Render v. Crews

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that district court erred in ruling that employee’s speech was not protected because it was “tangentially related to his official duties” when the relevant question is whether the speech “was made pursuant to [the employee’s] employment duties”
• explaining that the plaintiff failed to state a claim because he failed to allege that the named official had any knowledge of the retaliatory action
• instructing that to maintain a First Amendment Free Speech retaliation claim, there must be a causal connection between the adverse action and protected speech
• reaffirming that an “individual motivated by a personal grievance can simultaneously speak on a matter affecting the public at large”
• noting that “the presence or lack of a civilian analogue may be of some help in determining whether one spoke as a citizen”
• explaining that “[t]he critical question [to determine whether a public employee is speaking as a citizen] is whether the speech at issue is itself ordinarily within the scope of an employee’s duties”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).