Clairmont v. Sound Mental Health

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that if speech meets the public concern test, it is protected “irrespective of the motivation behind the speech in question”
• holding that \speech exposing policies that put people in jeopardy\ is a matter of public interest
• holding that whether an employer “would have reached the same adverse employment decision even in the absence of the employee’s protected conduct” is “purely a question of fact” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)
• holding, on similar facts, that the evidence supported a finding that the plaintiffs subpoenaed testimony was spoken as a private citizen
• holding that whether an employer “would have reached the same adverse employment decision even in the absence of the employee’s protected conduct” is “purely a question of fact” (brackets, citations, and internal quotation marks omitted)
• explaining that plaintiff must allege that “protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in [an] adverse employment action”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).