in Re Todd Hatter, Relator

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the fact that supervisor’s employee was perceived to be involved in mayoral campaign did not bar employee’s claim for First Amendment retaliation
• holding that “the government’s reason” for its action “is what counts” when assessing whether the action constitutes retaliation
• holding that an em- ployee may sue for First Amendment retaliation even if the employee didn’t in fact engage in protected speech
• holding that a public employer violates the First Amendment when it retaliates against an employee under the mistaken belief that the employee was engaging in protected political activity
• noting that the underlying right in a § 1983 suit tracks the text of the Constitution
• holding that an employee could challenge an employer’s retaliation for protected First Amendment conduct even if that retaliation was based on the employer’s factual mistake about the employee’s behavior

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).