The court rejected the contention that "a public employee's speech is deprived of First Amendment protection whenever those views are expressed ... pursuant to an employment responsibility."
The court said the proposed rule would be detrimental to whistleblowers like Ceballos, who report official misconduct because all public employees have a duty to notify their supervisors when they become aware of wrongful conduct. It specifically noted the perverse incentive that would be created by a rule protecting employees only if they bypassed superiors and took their information directly to the media.
The court also said that public employees "are positioned uniquely to contribute to the debate on matters of public concern." And that "[s]tripping them of that right when they report wrongdoing or other significant matters to their supervisors would seriously undermine our ability to maintain the integrity of our governmental operations."
The court deemed Ceballos's speech of significant value because he sought "to bring wrongdoing to light, not merely to further some purely private interest," and it found no evidence that Ceballos had spoken recklessly or in bad faith.
Most importantly, the court pointed out, "Ceballos tried to address the problem initially by reporting the matter to his supervisors, obviously an appropriate way of seeking a responsible solution."
The court rejected the argument that the adverse actions were undertaken for non-retaliatory reasons, noting that "a reasonable jury could infer that Ceballos' speech was a substantially motivating factor."
The defendants appealed the decision and the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and stated: "when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline."
Ceballos spoke on a matter of public concern and did so in the course of his employment duties and therefore the court's decision puts government workers in a Catch 22 situation, according to Mr Devine.
"Increasingly the bureaucracy has imposed a mandatory "duty to disclose" on its employees," he explains. "If they stumble across misconduct, they have no choice but to report it or be guilty for silence."
"Now government employees obey this duty at their own risk," he warns. "They're damned if they remain silent, and defenseless if they bear witness."
Corruption, abuse of power, and unlawful activity are of distinct public concern and the value of receiving information from public employees regarding such matters cannot be overstated. Critics say the court's decision will further increase the ever-mounting shroud of secrecy evident in government today.
According to Attorney, Mark Labaton, "the Supreme Court's decision rests on a somewhat artificial distinction between speech as a private citizen and speech pursuant to ones official duties."
"The fear is," he explains, "that the decision will encourage employer retaliation against workers who speak out against illegal conduct."
Santa Monica, California Attorney, Mark Klieman, finds the decision "discouraging," and says he expects that we're going to see a lot more like it. "The only saving grace," he notes, "is that some state Supreme Courts may find that this kind of repression of whistleblowers violates state constitutional rights of free speech and of course," he says, "state legislatures are free to prohibit retaliation if they wish anyway."
Others say the court's decision should compel Congress to act. The Court's opinion referred to the Whistleblower Protection Act, but "it already has been gutted by judicial activism to remove statutory protection for duty speech," according to Mr Devine.
"This is exactly why House and Senate leaders must schedule votes on bills to restore the Whistleblower Protection Act," he advises.
The court said the proposed rule would be detrimental to whistleblowers like Ceballos, who report official misconduct because all public employees have a duty to notify their supervisors when they become aware of wrongful conduct. It specifically noted the perverse incentive that would be created by a rule protecting employees only if they bypassed superiors and took their information directly to the media.
The court also said that public employees "are positioned uniquely to contribute to the debate on matters of public concern." And that "[s]tripping them of that right when they report wrongdoing or other significant matters to their supervisors would seriously undermine our ability to maintain the integrity of our governmental operations."
The court deemed Ceballos's speech of significant value because he sought "to bring wrongdoing to light, not merely to further some purely private interest," and it found no evidence that Ceballos had spoken recklessly or in bad faith.
The court rejected the argument that the adverse actions were undertaken for non-retaliatory reasons, noting that "a reasonable jury could infer that Ceballos' speech was a substantially motivating factor."
The defendants appealed the decision and the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and stated: "when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline."
Ceballos spoke on a matter of public concern and did so in the course of his employment duties and therefore the court's decision puts government workers in a Catch 22 situation, according to Mr Devine.
"Increasingly the bureaucracy has imposed a mandatory "duty to disclose" on its employees," he explains. "If they stumble across misconduct, they have no choice but to report it or be guilty for silence."
"Now government employees obey this duty at their own risk," he warns. "They're damned if they remain silent, and defenseless if they bear witness."
Corruption, abuse of power, and unlawful activity are of distinct public concern and the value of receiving information from public employees regarding such matters cannot be overstated. Critics say the court's decision will further increase the ever-mounting shroud of secrecy evident in government today.
According to Attorney, Mark Labaton, "the Supreme Court's decision rests on a somewhat artificial distinction between speech as a private citizen and speech pursuant to ones official duties."
"The fear is," he explains, "that the decision will encourage employer retaliation against workers who speak out against illegal conduct."
Santa Monica, California Attorney, Mark Klieman, finds the decision "discouraging," and says he expects that we're going to see a lot more like it. "The only saving grace," he notes, "is that some state Supreme Courts may find that this kind of repression of whistleblowers violates state constitutional rights of free speech and of course," he says, "state legislatures are free to prohibit retaliation if they wish anyway."
Others say the court's decision should compel Congress to act. The Court's opinion referred to the Whistleblower Protection Act, but "it already has been gutted by judicial activism to remove statutory protection for duty speech," according to Mr Devine.
"This is exactly why House and Senate leaders must schedule votes on bills to restore the Whistleblower Protection Act," he advises.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
