Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an anti-harassment policy, despite using general language, “sufficiently define[d] a range of inappropriate conduct which a reasonable employee would understand to satisfy due process and convey adequate warning that [the action] would result in discipline.”
• noting that it is constitutionally permissible for the government to require that its employees not “be 25 rude”
• determining an employer need not establish actual disruption when the threat of future disruption is \obvious\ and \clear\
• finding a policy not to “engage in harassment on the basis of race, sex, religion, color, age, disability, national origin or sexual orientation” is not unconstitutionally vague
• upholding Pickering balancing in favor of the employer given the potential for speech to “disrupt the operation of the Department by degrading the Department’s standing with the public, undermining [the chiefs] authority and inciting disharmony within Department ranks”
• upholding Pickering balancing in favor of the employer given the potential for speech to “disrupt the operation of the Department by degrading the Department’s standing with the public, undermining [the chief’s] authority and inciting disharmony within Department ranks”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).