Print
The 5–4 decision, handed down May 30, threw out a lawsuit from Los Angeles deputy district attorney Richard Ceballos who said he was denied a promotion and transferred to a job farther from his home after raising questions about police conduct in a pending criminal case and writing internal memos that said as much.
Observers say that because the decision interprets the First Amendment, it applies to the gamut of public institutions, including government agencies, public hospitals and public schools and colleges.
To express its condemnation of the High Court’s ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos, the council passed a resolution holding that “free speech based on content and context of that speech and not job description must be protected.”
The resolution says that the court’s decision “does a disservice to all American citizens who depend on quality essential government services” by discouraging public employees from blowing the whistle on waste and abuse in the workplace.
The ruling has drawn widespread criticism, generating countless editorials in newspapers across the country.
“Blow the whistle! Court gets ruling wrong,” read a Chicago Sun-Times headline. “Public workers, check your conscience at the door,” read a headline in Idaho’s Lewiston Morning Tribune. “No free speech on public payroll,” read The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s headline.
The U.S. Senate expressed its disagreement with the court’s ruling June 23. By unanimous consent an amendment strengthening whistleblower protections for federal employees was accepted to the fiscal year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) offered the legislation.
“It’s unacceptable for the courts to add another deterrence to federal whistleblowing,” said Sen. Akaka.
Sen. Collins explained that the amendment “reverses the steady erosion of whistleblower protections caused by employment practices that circumvent current protections and adverse court decisions.” She added: “We must ensure that federal employees can continue to come forward and disclose instances of official or departmental misconduct without fear of retaliation.”
Among the Akaka-Collins bill’s provisions is language to restore congressional intent that employees are protected for “any” disclosure of waste, fraud or abuse.
As AFT members in all divisions know, the Supreme Court’s decisions can have direct effects on the work lives of public employees.
Within the last decade, the court has dealt with such diverse issues as fair labor practices for state employees; the rights of public employees under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act; copyright protections for state and higher education employees; and the use of public money in private schools.
Because appointments are made by sitting U.S. presidents, it adds a dimension to the AFT’s consideration of all presidential candidates and will certainly be a factor in the 2008 presidential race.
Seven justices have been appointed by Republican presidents. They are: John Paul Stevens, who was appointed by President Gerald Ford; Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, both appointed by President Ronald Reagan; David Souter and Clarence Thomas, both appointed by President George H.W. Bush; and chief justice John Roberts Jr., and Samuel Alito Jr., both appointed by President George W. Bush.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer were appointed by President Bill Clinton.
The majority opinion in Garcetti v. Ceballos was written by Justice Kennedy. He was joined in the decision by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito.
Because the Supreme Court reversed the appeals court ruling and developed a new standard for analyzing First Amendment claims that involve speech made by a public employee during the course of his or her duties, the case will be returned to the appeals court, according to AFT general counsel David Strom.
“Now, the Court of Appeals has to apply that standard to the facts before it and decide whether Ceballos’ speech was made within the scope of his duties,” Strom says.
