Talking Drugs: The Burdens of Proof in Post-Garcetti Speech Retaliation Claims

Hudson, Thomas E., Washington Law Review

Abstract: Law Enforcement agencies fire their employees for speaking out in favor of drug legalization, which leads the employees to sue their former employers for violating their First Amendment Free Speech rights. These employee claims fall under the U.S. Supreme Court's complex speech retaliation test, most recently articulated in Garcetti v. Ceballos. The analysis reveals that circuit courts are inconsistent as to who bears the burden of proving that they prevail under "Pickering balancing," and how they should construct that burden. This Comment argues that U.S. Supreme Court precedent demands that the employer bears the "Pickering balancing" burden, and that the Court should require …

Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Article title: Talking Drugs: The Burdens of Proof in Post-Garcetti Speech Retaliation Claims. Contributors: Hudson, Thomas E. - Author. Journal title: Washington Law Review. Volume: 87. Issue: 3 Publication date: October 2012. Page number: 777+. © 2007 Washington Law Review Association. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All Rights Reserved.

This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.