A.  In Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983), the Court held that a public employee was not protected from disciplinary action because her speech was not on a matter "of public concern."

        1.  Myers was an assistant district attorney who was scheduled to be transferred to a different court. Because she was dissatisfied with the transfer, she distributed a questionnaire to other assistant district attorneys in the office. The questionnaire concerned the policy on transfers, office morale, the need for a grievance procedure, and the level of confidence in supervisors. The district attorney, Connick, fired Myers for distributing the questionnaire and she sued.
        2.  Despite the generality of the topics covered in the questionnaire, the Court found that it was "most accurately characterized as an employee grievance concerning internal office policy. The limited First Amendment interest involved here does not require that Connick tolerate action which he reasonably believed would disrupt the office, undermine his authority, and destroy close working relationships." At 154.
        3.  With the exception of a single question, the Court found the questionnaire not to involve matters of public concern, based on "the content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record." At 148. As to the single remaining question - concerned with pressure to work on political campaigns - the Court found the balance to weigh in favor of the public employer.

    B.  In Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), the Supreme Court set forth the terms for that balancing test.

        1.  Pickering was a public school teacher who was fired for sending a letter to a local newspaper criticizing the school board and school superintendent for their handling of tax issues. Some of the statements in the letter were erroneous.
        2.  Nevertheless, the Court found that Pickering was discharged in violation of the Constitution. The Court described the case as one "in which a teacher has made erroneous public statements upon issues then currently the subject of public attention, which are critical of his ultimate employer but which are neither shown nor can be presumed to have in any way either impeded the teacher's proper performance of his daily duties in the classroom or to have interfered with the regular operation of the schools generally." 391 U.S. at 572-73 (footnote omitted).
        3.  What was crucial in striking the balance in favor of Pickering was that he did not disrupt the ordinary operation of the schools and that he chose a form of expression generally protected by the First Amendment - a letter to the editor. His letter was no more disruptive of the school district's operation that a letter written by an ordinary citizen.

Continued on Page 3

Back to Page 1

Back to Your Rights