Charles Daniel Lindsey v. City of Orrick, Missouri, Shirley Taylor

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that prior cases holding that a public employer cannot fire an employee for disclosing potentially illegal conduct by public officials put an employer on notice that it could not fire an employee after speaking out on City’s perceived violation of open meeting laws
• holding that prior cases holding that a public employer cannot fire an employee for disclosing potentially illegal conduct by public officials put an employer on notice that it could not fire an employee after speaking out on City's perceived violation of open meeting laws
• explaining that the “as a citizen” question is a “separate inquir[y]” from the “matter of public concern” question
• finding that the Pickering balancing test is not triggered where there is no evidence that the speech at issue caused disruption
• holding that prior cases holding that a public employer cannot fire an employee for disclosing potentially illegal conduct by public officials put an employer on notice that it could not fire an employee after speaking out on City's perceived violation of open meeting laws
• proceeding to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis after determining that, under the Pickering/Connick test, the employee had successfully asserted a constitutional violation under the first step

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).