified in Garcetti v. Ceballos, a similar case in which a prosecutor in a large city alleged he had been retaliated against for speaking out at work about a matter of public concern.
Underlying dispute
By 1980, Myers had been an assistant district attorney for more than five years. She had been an effective trial attorney who had turned down promotions to remain in the courtroom. She had also participated in programs at law schools in the New Orleans area and participated in programs sponsored by Connick's office. A judge had also persuaded her to take part in a probation program for juvenile first offenders he ran.[2]
In October of that year, Myers was told she would be transferred to the section run by that judge. She enjoyed the position she was in at the time, in another judge's section, and feared that if she were transferred she would have to recuse herself from cases where she had counseled defendants in the program. She expressed these concerns to Dennis Waldron, the chief assistant district attorney, and Bridget Bane, the head of training for the office.[2]
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Burger Court
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 461
References
- ^ Hudson, David (April 10, 2001). "Connick v. Myers: Reflections on landmark public employee free-speech case". Freedom Forum. Retrieved February 10, 2011.
- ^ a b Jack Murphy Gordon, Myers v. Connick, 507 F Supp. 752, (1981, E.D. La.).