Connick v. Myers

Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees who speak on matters of possible public concern within the workplace context. It was first brought by Sheila Myers, an Orleans Parish, Louisiana , assistant district attorney (ADA). She had been fired by her superior, District Attorney Harry Connick Sr. , when, after receiving a transfer she had fiercely resisted in private conversations with him and his chief assistant district attorney, she distributed a questionnaire to her fellow prosecutors asking about their experience with Connick's management practices. At trial, Judge Jack Gordon of the Eastern District of Louisiana found the firing had been motivated by the questionnaire and was thus an infringement on her right to speak out on matters of public concern as a public employee. After the Fifth Circuit affirmed the verdict, Connick appealed to the Supreme Court.

The justices reversed the lower courts by a 5–4 margin. Justice Byron White wrote for the majority that most of the matters Myers's questionnaire had touched on were of personal, not public, concern and that the action had damaged the harmonious relations necessary for the efficient operation of the district attorney's office. William Brennan argued in dissent that the majority's application of precedent was flawed. He argued that all the matters in the questionnaire were of public concern, and feared a chilling effect on speech by public employees about such matters would result.

The case was the first in a line considering the right of public employees to speak contemporaneously with their employment that had started with _Pickering v. Board of Education _ (1968) fifteen years earlier in which the Court sided with the employee. It introduced the test of whether the employee's speech had been on matters of public concern to the balancing of employer and employee interest prescribed in the earlier case. The two would guide the Court's interpretation of later cases such as _Rankin v. McPherson _ (1987). In the 1990s and 2000s, _Waters v. Churchill _ (1994) and _Garcetti v. Ceballos _ (2006), the latter with some similarities to the circumstances of Connick, would further clarify the Court's holding.

Contents

• 1 Underlying dispute

• 2 Litigation

• 3 Before the Court

• 4 Decision

  • 4.1 Majority opinion

  • 4.2 Dissent

• 5 Aftermath

• 6 Subsequent jurisprudence

  • 6.1 Rankin v. McPherson

  • 6.2 Waters v. Churchill

  • 6.3 San Diego v. Roe

  • 6.4 Garcetti v. Ceballos

  • 6.5 Application to Fourth Amendment rights of public employees

• 7 Analysis and commentary

• 8 See also

• 9 Notes

• 10 References

• 11 External links

Underlying dispute

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Connick_v._Myers&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Underlying dispute")

By 1980, Myers had been an assistant district attorney for more than five years. She had been an effective trial attorney who had turned down promotions to remain in the courtroom. She had also participated in programs at law schools in the New Orleans area and participated in programs sponsored by Connick's office. A judge had also persuaded her to take part in a probation program for juvenile first offenders he ran.

In October of that year, Myers was told she would be transferred to the section run by that judge. She enjoyed the position she was in at the time, in another judge's section, and feared that if she were transferred she would have to recuse herself from cases where she had counseled defendants in the program. She expressed these concerns to Dennis Waldron, the chief assistant district attorney, and Bridget Bane, the head of training for the office.

She raised these concerns again in another meeting with Waldron and Connick about another subject. The next morning she received the formal memorandum making the transfer. At another meeting with Waldron, she repeated her unhappiness and broadened her concerns to include other issues in the office she was concerned about. She said Waldron told her that those concerns were not shared, to which she responded that she would research that.

That night she was unable to sleep . She instead prepared a questionnaire about her concerns for distribution to her coworkers. Early the next morning, she made 40 copies. Connick came in, canceling a day off, to discuss the transfer with her again. She told him she would "consider" the transfer.

At lunch she distributed the questionnaire to 17 other assistant district attorneys personally. Most accepted them. Waldron learned what was happening and called Connick about a "mini-insurrection" taking place. Connick was particularly disturbed by questions about whether respondents felt confident in Waldron, Bane and other supervisors, and about whether ADAs felt pressured to work on his political campaigns, feeling it would be damaging if it got into the media. He called Myers into his office and told her she was fired, effective at the end of the day. She continued to come in for another three days, putting her files and case notes in order.

Litigation

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Connick_v._Myers&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Litigation")

Shortly after her dismissal, Myers filed a Section 1983 suit in federal court for the Eastern District of Louisiana , against Connick both personally and in his official capacity. She alleged violation of her First Amendment rights and sought back pay, reinstatement and compensatory and punitive damages . At first she sought a preliminary injunction , but Judge Jack Gordon converted it to a trial on the merits. It was held before him two months after the firing. Myers argued that she had been fired for distributing the questionnaire; Connick claimed it was a matter of her insubordination in refusing to accept the transfer.

Myers and Connick's attorneys, George Strickler and William Wessel respectively, would represent their clients throughout the case. Wessel was himself a former assistant district attorney, and had in that capacity been the first to interview Myers when she had applied to Connick's office. He shared his former superior's positive assessment of her prosecutorial skills.

In February 1981 Gordon issued his decision. After recounting the facts of the case, he found for Myers. "The preponderance of the evidence in this case," he wrote," indicates that the plaintiff was fired by the defendant because of her circulation of the questionnaire within the District Attorney's Office." He noted in support that another ADA testified that she had been preparing f

…