waters
churchill
argued
december
decided
may
petitioners
fired
respondent
churchill
nursing
job
public
hospital
allegedly
statements
made
coworker
work
break
churchill
actually
said
conversation
dispute
petitioners
version
based
interviews
one
ballew
overheard
part
conversation
indicated
churchill
made
disruptive
statements
critical
department
petitioners
however
churchill
version
corroborated
others
overheard
part
conversation
speech
largely
limited
nondisruptive
statements
critical
hospital
policy
believed
threatened
patient
care
churchill
sued
claiming
speech
protected
connick
myers
held
first
amendment
protects
government
employee
speech
matter
public
concern
employee
interest
expressing
matter
outweighed
injury
speech
cause
government
interest
employer
promoting
efficiency
public
services
performs
employees
district
granted
petitioners
summary
judgment
holding
management
fire
churchill
impunity
neither
version
conversation
protected
connick
appeals
reversed
concluding
churchill
speech
viewed
light
favorable
matter
public
concern
disruptive
inquiry
must
turn
speech
actually
determined
jury
employer
thought
held
judgment
vacated
case
remanded
page
ii
vacated
remanded
justice
joined
chief
justice
justice
souter
justice
ginsburg
concluded
connick
test
applied
government
employer
reasonably
thought
said
trier
fact
ultimately
determines
said
pp
absent
general
test
deciding
first
amendment
requires
procedural
safeguard
question
must
answered
basis
considering
procedure
cost
relative
magnitude
constitutional
significance
risks
erroneous
punishment
protected
speech
erroneous
exculpation
unprotected
speech
procedure
involves
evaluating
factors
key
government
employer
interest
achieving
goals
effectively
efficiently
possible
pp
appeals
approach
gives
insufficient
weight
interest
since
force
government
employer
come
factual
conclusions
procedures
substantially
mirror
evidentiary
rules
used
whereas
employment
decisions
frequently
properly
based
hearsay
past
similar
conduct
personal
knowledge
people
credibility
factors
judicial
process
ignores
pp
hand
courts
must
apply
connick
test
facts
employer
thought
without
considering
reasonableness
employer
conclusions
necessary
decisionmaker
reach
conclusion
said
good
faith
rather
pretext
follow
good
faith
alone
sufficient
first
amendment
mt
healthy
city
bd
ed
doyle
pickering
board
ed
township
high
school
distinguished
pp
thus
employment
action
based
employee
supposedly
said
reasonable
supervisor
recognize
substantial
likelihood
actually
said
protected
first
amendment
requires
manager
proceed
care
reasonable
manager
use
making
employment
decision
sort
involved
particular
case
situations
reasonable
employers
disagree
believed
much
investigation
needs
done
much
evidence
needed
come
particular
conclusion
many
different
courses
action
necessarily
reasonable
procedures
outside
range
reasonable
manager
use
may
condemned
unreasonable
pp
page
iii
justice
scalia
joined
justice
kennedy
justice
thomas
concluded
adhere
previously
stated
rule
public
employer
disciplining
employee
violates
first
amendment
retaliation
employee
speech
matter
public
concern
see
pickering
board
ed
township
high
school
add
prohibition
requirement
employer
conduct
investigation
taking
disciplinary
action
plurality
recognition
broad
new
first
amendment
right
investigation
dismissal
speech
unprecedented
unpredictable
application
consequences
light
requirement
pretext
inquiry
also
superfluous
disposition
case
unnecessary
protection
public
employee
speech
matters
public
concern
judicial
inquiry
genuineness
public
employer
asserted
permissible
justification
employment
decision
unprotected
speech
general
insubordination
laziness
necessary
avoid
targeting
public
interest
speech
condemned
pickering
see
mt
healthy
city
bd
churchill
right
dismissed
retaliation
expression
views
matter
public
concern
violated
since
dismissed
another
reason
erroneous
though
may
pp
announced
judgment
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
souter
ginsburg
joined
souter
filed
concurring
opinion
scalia
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
kennedy
thomas
joined
stevens
filed
dissenting
opinion
blackmun
joined
waters
churchill
justice
announced
judgment
delivered
opinion
chief
justice
justice
souter
justice
ginsburg
join
connick
myers
set
forth
test
determining
whether
speech
government
employee
may
consistently
first
amendment
serve
basis
disciplining
discharging
employee
case
decide
whether
connick
test
applied
government
employer
thought
said
trier
fact
ultimately
determines
said
case
arises
conversation
respondent
cheryl
churchill
january
melanie
churchill
nurses
working
mcdonough
district
hospital
churchill
obstetrics
department
considering
transferring
department
conversation
took
place
work
dinner
break
petitioners
heard
fired
churchill
allegedly
however
dispute
churchill
actually
said
therefore
whether
petitioners
constitutionally
permitted
fire
churchill
statements
waters
churchill
conversation
overheard
part
two
nurses
mary
lou
ballew
jean
welty
thomas
koch
clinical
head
obstetrics
days
later
ballew
told
cynthia
waters
churchill
supervisor
incident
according
ballew
churchill
took
kitchen
least
minutes
talk
waters
bad
things
obstetrics
general
ballew
said
churchill
statements
led
longer
interested
switching
department
supplemental
app
shortly
waters
met
ballew
second
time
confirmation
ballew
initial
report
ballew
said
churchill
knocking
department
general
churchill
saying
bad
place
obstetrics
work
ballew
said
heard
churchill
say
waters
trying
find
reasons
fire
ballew
also
said
churchill
described
patient
complaint
waters
supposedly
wrongly
blamed
churchill
waters
together
petitioner
kathleen
davis
hospital
vice
president
nursing
also
met
told
churchill
indeed
said
unkind
inappropriate
negative
things
waters
also
according
churchill
mentioned
negative
evaluation
waters
given
churchill
arose
incident
waters
cited
churchill
insubordinate
remark
ibid
evaluation
stated
churchill
promotes
unpleasant
atmosphere
hinders
constructive
communication
cooperation
exhibits
negative
behavior
towards
waters
waters
leadership
actions
body
language
evaluation
said
churchill
work
otherwise
satisfactory
churchill
allegedly
told
waters
waters
churchill
discussed
evaluation
waters
wanted
wipe
slate
clean
churchill
thought
possible
supplemental
app
churchill
also
allegedly
told
general
things
good
ob
hospital
administration
responsible
churchill
specifically
mentioned
davis
saying
davis
ruining
mdh
ibid
told
waters
knew
waters
davis
tolerate
kind
negativism
ibid
churchill
version
conversation
different
several
months
churchill
concerned
hospital
policy
nurses
one
department
work
another
usual
location
overstaffed
churchill
believed
policy
threatened
patient
care
designed
train
nurses
cover
staff
shortages
complained
davis
waters
according
churchill
conversation
primarily
concerned
policy
churchill
denies
said
ballew
allege
said
admit
criticized
kathy
davis
saying
staffing
policies
threatened
ruin
hospital
seemed
impeding
nursing
care
ibid
claims
actually
defended
waters
encouraged
transfer
obstetrics
ibid
koch
welty
recollections
conversation
match
churchill
davis
waters
however
never
talked
koch
welty
talk
churchill
time
told
fired
moreover
churchill
claims
ballew
biased
churchill
incident
ballew
apparently
made
error
churchill
cover
brief
respondents
waters
churchill
discharged
churchill
filed
internal
grievance
president
hospital
petitioner
stephen
hopper
met
churchill
regard
heard
side
story
app
pet
cert
reviewed
waters
davis
written
reports
conversations
ballew
bernice
magin
hospital
vice
president
human
resources
interview
ballew
one
time
supplemental
app
pp
considering
hopper
rejected
churchill
grievance
churchill
sued
rev
stat
claiming
firing
violated
first
amendment
rights
speech
protected
connick
myers
may
district
central
district
illinois
granted
summary
judgment
petitioners
held
neither
version
conversation
protected
connick
regardless
whose
story
accepted
speech
matter
public
concern
even
matter
public
concern
potential
disruption
nonetheless
stripped
first
amendment
protection
therefore
held
management
fire
churchill
conversation
impunity
app
pet
cert
appeals
seventh
circuit
reversed
held
churchill
speech
viewed
light
favorable
protected
speech
connick
test
matter
public
concern
hospital
alleged
violation
state
nursing
regulations
well
quality
level
nursing
care
provides
patients
disruptive
also
concluded
inquiry
must
turn
speech
actually
employer
waters
churchill
thought
employer
chooses
discharge
employee
without
sufficient
knowledge
protected
speech
result
inadequate
investigation
employee
conduct
held
employer
runs
risk
eventually
required
remedy
wrongdoing
whether
deliberate
accidental
omitted
granted
certiorari
resolve
conflict
among
circuits
issue
compare
decision
atcherson
siebenmann
wulf
wichita
sims
metropolitan
dade
county
ii
dispute
case
speech
government
employee
protected
first
amendment
protected
speech
must
matter
public
concern
employee
interest
expressing
matter
must
outweighed
injury
speech
cause
interest
state
employer
promoting
efficiency
public
services
performs
employees
connick
supra
quoting
pickering
board
ed
township
high
school
also
agreed
task
apply
connick
test
facts
dispute
factual
basis
applying
test
speech
tone
delivered
listener
reactions
see
determined
apply
connick
test
speech
government
employer
found
ask
jury
determine
facts
appeals
held
employer
factual
conclusions
irrelevant
waters
churchill
jury
engage
factfinding
petitioners
argue
employer
factual
conclusions
dispositive
respondents
take
middle
course
suggest
accept
employer
factual
conclusions
conclusions
arrived
reasonably
see
brief
respondents
something
say
happen
agree
important
ensure
substantive
first
amendment
standards
sound
also
applied
reliable
procedures
often
held
procedures
particular
allocation
burden
proof
particular
quantum
proof
particular
type
appellate
review
constitutionally
required
proceedings
may
penalize
protected
speech
see
freedman
maryland
government
must
bear
burden
proving
speech
unprotected
speiser
randall
philadelphia
newspapers
hepps
libel
plaintiff
must
bear
burden
proving
speech
false
masson
new
yorker
magazine
actual
malice
must
proved
clear
convincing
evidence
bose
consumers
union
appellate
must
make
independent
judgment
presence
actual
malice
cases
establish
basic
first
amendment
principle
government
action
based
protected
speech
may
circumstances
violate
first
amendment
even
government
actor
honestly
believes
speech
unprotected
though
justice
scalia
suggests
principle
limited
licensing
schemes
deprivation
freedom
speech
specifically
judicial
process
post
emphasis
original
think
logic
cases
supports
limitation
speech
chilled
punished
waters
churchill
administrative
action
much
judicial
processes
case
asserted
even
implied
contrary
fact
speiser
randall
struck
procedures
grounds
insufficiently
protective
free
speech
involved
administrative
judicial
components
speiser
like
case
dealt
government
decision
deny
speaker
certain
benefits
speiser
tax
exemption
case
government
job
based
speaker
said
holding
depend
deprivation
taking
place
specifically
judicial
process
see
result
different
process
entirely
administrative
judicial
review
sweep
aside
speiser
cases
cited
easily
justice
scalia
proposes
nonetheless
every
procedure
may
safeguard
protected
speech
constitutionally
mandated
true
procedure
adopted
appeals
may
lower
chance
protected
speech
erroneously
punished
speaker
protected
two
opportunities
vindicated
first
employer
investigation
jury
one
procedure
involves
different
mix
administrative
burden
risk
erroneous
punishment
protected
speech
risk
erroneous
exculpation
unprotected
speech
though
first
amendment
creates
strong
presumption
punishing
protected
speech
even
inadvertently
balance
need
always
struck
direction
never
instance
required
proof
beyond
reasonable
doubt
civil
cases
first
amendment
interests
stake
though
requirement
protect
speech
alternative
standards
compare
california
ex
rel
cooper
mitchell
brothers
santa
ana
theater
per
curiam
mckinney
alabama
brennan
concurring
waters
churchill
judgment
part
likewise
possibility
defamation
liability
chill
even
true
speech
led
us
require
actual
malice
standard
libel
cases
dun
bradstreet
greenmoss
builders
plurality
opinion
gertz
robert
welch
possibility
overbroad
regulations
may
chill
commercial
speech
convinced
us
extend
overbreadth
doctrine
commercial
speech
area
bates
state
bar
arizona
never
set
forth
general
test
determine
procedural
safeguard
required
first
amendment
never
set
forth
general
test
determine
constitutes
compelling
state
interest
see
boos
barry
categories
speech
lacking
value
fall
outside
protection
first
amendment
new
york
ferber
many
matters
purport
though
agree
justice
scalia
lack
test
inconvenient
see
post
relieve
us
responsibility
decide
case
us
today
justice
scalia
agree
procedural
requirements
mandated
first
amendment
see
post
none
us
discovered
general
principle
determine
line
drawn
see
post
must
therefore
reconcile
answering
question
basis
least
workable
general
rule
emerges
accordingly
say
today
propriety
proposed
procedure
must
turn
particular
context
question
arises
cost
procedure
relative
magnitude
constitutional
significance
risks
decrease
increase
evaluate
factors
return
issue
dealt
connick
cases
waters
churchill
came
government
role
employer
gives
freer
hand
regulating
speech
employees
regulating
speech
public
large
never
explicitly
answered
question
though
always
assumed
premise
correct
government
employer
indeed
far
broader
powers
government
sovereign
see
pickering
supra
civil
service
letter
carriers
connick
assumption
amply
borne
considering
practical
realities
government
employment
many
situations
believe
observers
agree
government
must
able
restrict
employees
speech
begin
even
many
fundamental
maxims
first
amendment
jurisprudence
reasonably
applied
speech
government
employees
first
amendment
demands
tolerance
verbal
tumult
discord
even
offensive
utterance
necessary
side
effects
process
open
debate
cohen
california
never
expressed
doubt
government
employer
may
bar
employees
using
cohen
offensive
utterance
members
public
people
work
first
amendment
thing
false
idea
gertz
supra
fitting
remedy
evil
counsels
good
ones
whitney
california
brandeis
concurring
employee
counsels
coworkers
job
way
public
employer
disagrees
managers
may
tell
stop
rather
relying
first
amendment
reflects
profound
national
commitment
principle
debate
public
issues
waters
churchill
uninhibited
robust
new
york
times
sullivan
though
private
person
perfectly
free
uninhibitedly
robustly
criticize
state
governor
legislative
program
never
suggested
constitution
bars
governor
firing
deputy
thing
cf
branti
finkel
even
something
close
core
first
amendment
participation
political
campaigns
may
prohibited
government
employees
broadrick
oklahoma
letter
carriers
supra
public
workers
mitchell
government
employee
speech
must
treated
differently
regard
procedural
requirements
well
example
speech
restrictions
must
generally
precisely
define
speech
target
baggett
bullitt
hustler
magazine
falwell
yet
surely
public
employer
may
consistently
first
amendment
prohibit
employees
rude
customers
standard
almost
certainly
vague
applied
public
large
cf
arnett
kennedy
plurality
opinion
upholding
regulation
allowed
discharges
speech
hindered
efficiency
service
powell
concurring
part
concurring
result
part
agreeing
point
likewise
consistently
given
greater
deference
government
predictions
harm
used
justify
restriction
employee
speech
predictions
harm
used
justify
restrictions
speech
public
large
examples
discussed
involve
tangible
present
interference
agency
operation
danger
mostly
speculative
one
make
respectable
argument
political
activity
government
employees
generally
harmful
see
waters
churchill
public
workers
mitchell
supra
high
officials
allow
public
dissent
subordinates
see
connick
supra
brennan
dissenting
whistleblower
protection
act
stat
even
government
workplace
free
market
ideas
superior
command
economy
given
substantial
weight
government
employers
reasonable
predictions
disruption
even
speech
involved
matter
public
concern
even
though
government
acting
sovereign
review
legislative
predictions
harm
considerably
less
deferential
compare
connick
supra
letter
carriers
supra
sable
communications
fcc
texas
johnson
similarly
refrained
intervening
government
employer
decisions
based
speech
entirely
private
concern
doubtless
speech
sometimes
nondisruptive
doubtless
sometimes
value
speakers
listeners
declined
question
government
employers
decisions
matters
connick
supra
course
show
first
amendment
play
role
government
employment
decisions
government
employees
often
best
position
know
ails
agencies
work
public
debate
may
gain
much
informed
opinions
pickering
board
ed
township
high
school
government
employee
like
citizen
may
strong
legitimate
interest
speaking
public
matters
many
situations
government
may
make
substantial
showing
speech
fact
likely
disruptive
may
punished
see
rankin
mcpherson
connick
pickering
supra
moreover
government
may
certainly
choose
give
additional
waters
churchill
protections
employees
beyond
mandated
first
amendment
respect
values
underlying
first
amendment
values
central
social
order
well
legal
system
see
whistleblower
protection
act
supra
examples
show
constitutional
review
government
employment
decisions
must
rest
different
principles
review
speech
restraints
imposed
government
sovereign
restrictions
discussed
allowed
speech
interferes
government
operation
speech
private
people
allow
government
suppress
rather
extra
power
government
area
comes
nature
government
mission
employer
government
agencies
charged
law
particular
tasks
agencies
hire
employees
help
tasks
effectively
efficiently
possible
someone
paid
salary
contribute
agency
effective
operation
begins
say
things
detract
agency
effective
operation
government
employer
must
power
restrain
reason
governor
may
example
given
fire
deputy
dismissal
somehow
narrowly
tailored
compelling
government
interest
governor
governor
staff
job
governor
justifiably
feels
quieter
subordinate
allow
job
effectively
key
first
amendment
analysis
government
employment
decisions
government
interest
achieving
goals
effectively
efficiently
possible
elevated
relatively
subordinate
interest
acts
sovereign
significant
one
acts
employer
government
restrict
speech
public
large
name
efficiency
government
employing
waters
churchill
someone
purpose
effectively
achieving
goals
restrictions
may
well
appropriate
appeals
decision
believe
gives
insufficient
weight
government
interest
efficient
employment
decisionmaking
first
amendment
contexts
need
safeguard
possibly
protected
speech
may
indeed
outweigh
government
efficiency
interests
see
freedman
maryland
speiser
randall
government
acting
employer
efficiency
concerns
discussed
assigned
greater
value
problem
appeals
approach
facts
connick
test
applied
determined
judicial
factfinder
force
government
employer
come
factual
conclusions
procedures
substantially
mirror
evidentiary
rules
used
government
manager
ask
conclusions
experienced
professional
draw
circumstances
rather
conclusions
jury
later
draw
relies
hearsay
knows
accused
employee
character
must
aware
evidence
might
usable
knows
one
party
personal
experience
credible
another
must
realize
jury
share
personal
experience
thinks
alleged
offense
egregious
proper
discipline
accused
employee
even
though
evidence
ambiguous
must
consider
jury
might
decide
way
employers
public
private
often
rely
hearsay
past
similar
conduct
personal
knowledge
people
credibility
factors
waters
churchill
judicial
process
ignores
reliance
may
sometimes
effective
way
employer
avoid
future
recurrences
improper
disruptive
conduct
works
best
judicial
proceeding
may
appropriate
employment
context
one
employee
accuses
another
misconduct
reasonable
government
manager
credit
allegation
consistent
manager
knows
character
accused
likewise
manager
may
legitimately
want
discipline
employee
based
complaints
patrons
employee
rude
even
though
complaints
hearsay
true
practices
involve
risk
erroneously
punishing
protected
speech
government
may
certainly
choose
adopt
practices
law
contract
believe
first
amendment
requires
government
employers
allowed
use
personnel
procedures
differ
evidentiary
rules
used
courts
without
fear
differences
lead
liability
hand
believe
must
apply
connick
test
facts
employer
thought
without
considering
reasonableness
employer
conclusions
even
situations
courts
recognized
special
expertise
special
needs
certain
decisionmakers
deference
conclusions
never
complete
cf
new
jersey
leon
universal
camera
nlrb
necessary
decisionmaker
reach
conclusion
said
good
faith
rather
pretext
follow
good
faith
sufficient
justice
scalia
right
saying
often
held
various
laws
require
inquiry
waters
churchill
decisionmaker
intent
see
post
discussed
supra
part
view
first
amendment
think
employer
decisionmaking
unduly
burdened
courts
look
facts
employer
reasonably
found
may
unreasonable
example
employer
come
conclusion
based
evidence
likewise
may
unreasonable
employer
act
based
extremely
weak
evidence
strong
evidence
clearly
available
instance
employee
accused
writing
improper
letter
editor
instead
reading
letter
employer
decides
said
based
unreliable
hearsay
employment
action
based
employee
supposedly
said
reasonable
supervisor
recognize
substantial
likelihood
actually
said
protected
manager
must
tread
certain
amount
care
need
care
trials
rules
evidence
procedure
conducted
however
care
reasonable
manager
use
making
employment
decision
discharge
suspension
reprimand
whatever
else
sort
involved
particular
case
justice
scalia
correctly
points
care
normally
constitutionally
required
unless
employee
protected
property
interest
job
post
see
also
board
regents
state
colleges
roth
believe
possibility
inadvertently
punishing
someone
exercising
first
amendment
rights
makes
care
necessary
course
often
situations
reasonable
employers
disagree
believed
much
investigation
needs
done
much
evidence
needed
come
particular
conclusion
situations
many
different
courses
waters
churchill
action
necessarily
reasonable
procedures
outside
range
reasonable
manager
use
may
condemned
unreasonable
petitioners
argue
mt
healthy
city
bd
ed
doyle
forecloses
reasonableness
test
holds
instead
first
amendment
violated
unless
defendant
intent
violate
plaintiff
constitutional
rights
brief
petitioners
see
also
post
scalia
dissenting
justice
scalia
makes
similar
argument
based
pickering
connick
perry
alluded
impropriety
management
retaliation
protected
speech
post
cases
employer
assertedly
knew
true
content
employee
protected
speech
fired
employee
part
none
occasion
decide
happen
defendants
hold
erroneous
unreasonable
belief
plaintiff
said
cases
read
foreclosing
argument
never
dealt
tucker
truck
lines
disagree
justice
stevens
contention
test
adopt
provides
less
protection
fundamental
constitutional
right
law
ordinarily
provides
less
important
rights
post
never
held
violation
constitution
government
employer
discharge
employee
based
substantively
incorrect
information
employee
property
interest
job
protection
found
constitution
gives
right
adequate
procedure
government
employee
churchill
apparently
app
pet
cert
generally
claim
based
constitution
waters
churchill
course
employee
may
able
challenge
substantive
accuracy
employer
factual
conclusions
state
contract
law
state
statute
common
law
cause
action
situations
employee
may
even
federal
statutory
claim
see
nlrb
burnup
sims
likewise
state
federal
governments
may
choose
provide
similar
protection
people
fired
speech
protection
mandated
constitution
one
pattern
approach
diverge
broader
protection
normally
given
people
relationship
government
sovereign
see
new
york
times
sullivan
cited
post
reasons
discussed
supra
part
profound
national
commitment
freedom
speech
post
must
necessity
operate
differently
government
acts
employer
rather
sovereign
iii
applying
foregoing
case
clear
petitioners
really
believe
ballew
story
fired
churchill
must
win
belief
based
investigation
conducted
entirely
reasonable
getting
initial
report
ballew
overheard
conversation
waters
davis
approached
interviewed
interviewed
ballew
confirmation
response
churchill
grievance
hopper
met
directly
churchill
hear
side
story
instructed
magin
interview
ballew
one
time
management
spend
much
time
one
employment
decision
end
termination
process
hopper
made
final
decision
word
two
trusted
employees
endorsement
employees
reliability
waters
churchill
three
hospital
managers
benefit
meeting
employee
fired
hand
reasonable
manager
concluded
time
needed
taken
respondents
point
belief
employer
forms
supporting
adverse
personnel
action
reasonable
employer
need
investigate
brief
respondents
connick
test
churchill
speech
reported
ballew
unprotected
even
churchill
criticism
reported
ballew
speech
matter
public
concern
something
need
decide
potential
disruptiveness
speech
reported
enough
outweigh
whatever
first
amendment
value
might
according
ballew
churchill
speech
may
substantially
dampened
interest
working
obstetrics
discouraging
people
coming
work
department
certainly
qualifies
disruption
moreover
perceived
churchill
statements
waters
unkind
inappropriate
told
management
knew
continue
tolerate
kind
negativism
churchill
strong
evidence
churchill
complaining
dealt
threatened
undermine
management
authority
eyes
finally
churchill
statement
reported
possible
wipe
slate
clean
waters
certainly
make
management
doubt
churchill
future
effectiveness
matter
law
potential
disruptiveness
enough
outweigh
whatever
first
amendment
value
speech
might
even
churchill
suggests
davis
waters
eliberately
ndifferent
brief
respondents
possibility
much
rest
conversation
solely
waters
churchill
long
davis
waters
discharged
churchill
part
speech
either
matter
public
concern
matter
public
concern
disruptive
irrelevant
whether
rest
speech
unbeknownst
matter
public
concern
nondisruptive
connick
test
applied
speech
churchill
fired
cf
connick
supra
evaluating
disruptiveness
part
plaintiff
speech
part
upon
matter
public
concern
contributed
plaintiff
discharge
emphasis
added
mt
healthy
supra
employee
makes
unprotected
statement
immunized
discipline
fact
statement
surrounded
protected
statements
nonetheless
agree
appeals
district
erred
granting
summary
judgment
petitioners
favor
though
davis
waters
justified
firing
churchill
statements
outlined
remains
question
whether
churchill
actually
fired
statements
something
else
see
mt
healthy
supra
churchill
produced
enough
evidence
create
material
issue
disputed
fact
petitioners
actual
motivation
churchill
criticized
policy
past
management
exhibited
sensitivity
criticisms
churchill
pointed
conduct
hospital
management
viewed
light
favorable
show
hostile
criticisms
reasonable
factfinder
might
therefore
record
conclude
petitioners
actually
fired
churchill
disruptive
things
said
nondisruptive
statements
thought
may
made
conversation
statements
may
made
earlier
waters
churchill
determine
whether
statements
protected
speech
different
matter
one
us
conclusion
need
determine
whether
defendants
entitled
qualified
immunity
also
need
decide
whether
defendants
acting
pursuant
hospital
policy
custom
question
though
argued
petitioners
merits
brief
presented
petition
certiorari
see
izumi
seimitsu
kogyo
kabushiki
kaisha
philips
per
curiam
rather
vacate
judgment
appeals
remand
case
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
waters
churchill
justice
souter
concurring
join
justice
plurality
opinion
stating
free
speech
clause
public
employer
reasonably
believes
report
employee
engaged
constitutionally
unprotected
speech
may
punish
employee
reliance
report
even
turns
employee
actual
remarks
constitutionally
protected
add
words
emphasize
order
avoid
liability
public
employer
must
reasonably
investigate
report
must
also
actually
believe
plurality
opinion
objectively
reasonable
investigation
fails
convince
employer
employee
actually
engaged
disruptive
otherwise
unprotected
speech
inoculate
employer
constitutional
liability
public
employer
violates
free
speech
clause
invoking
report
penalize
employee
employer
despite
report
reasonable
investigation
believes
genuinely
suspects
employee
speech
protected
entirety
part
employer
purports
rely
taking
disciplinary
action
employer
invokes
waters
churchill
report
merely
pretext
shield
disciplinary
action
taken
protected
speech
employer
believes
genuinely
suspects
employee
uttered
another
time
first
amendment
limitations
public
employers
plurality
explains
must
reflect
balance
public
employer
interest
accomplishing
mission
public
employee
interest
speaking
matters
public
concern
see
ante
employer
penalizes
employee
basis
report
speech
employer
suspected
based
content
report
employer
familiarity
employee
workplace
constitutionally
protected
balance
must
reflect
facts
employees
speech
matters
public
concern
often
said
employees
union
activities
engende
strong
emotions
giv
rise
active
rumors
critically
example
employees
discharged
false
charges
might
deterrent
effect
employees
nlrb
burnup
sims
see
also
rankin
mcpherson
threat
dismissal
public
employment
potent
means
inhibiting
speech
quoting
pickering
board
ed
township
high
school
plurality
opinion
frankly
recognizes
permitting
public
employers
punish
employees
reliance
reports
involve
risk
erroneously
punishing
protected
speech
ante
risk
public
employer
interests
justify
tolerating
plurality
opinion
explains
public
employer
conduct
reasonable
see
ante
employer
really
believe
report
ante
see
also
ante
employer
need
investigate
belief
employer
forms
supporting
adverse
waters
churchill
personnel
action
reasonable
citation
omitted
ante
courts
must
look
facts
employer
reasonably
found
emphasis
omitted
public
employer
really
believe
employee
engaged
disruptive
otherwise
punishable
speech
assert
legitimate
interest
strong
enough
justify
chilling
protected
expression
whether
employer
affirmatively
disbelieved
report
merely
doubted
accuracy
imposing
liability
employer
respects
longstanding
recognition
first
amendment
primary
aim
full
protection
speech
upon
issues
public
concern
well
practical
realities
involved
administration
government
office
connick
myers
accordingly
even
though
petitioners
conducted
objectively
reasonable
investigation
ballew
report
respondent
churchill
conversation
believe
petitioners
dismissal
churchill
violated
free
speech
clause
investigation
doubted
accuracy
report
fired
churchill
speech
portion
speech
genuinely
suspected
nondisruptive
assuming
speech
actually
matter
public
concern
though
plurality
opinion
presentation
argument
open
churchill
remand
churchill
course
rely
establish
despite
reasonable
investigation
petitioners
believed
churchill
said
nothing
disruptive
conversation
believed
churchill
made
waters
churchill
nondisruptive
remarks
fired
remarks
fired
nondisruptive
comments
knew
made
earlier
assuming
case
speech
issue
matter
public
concern
ii
though
justice
opinion
speaks
four
members
reasonableness
test
sets
clearly
one
lower
courts
apply
majority
agrees
employers
whose
conduct
survives
plurality
reasonableness
test
held
constitutionally
liable
assuming
absence
pretext
see
ante
plurality
opinion
post
scalia
concurring
judgment
majority
though
different
one
view
employers
whose
conduct
fails
plurality
reasonableness
test
violated
free
speech
clause
see
ante
plurality
opinion
post
stevens
dissenting
see
also
post
stevens
dissenting
justice
appropriately
rejects
justice
scalia
position
least
instances
employer
unreasonably
believes
incorrect
report
concerning
speech
fact
protected
disciplines
employee
based
upon
misunderstanding
course
agree
justice
discipline
circumstances
violates
first
amendment
accordingly
plurality
opinion
may
taken
state
holding
see
marks
discussing
book
named
john
cleland
memoirs
woman
pleasure
attorney
general
addition
also
risk
chilling
protected
expression
public
employer
must
believe
discipline
chosen
appropriate
excessive
response
employee
speech
reported
understand
respondents
case
raise
claim
discharge
pretextual
respect
waters
churchill
justice
scalia
justice
kennedy
justice
thomas
join
concurring
judgment
central
issue
case
whether
shall
adhere
previously
stated
rule
public
employer
disciplining
employee
violates
speech
press
clause
first
amendment
retaliation
employee
speech
matter
public
concern
justice
add
prohibition
requirement
employer
conduct
investigation
taking
disciplinary
action
certain
circumstances
recognition
broad
new
first
amendment
procedural
right
view
unprecedented
superfluous
decision
present
case
unnecessary
protection
public
employee
speech
matters
public
concern
unpredictable
application
consequences
doubt
first
amendment
contains
within
procedural
prescriptions
circumstances
freedom
speech
recognized
constitution
consisted
right
speak
unless
certain
procedures
prevent
speech
first
waters
churchill
complied
thus
example
quarrel
principle
though
inquired
historical
justification
decisions
freedman
maryland
established
administrative
judicial
review
provisions
film
licensing
process
must
contain
order
avoid
constituting
unconstitutional
prior
restraint
see
patterson
colorado
ex
rel
attorney
general
colorado
holmes
however
circumspect
acknowledging
procedural
components
first
amendment
almost
cases
justice
cites
exemplars
elaborations
upon
limitation
defamation
suits
first
announced
new
york
times
sullivan
see
bose
consumers
union
philadelphia
newspapers
hepps
masson
new
yorker
magazine
cases
deal
alleged
governmental
deprivation
freedom
speech
specifically
judicial
process
context
procedures
necessarily
central
discussion
speiser
randall
also
involved
judicial
prejudicial
adjudicative
process
holding
state
tax
deduction
denied
reason
advocacy
overthrow
government
state
unlawful
means
placing
burden
disproving
reason
upon
taxpayer
moreover
although
existence
first
amendment
right
central
reasoning
decision
squarely
rested
due
process
clause
see
waters
churchill
first
amendment
see
last
case
cited
justice
freedman
supra
described
earlier
prior
restraint
case
review
requirement
procedures
expected
today
opinion
justice
previous
parsimony
abandoned
favor
general
principle
important
ensure
substantive
first
amendment
standards
sound
also
applied
reliable
procedures
ante
although
assured
every
procedure
may
safeguard
protected
speech
constitutionally
mandated
implication
assurance
many
never
informed
tell
mandated
procedures
nonmandated
ones
except
clue
procedure
involves
different
mix
administrative
burden
risk
erroneous
punishment
protected
speech
risk
erroneous
exculpation
unprotected
speech
ibid
proposed
right
investigation
dismissal
speech
expands
concept
first
amendment
procedure
brand
new
areas
brings
disharmony
cases
involving
government
employment
decided
due
process
clause
justice
acknowledges
see
ante
cases
hold
public
employees
like
churchill
lack
protected
property
interest
jobs
entitled
sort
hearing
dismissal
see
board
regents
state
colleges
roth
employees
dismissed
impunity
insofar
federal
constitutional
protections
concerned
reason
accurate
incompetent
guilty
unexcused
absences
stolen
money
faculty
honor
bar
indeed
reason
justice
opinion
waters
churchill
reason
happens
given
reason
relates
speech
substantial
likelihood
actually
said
protected
whatever
means
ante
investigation
assure
speech
sort
protected
first
amendment
must
conducted
presumably
dismissal
still
proceed
even
speech
employer
thought
long
speech
issue
public
importance
present
case
example
requisite
first
amendment
investigation
disclosed
nurse
churchill
demeaning
superiors
complaining
perennial
slump
chicago
cubs
dismissal
erroneous
perfectly
ok
strange
jurisprudence
indeed
reason
strange
justice
effect
converted
government
employer
first
amendment
liability
respect
public
concern
speech
liability
intentional
wrong
liability
mere
negligence
proposes
bottom
new
procedural
protections
established
first
amendment
rights
rather
new
first
amendment
rights
pickering
board
ed
township
high
school
require
protection
public
concern
speech
merely
forbid
hostility
speech
essential
pickering
said
public
employees
able
speak
freely
questions
without
fear
retaliatory
dismissal
emphasis
added
see
also
connick
myers
critical
inquiry
factfinder
cases
whether
employment
decision
fact
made
retaliation
exercise
constitutional
right
free
speech
perry
sindermann
category
employee
speech
certainly
retaliated
waters
churchill
less
subject
mistaken
disciplinable
infraction
category
speech
conduct
ii
creation
procedural
first
amendment
rights
case
remarkable
unnecessary
disposition
matter
imposing
new
duty
upon
government
employers
justice
opinion
concludes
satisfied
anyway
investigation
conducted
hospital
entirely
reasonable
ante
make
creation
new
duty
doubly
irrelevant
finds
case
must
remanded
anyway
pretext
inquiry
whether
petitioners
actually
fired
churchill
disruptive
things
said
nondisruptive
statements
thought
may
made
conversation
statements
may
made
earlier
ante
see
also
ante
souter
concurring
surely
offends
doctrine
constitutional
questions
need
addressed
avoided
requirement
pretext
inquiry
think
renders
creation
new
first
amendment
right
investigation
superfluous
disposition
present
case
superfluous
protection
previously
established
speech
rights
justice
makes
attempt
justify
right
investigation
historical
grounds
quite
unheard
entire
asserted
basis
pragmatic
functional
without
government
employee
right
fired
speech
protected
availability
pretext
inquiry
disproves
argument
judicial
inquiry
genuineness
public
employer
asserted
permissible
waters
churchill
justification
employment
decision
unprotected
speech
general
insubordination
laziness
necessary
avoid
targeting
public
interest
speech
condemned
pickering
cases
hitherto
considered
sort
inquiry
protection
needed
mt
healthy
city
bd
ed
doyle
involved
arguably
weaker
case
public
employer
present
one
mixed
motive
disciplinary
action
employer
admitted
public
concern
speech
part
reason
discharge
asserted
valid
reasons
event
sufficient
deciding
case
found
need
invent
procedural
requirements
simply
directed
district
determine
whether
board
shown
preponderance
evidence
reached
decision
respondent
mployment
even
absence
protected
conduct
objective
said
protec
invasion
constitutional
rights
without
commanding
undesirable
consequences
necessary
assurance
rights
ibid
considers
pretext
analysis
sufficient
many
areas
see
eastman
kodak
image
technical
services
antitrust
laws
hernandez
new
york
plurality
opinion
constitutionality
peremptory
challenges
patterson
mclean
credit
union
employment
discrimination
suit
new
york
burger
fourth
amendment
challenge
administrative
searches
nlrb
unfair
labor
practice
suit
national
labor
relations
act
geduldig
aiello
equal
protection
clause
claim
waters
churchill
legislation
mcdonnell
douglas
green
discrimination
claim
title
vii
considers
pretext
analysis
sufficient
first
amendment
contexts
example
renton
playtime
theatres
holding
zoning
laws
restricting
location
movie
theaters
violate
first
amendment
unless
pretext
preventing
free
speech
think
necessary
prescribe
reasonable
procedures
zoning
commissions
across
nation
left
factfinders
determine
whether
zoning
regulations
prompted
legitimate
improper
factors
see
also
arcara
cloud
books
concurring
reason
approach
suffice
justice
stevens
believes
pretext
review
inadequate
since
provides
less
protection
fundamental
constitutional
right
law
ordinarily
provides
less
exalted
rights
rdinarily
contends
someone
acts
another
person
detriment
based
upon
factual
judgment
actor
assumes
risk
impartial
adjudicator
may
come
different
conclusion
post
true
contractual
realms
extent
contract
provides
right
whose
elimination
constitutes
legal
detriment
employee
dismissable
fired
basis
erroneous
factual
judgment
legal
recourse
happened
churchill
also
noncontractual
right
right
dismissed
even
government
job
retaliation
expression
views
matter
public
concern
right
violated
since
dismissed
another
reason
erroneous
though
may
issue
us
nothing
according
deprivation
right
ordinary
degree
protection
waters
churchill
expanding
protection
accorded
government
employee
public
interest
speech
protection
retaliation
protection
retaliation
mistake
iii
approach
case
adopted
justice
opinion
provides
questions
answers
subjecting
public
employers
intolerable
legal
uncertainty
despite
difficulties
courts
already
encounter
distinguishing
protected
unprotected
speech
see
miller
california
determining
whether
speech
pertains
matter
public
concern
compare
steeves
cert
denied
gillum
city
kerrville
cert
denied
justice
creates
yet
another
puzzlement
government
employers
judges
juries
must
struggle
solve
new
constitutional
duty
provide
certain
minimum
procedural
protections
triggered
employment
action
based
employee
supposedly
said
reasonable
supervisor
recognize
substantial
likelihood
actually
said
protected
ante
reasonable
supervisor
base
judgment
whether
substantial
likelihood
actually
said
protected
base
upon
report
said
seemingly
since
otherwise
justice
found
minimum
procedural
protection
investigation
required
present
case
report
churchill
conversation
gave
hint
protected
speech
remains
entirely
unclear
employer
judgment
must
based
waters
churchill
avoid
liability
better
assume
must
based
actually
said
means
better
investigate
incident
order
determine
whether
obligation
investigate
incident
hopefully
wrong
however
despite
today
holding
basis
judging
whether
investigation
required
solely
report
public
employer
figure
hypothetical
reasonable
supervisor
infer
actual
speech
report
determine
whether
constructed
actual
speech
substantial
likelihood
matter
public
concern
may
employer
least
assume
investigation
required
report
mention
speech
liable
recommended
basis
discipline
example
disrupting
workplace
substantial
likelihood
involving
speech
substantial
likelihood
subject
public
concern
suppose
ultimately
jury
answer
nice
questions
come
think
perhaps
judge
justice
specify
whether
question
law
fact
justice
employer
decisionmaking
unduly
burdened
courts
look
facts
employer
reasonably
found
ante
emphasis
original
explains
subsequent
course
events
employer
investigation
found
reasonable
jury
decides
whether
facts
found
employer
speech
matter
public
concern
whether
employer
reliance
report
pretextual
happens
employer
investigation
found
unreasonable
presume
established
violation
procedural
component
first
amendment
failure
treat
possibly
protected
speech
waters
churchill
requisite
amount
care
without
regard
whether
employee
speech
fact
matter
public
concern
justice
reveal
remedy
violation
various
possibilities
one
say
discharge
without
observance
constitutionally
requisite
procedures
invalid
must
set
aside
unless
procedures
complied
alternatively
one
charge
employer
failed
conduct
reasonable
investigation
knowledge
protected
speech
jury
later
finds
producing
sort
constructive
retaliatory
discharge
entitling
employee
full
reinstatement
damages
alternatively
jury
required
determine
information
reasonable
investigation
turned
decide
whether
permissible
employer
fire
employee
based
information
numerous
questions
left
unanswered
justice
opinion
loose
ends
inevitable
consequence
judicial
invention
spend
decades
trying
improvise
limits
new
first
amendment
procedure
unmentioned
text
unformed
tradition
seems
clear
game
worth
candle
given
adequacy
pretext
analysis
protect
constitutional
interest
stake
moreover
remedy
context
remand
readjudication
pursuant
proper
procedures
present
context
contrast
remedy
clear
see
post
waters
churchill
justice
stevens
justice
blackmun
joins
dissenting
free
country
every
american
right
express
opinion
issues
public
significance
private
sector
course
exercise
right
may
entail
unpleasant
consequences
absent
contractual
statutory
provision
limiting
prerogatives
private
sector
employer
may
discipline
fire
employees
speaking
minds
first
amendment
however
demands
government
respect
employees
freedom
express
opinions
issues
public
importance
long
expression
unduly
disruptive
simply
may
provide
basis
discipline
termination
critical
issues
case
kind
whether
speech
protected
whether
basis
sanction
imposed
employee
applying
standards
case
us
quite
straightforward
everyone
agrees
respondent
cheryl
churchill
fired
said
conversation
coworkers
dinner
break
given
posture
case
comes
us
must
assume
churchill
statements
fully
waters
churchill
protected
first
amendment
nevertheless
plurality
concludes
dismissal
speech
valid
matter
law
long
public
employer
reasonably
believed
employee
speech
unprotected
see
ante
conclusion
erroneous
provides
less
protection
fundamental
constitutional
right
law
ordinarily
provides
less
exalted
rights
including
contractual
statutory
rights
applicable
private
sector
example
hospital
employee
contract
providing
retain
job
year
followed
employer
rules
competent
work
employee
fired
supervisor
reasonably
mistakenly
believed
late
work
given
patient
wrong
medicine
ordinarily
someone
acts
another
person
detriment
based
upon
factual
judgment
actor
assumes
risk
impartial
adjudicator
may
come
different
conclusion
legal
system
generally
delegates
waters
churchill
determination
facts
upon
important
rights
depend
neutral
factfinders
notwithstanding
attendant
risks
error
overdeterrence
federal
constitutional
rights
merit
least
normal
degree
protection
doubts
concerning
ability
juries
find
truth
ability
usually
high
regard
resolved
favor
protection
first
amendment
rights
see
new
york
times
sullivan
unfortunately
plurality
underestimates
importance
freedom
speech
million
civilian
employees
country
federal
state
local
governments
subordinates
freedom
abstract
interest
bureaucratic
efficiency
need
governmental
efficiency
concerns
plurality
amply
protected
substantive
limits
public
employees
rights
expression
see
generally
connick
myers
pickering
board
ed
township
high
school
efficiency
demand
additional
layer
deference
employers
reasonable
factual
errors
today
ruling
surely
deter
speech
fully
protected
pickering
connick
plurality
correctly
points
never
decided
whether
governing
version
facts
public
employment
free
speech
cases
government
waters
churchill
employer
thought
said
trier
fact
ultimately
determines
said
ante
clear
latter
must
controlling
first
amendment
assures
public
employees
may
express
views
issues
public
concern
without
fear
discipline
termination
long
appropriate
manner
appropriate
time
place
violation
occurs
waters
churchill
public
employee
fired
uttering
speech
matter
public
concern
unduly
disruptive
operations
relevant
agency
violation
vanish
merely
firing
based
upon
reasonable
mistake
employee
said
first
amendment
claimant
need
allege
bad
faith
controlling
question
regularity
agency
investigative
procedures
purity
motives
whether
employee
freedom
speech
abridged
risk
jury
may
ultimately
view
facts
differently
even
conscientious
employer
plurality
needless
fetter
public
employers
ability
discharge
duties
normal
means
legal
system
protects
legal
rights
encourages
authority
act
care
example
attention
conclusions
jury
later
draw
ante
content
churchill
speech
might
caused
petitioners
talk
churchill
said
deciding
fire
nothing
unfair
onerous
putting
risk
error
employer
circumstances
waters
churchill
government
agencies
often
site
sharp
differences
wide
range
important
public
issues
offices
first
amendment
commands
respect
candid
deliberation
individual
opinion
disagreements
inevitable
desirable
work
together
disagree
reports
speech
often
skewed
supervisors
apt
misconstrue
even
accurate
reports
plurality
observing
managers
spend
much
time
one
employment
decision
ante
adopts
rule
invites
discipline
rather
discussion
disputes
arise
rule
unwise
deliberation
within
government
like
deliberation
essential
part
profound
national
commitment
freedom
speech
cf
new
york
times
proper
regard
principle
requires
firing
public
employee
speech
management
get
facts
straight
affirm
judgment
appeals
footnotes
nlrb
burnup
sims
two
employee
labor
organizers
fired
based
upon
report
threatened
dynamite
employer
plant
coming
representation
election
unsuccessful
national
labor
relations
board
found
employees
never
made
threatening
statements
although
recognized
employer
acted
good
faith
held
discharge
plainly
violated
waters
churchill
organizers
right
national
labor
relations
act
union
activity
observed
often
engenders
strong
emotions
gives
rise
active
rumors
protected
activity
acquires
precarious
status
innocent
employees
discharged
engaging
even
though
employer
acts
good
faith
plurality
explain
first
amendment
rights
receive
lesser
protection
statutory
right
issue
burnup
sims
see
dept
commerce
statistical
abstract
table
ed
figure
justice
scalia
recharacterize
employees
right
free
speech
modest
protection
retaliatory
discharges
protection
extend
terminated
speech
fully
protected
incorrectly
reported
support
cites
restrictive
theory
three
prior
public
employment
speech
opinions
used
word
retaliation
see
ante
citing
connick
meyers
perry
sindermann
pickering
board
education
use
word
cases
justice
scalia
cites
however
resolve
present
question
since
none
decisions
involved
factual
dispute
content
employee
speech
importantly
passages
two
opinions
support
view
causal
connection
employee
speech
discharge
retaliation
must
shown
see
perry
nonrenewal
teacher
conduct
may
predicated
exercise
first
fourteenth
amendment
rights
ibid
teacher
public
criticism
superiors
matters
public
concern
may
constitutionally
protected
may
therefore
impermissible
basis
termination
employment
pickering
sum
teacher
exercise
right
speak
issues
public
importance
may
furnish
basis
dismissal
public
precedent
certainly
command
justice
scalia
approach
nothing
first
amendment
recommends
rule
makes
ignorance
mistake
complete
defense
discharge
based
fully
protected
speech
justice
appropriately
rejects
position
least
instances
employer
unreasonably
believes
incorrect
report
concerning
speech
fact
protected
disciplines
employee
based
upon
misunderstanding
course
agree
justice
discipline
circumstances
violates
first
amendment
reasonableness
public
employer
mistake
course
bear
whether
employer
liable
damages
see
butz
economou
federal
officials
liable
mere
mistakes
judgment
whether
mistake
one
fact
one
law
wrong
however
constrict
substantive
reach
public
employee
right
free
speech
response
remedial
considerations
see
ante
government
employers
use
reasonable
procedures
free
act
without
fear
liability
emphasis
added
dispute
churchill
fired
content
speech
case
involve
problem
determining
whether
public
employee
terminated
anyway
reasons
unrelated
speech
see
mount
healthy
city
bd
ed
doyle
page