Pickering v. Board of Education

39 Citing briefs

  1. In the Matter of Barbara Lucia, Respondent,v.Board of Education of East Meadow Union Free School District, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed February 19, 2014

    It is the public policy of this State to promote public sector labor harmony. Civil Service Law § 200; see also Pickering, 391 U.S. at 572 ("Teachers are, as a class, the members of a community most likely to have informed and definite opinions as to how funds 26 1. allotted to the operation of the schools should be spent.

  2. Borzilleri v. Mosby et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint

    Filed March 10, 2016

    10 Second, under that framework, it has been clearly established for nearly half a century that terminating a public employee in retaliation for speech on a matter of public concern violates the First Amendment unless the government can point to specific countervailing harms caused by the employee’s speech that overwhelm the individual’s speech rights. E.g., Pickering, 391 U.S. at 579-80. As set forth above, Ms. Mosby has identified no valid government interest in suppressing Ms. Borzilleri’s political expression, and harm caused by that speech cannot “be presumed.”

  3. In the Matter of Richard Santer, Respondent,v.Board of Education of East Meadow Union Free School District, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed February 19, 2014

    It is the public policy of this State to promote public sector labor harmony. Civil Service Law § 200; see also Pickering, 391 U.S. at 572 ("Teachers are, as a class, the members ofa community most likely to have informed and definite opinions as to how funds allotted to the operation of the schools should be spent. Accordingly, it is essential that they be able to speak out freely on such questions without fear of retaliatory dismissaL").

  4. Davis v. Billington et al

    REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

    Filed January 17, 2010

    Although Sampson recognized the government’s interest in avoiding interference in employment decisions, such interference is warranted where the government acts unconstitutionally. See, e.g., Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568, 88 S. Ct. at 1734 (affirming First Amendment rights of employees while recognizing government employer’s interest in the efficiency of public services). Courts in this district have thus not hesitated to award preliminary reinstatement where, as here, a plaintiff makes a showing that the employee’s termination likely violated the First Amendment, particularly when the individual is still employed at the workplace in a different position.

  5. Adams et al v. New York State Education Department et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 155 FIRST MOTION to Dismiss or in the alternative for judgment on the pleadings., 149 MOTION to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.. Document

    Filed November 14, 2009

    The right of teachers to contribute to public debate is equivalent to the right of any member of the general public. Pickering v. Bd. of Ed. of Tp. H. S. Dist. 205, Ill., 391 U.S. at 573, 88 S.Ct. at 1737. In considering public protection for employee speech rights it does not matter that the Case 1:08-cv-05996-VM-AJP Document 174 Filed 11/14/2009 Page 47 of 57 41 employee spoke privately to an administrator.

  6. In the Matter of Wayne Spence, as President of the New York State Public Employees Federation, AFL-CIO, et al., Appellants,v.New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets et al., Respondents.

    Brief

    Filed August 29, 2018

    Fletcher v. Marino, 882 F.2d 605, 613 (2d Cir. 1989) (upholding law preventing community school board members from holding other elected office in response to actual cases of misconduct). Unlike in Pickering, where the employee speech did not adversely impact the performance of the employee’s official duties or the employer’s operations, 391 U.S. at 570-73, the conflict of interest that arises from inspectors holding public office could compromise both. What had been effective working relationships could become mired in distrust, as inspectors and companies come to suspect each other’s motives.

  7. In the Matter of Wayne Spence, as President of the New York State Public Employees Federation, AFL-CIO, et al., Appellants,v.New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets et al., Respondents.

    Brief

    Filed August 29, 2018

    ’” Matter of Spence v. New York Dep’t of Ag. & Mkts., 154 A.D.3d 1234, 1236 (quoting Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568) (alterations in original). In applying the Pickering balancing test to a statute prohibiting county election officials from simultaneously campaigning for elected office, the Second Circuit has clarified that the balance favors the employer if: (1) the employer’s prediction of the disruption the speech will cause is reasonable; (2) the potential for disruption outweighs the value of the speech; and (3) the employer took adverse action not in retaliation for the employee’s speech, but because of the potential for disruption.

  8. Mial v. Iowa Department of Human Services et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

    Filed March 20, 2017

    If the speech is protected, the public employer's interest in promoting efficiency is balanced against that of the employee in speaking as a citizen. Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568. A government employer is not liable for an adverse employment action taken against its employees for their speech if the government interest outweighs the interest of the employees in their expressive conduct.

  9. Jackson v. Besecker et al

    BRIEF in Opposition to 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support

    Filed July 20, 2016

    See Plaintiff’s Response to SUMF, ¶1. C. Plaintiff’s Rights Were Clearly Established at the Time of His Termination There can be no dispute that at the time of Plaintiff’s termination, it was clearly established that that public employment cannot be conditioned on a basis that infringes the employee's constitutionally protected interest in freedom of expression (Connick, 461 U.S. at 142; Pickering, 391 U.S. 563) and that public employees must be able to speak out freely on matters of public concern without fear of retaliation. Connick, 461 U.S. at 149.

  10. Davis v. Billington et al

    Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

    Filed January 15, 2010

    To the contrary, CRS’ policy is a nuanced and flexible instrument that attempts to strike the optimal balance between employees’ First Amendment right to speak as citizens and the need to “promot[e] the efficiency of the public services” CRS performs with the help its citizen employees. See Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568. The policy does not contain any ban on outside speech on any subjects and has never been interpreted to contain such a ban.