Supreme Court Limits First Amendment Rights For Public Employees

While yesterday's Wal-Mart decision is getting all the press, the U.S. Supreme Court issued another decision yesterday that will have broad impact on public employees.  In Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, the Supreme Court limited public employees' First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

The facts are straightforward.  Charles Guarnieri filed a grievance when he was terminated from his position as Chief of Police in Duryea, Pennsylvania.  He was ordered reinstated, and the borough council later issued directives instructing him how to perform his duties. He filed a second grievance, and an arbitrator ordered that some of the directives be modified or withdrawn.  Guarnieri then filed suit, claiming than the directives were issued in retaliation for the filing of his first grievance, and violated his First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  Guarnieri won at trial, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a public employee who has petitioned the government through a formal mechanism such as the filing of a lawsuit or grievance is protected under the Petition Clause from retaliation for that activity, even if the petition concerns a matter of solely private concern.

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a government employee is not protected by the petition clause unless the petition relates to a matter of public concern.  In doing so, the Court applied the same limitations it previously had applied to the First Amendment's Speech Clause to the Petition Clause.  The Court dismissed the fact that most governmental petitions are of a private nature, because, in their view, "Petitions, no less than speech, can interfere with the efficient and effective operation of government."

While this case does make the law consistent when it comes to public employees attempting to exercise their rights under the First Amendment, it is consistently wrong.  This case continues the line of jurisprudence that effectively gags public employees.  These cases allow government officials to retaliate against public employees under circumstances that clearly would be illegal when applied to private citizens.  In my view, the First Amendment is the foundation of our rights as a free people, and should be interpreted broadly, and apply equally to all.

Connecticut Outlaws Gender Identity Discrimination

Along with the landmark paid sick leave law discussed yesterday, the Connecticut General Assembly also has outlawed discrimination based upon gender identity or expression. 

House Bill 6599, passed on June 4, makes it illegal to discriminate based upon a person's "gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth."  The prohibition is comprehensive, applying not just to employment, but also to housing, state contracts, higher education, library services, utility services, automobile insurance, trade, public accommodations, credit, state services and golf club memberships.  This enormous step forward in LGBT rights, which Governor Malloy intends to sign, will take effect on October 1, 2011.  The employment provisions are extremely broad, as they apply to every employer in Connecticut with at least three employees.


I can't tell you how gratifying it is that my home state is working to swing the pendulum back towards protecting the rights of human beings, instead of corporate "persons."

Connecticut Becomes First State To Require Paid Sick Leave (For Some Workers)

Hallelujah!  My home state, Connecticut, has just passed the first law in the country requiring employers to offer paid sick leave.  Governor Malloy has already said he will sign the bill into law.

The law requires employers to provide one hour of paid sick leave for each 40 hours worked, up to a maximum of 40 hours (5 full days) per year.  Employees are allowed to carry over up to 40 unused hours per year.  Employees can begin using the sick leave after they have worked 680 hours (17 full weeks).  Paid sick leave can be used for the employee's health condition, including treatment or preventive care, or the health condition of a child, parent or spouse.  Special provisions of the law apply to victims of domestic violence.

The law is not perfect.  It does not apply to all employers; only those with 50 or more employees are covered.  In addition, manufacturing companies and nationally chartered nonprofit organizations are exempted from coverage.  The law also does not apply to all employees.  Only hourly workers, not salaried, are covered.  In additions, day laborers, temporary workers, part-time and adjunct faculty at state colleges and independent contractors are excluded.

Still, this is a great start.  Once this law goes into effect, the dire predictions of its opponents will be shown to be nothing but hot air.  At that point, we may be able to expand it to cover salaried workers, smaller employers, manufacturers, etc.  And once that happens, lets hope the good example of Connecticut will lead other states to do the same.