United States Supreme Court Clarifies Public Employee Petition Clause Protections

Posted on August 30, 2011 by Adam Santucci

This post was contributed by James Welch, a Summer Associate with McNees Wallace and Nurick LLC. Mr. Welch will begin his third year of law school at William & Mary School of Law in the fall, and he expects to earn his J.D. in May 2012.

In Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 113 S.Ct. 2488 (2011) (PDF), the United States Supreme Court clarified that, although the Petition Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides public employees separate and distinct protections, those protections are essentially the same as those afforded by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.  This is good news for public sector employers, who already face a slew of additional concerns in the area of employee discipline. 

The Petition Clause has been trendy for public employees lately, but its contours have been somewhat unclear.  Generally, the Petition Clause protects the rights of individuals to petition the government to seek redress of grievances.  The courts have held that this provision protects public employees who file grievances against their employers.  In other words, public employers are prohibited from retaliating against an employee who has filed a grievance or other complaint. 

However, like other protections afforded to employees, there are limits to the protections afforded by the Petition Clause.  The issue in Guarnieri was, what types of grievances/complaints are protected? 

The Court held that the protections afforded by the Petition Clause are the same as those afforded by the Free Speech Clause.  Generally, the Free Speech Clause protects public employees who speak as citizens on matters of public concern, unless the speech infringes on the governmental employer's operations.  In Guarnieri, the Court clarified that, under both the Petition Clause and the Free Speech Clause, complaints about merely personal issues are not shielded from discipline.  Essentially, public employees are not protected when they advance merely personal issues, including grievances that related to personal matters. 

This decision was good news for employers, because even though it may be difficult to determine whether a particular complaint is protected, the Court declined to adopt a more expansive view of the protections afforded by the Petition Clause.  The decision allows public employers to rely on the rules they already know when evaluating the protections afforded to public employees by the First Amendment. 

The Guarnieri decision is also a good reminder to public employers to review policies that may implicate employees' constitutional rights, such as social media policies, to ensure compliance. 
Tags: , , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

Public Employers Beware: The Other Religious Discrimination Claim

Posted on January 17, 2010 by Adam Santucci

As a public employer, your actions are considered the actions of the government or the “state.” This dual persona brings with it additional obligations and challenges that private employers do not face. Some of these obligations include the requirement to provide due process rights to employees, and the challenges include a seemingly endless variety of lawsuits that your employees may bring against you. Lawsuits unique to public sector employers include unreasonable search and seizure challenges, including e-mail and text message based challenges, free speech challenges, and alleged violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from endorsing any particular religion and, in fact, endorsing religion at all. In a recent case involving the Establishment Clause, Milwaukee Deputy Sheriffs' Association v. Clarke, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found that a county sheriff violated the Establishment Clause by having a Christian organization deliver a faith-based presentation to employees at mandatory meetings. The court concluded that the Sheriff, by introducing the Christian group and allowing them to speak at mandatory employee meetings, either endorsed the group or at the very least, gave the appearance of endorsing the group. This endorsement constituted a violation of the Establishment Clause, and the Sheriff’s Department was ordered to cease and desist from further violations and was also required to pay over $38,000 in fees and costs.

While it may seem like an easy decision for most savvy Human Resource practitioners to avoid supporting one religion over another in the workplace, this is something that still occurs outside of the watchful eye of HR. It is true that Milwaukee Deputy Sheriffs' Association is an extreme case, but it is still a good reminder that as a public employer, you must avoid showing preference toward one religion over another. Because this message does not always trickle down to all supervisors and managers, the facts of this case serve as a good reminder to briefly discuss at your next executive staff meeting or supervisor and manager training session.
 

Tags: , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link