Westmoreland v. Sutherland

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that it is not “necessary for the entire expression to address matters of public concern, as long as some portion of the speech does” (citation omitted)
• holding that an off-duty firefighter was not speaking pursuant to his official duties when he spoke to city council members about funding for safety equipment and training for the fire department
• finding that plaintiff spoke as a private citizen where, even though “[he] identified himself as a public employee, he appeared off duty, out of uniform, and at a public meeting . . . during the public comment period”
• treating protected nature of speech as question of law where there was no factual dispute regarding what was said
• treating protected nature of speech as question of law where there was no factual dispute regarding what was said
• “Nothing in the record supports the claim that plaintiff’s expression was made pursuant to a task that was within the scope of his official duties.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).