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

By Hudson, Thomas E. | Washington Law Review, October 2012 | Go to article overview

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 employers to meet their burden with clear and convincing evidence. Further, when applying the speech retaliation test to law enforcement employees criticizing the war on drugs, the Court should rule that it constitutes speech as a "citizen on a matter of public concern," and should abandon the quasimilitary rule when engaging in "Pickering balancing."

INTRODUCTION

"[Legalization of drugs would end the drag war and related violence in Mexico."1 Following his statement, Bryan Gonzalez's employer - the United States Custom and Border Patrol - fired him for the content of his speech.2 Gonzalez's case is not unique - state and federal employers alike have fired employees for verbally opposing the drug war.3 Similarly, public employers have fired employees for associating with Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), an organization that supports legalizing marijuana and ending the drug war.4

These new cases highlight a doctrine that the U.S. Supreme Court created in Picking v. Board of Education? That doctrine grants public employees the right to sue government employers for termination in violation of the First Amendment if their termination is based on speech made as "a citizen on a matter of public concern."6 Over time, the Court has complicated the speech retaliation test developed in Pickering (speech retaliation test) by splitting it into three prongs of ever increasing detail.7 The Court's creation and modification of these three prongs have greatly narrowed the situations in which employees can prevail on a speech retaliation suit.8

A court engages in a three-prong test when assessing an employee's speech retaliation claim for comments about the war on drugs. The employee must prevail on each of the three separate prongs to win a speech retaliation suit. The first prong requires a court to ascertain whether or not the speech is made as a citizen on a matter of public concern.9 If the employee proves that he or she prevails on this first prong, a court will subject the claim to the second prong, which the Court refers10 to as "Pickering balancing."11 This balancing analysis requires a court to determine whether the employee's interest in speaking outweighs the employer's interest in efficiently running a law enforcement agency.12 Finally, where a court finds that the employee prevails on both the first and second prongs, a court will engage in a third prong, requiring it to determine whether the speech actually caused the employee's termination.13

While the first and third prongs of the speech retaliation test have clearly established burdens of proof, the second prong - Pickering balancing - does not. The courts have failed to reach a consensus regarding which party has the burden of proof. In fact, the courts have failed even to define the burden.

Pickering balancing's lack of clarity in regards to its burden leads to unpredictable and overabundant litigation because the employers' and employees' rights are not clearly delineated. The lack of clarity will lead to costly litigation, as courts struggle to conduct an unclear balance of the employer and employee interests. Clarifying the balancing's burden of proof will not only streamline litigation, but will also help prevent employees from being fired for offensive speech by more effectively informing employers and employees as to their rights and responsibilities. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

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

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.