Davis v. McKinney

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that audit manager’s letter discussing concerns about the inadequate response of her employer to her internal investigation was not protected speech under Garcetti
• holding that plaintiff did not complain to EEOC or FBI pursuant to official duties
• concluding that a plaintiff’s speech that “ha[d] nothing to do with her job function” was made as a citizen
• holding that speech within “the chain of . . . reporting responsibilities” was made as an employee and thus unprotected
• holding that statements to “external, unrelated entities” were protected where it was “not within [employee’s] job function to communicate with outside police authorities” and such communications had not happened in the past
• holding that statements to “external, unrelated entities” were protected where it was “not within [employee’s] job function to communicate with outside police authorities” and such communications had not happened in the past

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).