High Court Kills Whistleblower Protection

jillian

Princess
Apr 4, 2006
85,728
18,114
2,220
The Other Side of Paradise
High court trims whistleblower rights By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

Tue May 30, 5:54 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court scaled back protections for government workers who blow the whistle on official misconduct Tuesday, a 5-4 decision in which new Justice Samuel Alito cast the deciding vote.

In a victory for the Bush administration, justices said the 20 million public employees do not have free-speech protections for what they say as part of their jobs.

Critics predicted the impact would be sweeping, from silencing police officers who fear retribution for reporting department corruption, to subduing federal employees who want to reveal problems with government hurricane preparedness or terrorist-related security.

Supporters said that it will protect governments from lawsuits filed by disgruntled workers pretending to be legitimate whistleblowers.

The ruling was perhaps the clearest sign yet of the Supreme Court's shift with the departure of moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the arrival of Alito.

A year ago, O'Connor authored a 5-4 decision that encouraged whistleblowers to report sex discrimination in schools. The current case was argued in October but not resolved before her retirement in late January.

A new argument session was held in March with Alito on the bench. He joined the court's other conservatives in Tuesday's decision, which split along traditional conservative-liberal lines.

Exposing government misconduct is important, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. "We reject, however, the notion that the First Amendment shields from discipline the expressions employees make pursuant to their professional duties," Kennedy said.

The ruling overturned an appeals court decision that said Los Angeles County prosecutor Richard Ceballos was constitutionally protected when he wrote a memo questioning whether a county sheriff's deputy had lied in a search warrant affidavit. Ceballos had filed a lawsuit claiming he was demoted and denied a promotion for trying to expose the lie.

Kennedy said if the superiors thought the memo was inflammatory, they had the authority to punish him.

"Official communications have official consequences, creating a need for substantive consistency and clarity. Supervisors must ensure that their employees' official communications are accurate, demonstrate sound judgment, and promote the employer's mission," Kennedy wrote.

Stephen Kohn, chairman of the National Whistleblower Center, said: "The ruling is a victory for every crooked politician in the United States."

Justice David H. Souter's lengthy dissent sounded like it might have been the majority opinion if O'Connor were still on the court. "Private and public interests in addressing official wrongdoing and threats to health and safety can outweigh the government's stake in the efficient implementation of policy," he wrote.

Souter was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Stephen Breyer also supported Ceballos, but on different grounds.

The ruling upheld the position of the Bush administration, which had joined the district attorney's office in opposing absolute free-speech rights for whistleblowers. President Bush's two nominees, Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, signed onto Kennedy's opinion but did not write separately.

"It's a very frightening signal of dark times ahead," said Tom Devine, legal director for the Government Accountability Project.

Employment attorney Dan Westman said that Kennedy's ruling frees government managers to make necessary personnel actions, like negative performance reviews or demotions, without fear of frivolous lawsuits.

Ceballos said in a telephone interview that "it puts your average government employee in one heck of a predicament ... I think government employees will be more inclined to keep quiet."

Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley said in a statement that the ruling "allows public employers to conduct the people's business without undue disruption and without turning routine personnel decisions into federal cases."

The court's decision immediately prompted calls for Congress to strengthen protections for workers.

Kennedy said that government workers "retain the prospect of constitutional protection for their contributions to the civic discourse." They do not, Kennedy said, have "a right to perform their jobs however they see fit."

The case is Garcetti v. Ceballos, 04-473.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060530/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_free_speech_8
 
Jillian, other than the fact that you posted this, do you have any personal commentary? Opinion?
 
Kathianne said:
Jillian, other than the fact that you posted this, do you have any personal commentary? Opinion?

I thought the thread title said my opinion. ;)

Was more interested in seeing what others think about it. I'll jump in. :cheers2:

What do you think of it? You're up on this stuff.
 
jillian said:
I thought the thread title said my opinion. ;)

Was more interested in seeing what others think about it. I'll jump in. :cheers2:

What do you think of it? You're up on this stuff.
I'll wait for you. Your thread title was a fact, what's your opinion?
 
Kathianne said:
I'll wait for you. Your thread title was a fact, what's your opinion?

My opinion is that they just made it so no one will want to speak out when they see something wrong going on and that if they can be "disciplined" then their right to speak doesn't exist and there's no longer a public policy of encouraging people to speak out.
 
jillian said:
My opinion is that they just made it so no one will want to speak out when they see something wrong going on and that if they can be "disciplined" then their right to speak doesn't exist and there's no longer a public policy of encouraging people to speak out.

I read this in the morning, Chicago Tribune. I thought then and think now that we'd have to establish the threshold of the memo writer. It seems to me that what the SCOTUS was saying is that before one writes a memo, they better know what the heck they are speaking of. The simple act of 'whistle blowing', is not to be defined by the blower?
 
Kathianne said:
I read this in the morning, Chicago Tribune. I thought then and think now that we'd have to establish the threshold of the memo writer. It seems to me that what the SCOTUS was saying is that before one writes a memo, they better know what the heck they are speaking of. The simple act of 'whistle blowing', is not to be defined by the blower?

Whistle blowing HAS to be defined by the whistleblower. The employer certainly isn't going to give them the go-ahead for speaking out. I agree with Souter's dissent. There has to be a balance.
 
jillian said:
Whistle blowing HAS to be defined by the whistleblower. The employer certainly isn't going to give them the go-ahead for speaking out. I agree with Souter's dissent. There has to be a balance.
Wrong. You are my boss. You think I'm not pulling my weight. I write a memo saying XXX, where is the due process?

The simple act of whistle blowing, does not fact make.
 
Kathianne said:
Wrong. You are my boss. You think I'm not pulling my weight. I write a memo saying XXX, where is the due process?

The simple act of whistle blowing, does not fact make.

Well, four of the Justices agreed with me, so I'd say I'm in good company. :)

It wouldn't be the boss writing the memo. It would be the underling reporting his boss' misconduct or misfeasance of some type since an underling wouldn't have the power to retaliate against his employer.

The facts as laid out in the Court's Decision:

*1 Respondent Ceballos, a supervising deputy district attorney, was asked by defense counsel to review a case in which, counsel claimed, the affidavit police used to obtain a critical search warrant was inaccurate. Concluding after the review that the affidavit made serious misrepresentations, Ceballos relayed his findings to his supervisors, petitioners here, and followed up with a disposition memorandum recommending dismissal. Petitioners nevertheless proceeded with the prosecution. At a hearing on a defense motion to challenge the warrant, Ceballos recounted his observations about the affidavit, but the trial court rejected the challenge. Claiming that petitioners then retaliated against him for his memo in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, Ceballos filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. The District Court granted petitioners summary judgment, ruling, inter alia, that the memo was not protected speech because Ceballos wrote it pursuant to his employment duties. Reversing, the Ninth Circuit held that the memo's allegations were protected under the First Amendment analysis in Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811, and Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708.
Held: When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline. Pp. ---- - ----5-14.
 
jillian said:
High court trims whistleblower rights By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

Tue May 30, 5:54 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court scaled back protections for government workers who blow the whistle on official misconduct Tuesday, a 5-4 decision in which new Justice Samuel Alito cast the deciding vote.

In a victory for the Bush administration, justices said the 20 million public employees do not have free-speech protections for what they say as part of their jobs.

Critics predicted the impact would be sweeping, from silencing police officers who fear retribution for reporting department corruption, to subduing federal employees who want to reveal problems with government hurricane preparedness or terrorist-related security.

Supporters said that it will protect governments from lawsuits filed by disgruntled workers pretending to be legitimate whistleblowers.

The ruling was perhaps the clearest sign yet of the Supreme Court's shift with the departure of moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the arrival of Alito.

A year ago, O'Connor authored a 5-4 decision that encouraged whistleblowers to report sex discrimination in schools. The current case was argued in October but not resolved before her retirement in late January.

A new argument session was held in March with Alito on the bench. He joined the court's other conservatives in Tuesday's decision, which split along traditional conservative-liberal lines.

Exposing government misconduct is important, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. "We reject, however, the notion that the First Amendment shields from discipline the expressions employees make pursuant to their professional duties," Kennedy said.

The ruling overturned an appeals court decision that said Los Angeles County prosecutor Richard Ceballos was constitutionally protected when he wrote a memo questioning whether a county sheriff's deputy had lied in a search warrant affidavit. Ceballos had filed a lawsuit claiming he was demoted and denied a promotion for trying to expose the lie.

Kennedy said if the superiors thought the memo was inflammatory, they had the authority to punish him.

"Official communications have official consequences, creating a need for substantive consistency and clarity. Supervisors must ensure that their employees' official communications are accurate, demonstrate sound judgment, and promote the employer's mission," Kennedy wrote.

Stephen Kohn, chairman of the National Whistleblower Center, said: "The ruling is a victory for every crooked politician in the United States."

Justice David H. Souter's lengthy dissent sounded like it might have been the majority opinion if O'Connor were still on the court. "Private and public interests in addressing official wrongdoing and threats to health and safety can outweigh the government's stake in the efficient implementation of policy," he wrote.

Souter was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Stephen Breyer also supported Ceballos, but on different grounds.

The ruling upheld the position of the Bush administration, which had joined the district attorney's office in opposing absolute free-speech rights for whistleblowers. President Bush's two nominees, Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, signed onto Kennedy's opinion but did not write separately.

"It's a very frightening signal of dark times ahead," said Tom Devine, legal director for the Government Accountability Project.

Employment attorney Dan Westman said that Kennedy's ruling frees government managers to make necessary personnel actions, like negative performance reviews or demotions, without fear of frivolous lawsuits.

Ceballos said in a telephone interview that "it puts your average government employee in one heck of a predicament ... I think government employees will be more inclined to keep quiet."

Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley said in a statement that the ruling "allows public employers to conduct the people's business without undue disruption and without turning routine personnel decisions into federal cases."

The court's decision immediately prompted calls for Congress to strengthen protections for workers.

Kennedy said that government workers "retain the prospect of constitutional protection for their contributions to the civic discourse." They do not, Kennedy said, have "a right to perform their jobs however they see fit."

The case is Garcetti v. Ceballos, 04-473.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060530/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_free_speech_8

Not a good day to be a stool pigeon.
 
jillian said:
Well, four of the Justices agreed with me, so I'd say I'm in good company. :)

It wouldn't be the boss writing the memo. It would be the underling reporting his boss' misconduct or misfeasance of some type since an underling wouldn't have the power to retaliate against his employer.

The facts as laid out in the Court's Decision:
Hello counselor, I wrote that!
 
jillian said:
Sometimes they're pretty necessary, no?

Can be. At the same time, the accused must be afforded the same protections as if it were the cops coming after, no?
 
I think it is all in the way in which you interpret the spirit of which it was written. If the decision is written in the spirit in which Kathianne thinks it is, no problem. If it is written in the spirit in which Jillian think it is, huge warning signs...
 
Dr Grump said:
I think it is all in the way in which you interpret the spirit of which it was written. If the decision is written in the spirit in which Kathianne thinks it is, no problem. If it is written in the spirit in which Jillian think it is, huge warning signs...
OMG, someone help! If Grump says what I think he says, I'll have to rep! AAAAArrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggg
 

Forum List

Back
Top