461 U.S. 138, 103 S. Ct. 1684, 75 L. Ed. 2d 708 (1983)
Sheila Myers worked as an Assistant District Attorney in the New Orleans office under District Attorney Harry Connick for approximately five and a half years.1 In early October 1980, Myers was informed she would be transferred to prosecute cases in a different section of the criminal court.2 She strongly opposed the transfer and expressed her objections to several supervisors including Connick.3
On October 6, 1980, Myers received formal notice of the transfer.4 Later that day she discussed her concerns with First Assistant District Attorney Dennis Waldron.5 That night Myers prepared a questionnaire soliciting the views of fellow Assistant District Attorneys on office transfer policy, office morale, the need for a grievance committee, the level of confidence in supervisors, and whether employees felt pressured to work in political campaigns.6
The next morning, she typed and copied the questionnaire.7 She then distributed it to fifteen Assistant District Attorneys.8 Connick learned of the distribution shortly after noon on October 7.9 He returned to the office, informed Myers she was being terminated for refusing the transfer, and stated that distributing the questionnaire constituted insubordination.10
Myers filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the termination violated her First Amendment rights.11 The District Court found the questionnaire was the real reason for discharge, submitted the motivating-factor question to a jury which answered in Myers' favor, and ordered reinstatement with backpay.12 The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.13
Whether a public employee's questionnaire distributed to coworkers addresses a matter of public concern protected by the First Amendment?14
When a public employee speaks not as a citizen upon matters of public concern, but instead as an employee upon matters only of personal interest, absent the most unusual circumstances, a federal court is not the appropriate forum in which to review the wisdom of a personnel decision taken by a public agency allegedly in reaction to the employee's behavior.15 The First Amendment does not require a public office to be run as a roundtable for employee complaints over internal office affairs.16 Whether an employee's speech addresses a matter of public concern must be determined by the content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record.17
No. Myers' questionnaire touched upon matters of public concern in only one question asking whether employees felt pressured to work in political campaigns.18 The remaining questions concerning office transfer policy, office morale, the need for a grievance committee, and the level of confidence in supervisors involved matters of internal office policy that were extensions of Myers' personal dispute over her transfer.19 These questions did not seek to inform the public that the District Attorney's Office was not discharging its governmental responsibilities or bring to light any actual or potential wrongdoing on the part of Connick.20
With the exception of one question, the questionnaire did not address matters of public concern, and the District Court therefore erred in submitting the free speech issue to the jury without distinguishing among the questions.21
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Marshall
The Court misapplies Pickering by concluding that the questionnaire as a whole does not involve matters of public concern simply because most questions dealt with internal office policy.22 The proper approach is to examine each question separately.23 The question relating to pressure to work in political campaigns clearly addresses a matter of public concern that was the primary focus of the questionnaire and the one that most offended Connick.24
The fact that only one question touched upon a matter of public concern does not render the entire questionnaire unprotected.25
The Court's holding that speech on a matter of public concern is not protected if combined with speech on internal office matters represents a significant departure from Pickering.26 The question in the questionnaire relating to pressure to work in political campaigns clearly addresses a matter of public concern.27 The District Court properly submitted to the jury whether this question was a motivating factor in the discharge.28
This holding will have a chilling effect on the exercise of free speech by public employees.29
Whether the District Court erred in submitting to the jury the question of whether the questionnaire was a motivating factor in the employee's discharge?30
If an employee's speech cannot be fairly characterized as constituting speech on a matter of public concern, it is unnecessary to scrutinize the reasons for her discharge.31 Government officials enjoy wide latitude in managing their offices without intrusive oversight by the judiciary in the name of the First Amendment.32
Yes. Because the questionnaire addressed matters of public concern in only one limited respect, the District Court erred by treating the entire questionnaire as protected speech.33 It submitted the motivating-factor question to the jury without first determining which portions of the questionnaire qualified for First Amendment protection under Pickering.34
The District Court erred in submitting the motivating-factor question to the jury without distinguishing the single protected question from the unprotected internal-office questions.35
Whether the District Court erred by failing to determine whether the employer reasonably believed the questionnaire would disrupt office operations and undermine authority?36
The Pickering balance requires full consideration of the government's interest in the effective and efficient fulfillment of its responsibilities to the public.37 This includes the prerogative to remove employees whose conduct hinders efficient operation.38 A wide degree of deference to the employer's judgment is appropriate when close working relationships are essential to fulfilling public responsibilities.39
Yes. The District Court failed to determine whether the questionnaire was of such character that Connick reasonably believed it would disrupt the office and undermine his authority.40 The questionnaire was prepared and distributed at the office.41 It required other employees to leave their work to complete it.42 It emerged immediately after a persistent dispute over the transfer policy that Connick viewed as an act of insubordination creating a mini-insurrection.43
The District Court erred by not making the required finding on whether the questionnaire could reasonably have been expected to interfere with the operation of the office.44
Whether the employer must be given an opportunity to show that the same employment decision would have been reached even absent the protected conduct?45
Even if the plaintiff in a section 1983 suit succeeds in showing that protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the employment decision, the employer should have the opportunity to show that it would have reached the same decision even in the absence of the protected conduct.46
Yes. If on remand the District Court finds that the questionnaire could reasonably have been expected to interfere with office operations, it must also determine whether the questionnaire was a substantial or motivating factor in Myers' discharge.47 Even if it was, Connick must be given the opportunity to show that he would have reached the same decision even in the absence of the protected conduct.48
Connick must be afforded the opportunity on remand to demonstrate that the same employment decision would have been reached even absent the protected conduct.49