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.
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.”
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").
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.