Defining Free Speech Protections for Public Employees

• Author: Stephen L. Wasby,Stefanie A. Lindquist
• DOI: 10.1177/0734371X0202200104
• Published date: 01 March 2002
• Date: 01 March 2002
• Subject Matter: Articles

REVIEWOFPUBLICPERSONNELADMINISTRATION / Spring 2002

Lindquist,Wasby/LEGALBRIEF

Defining Free Speech Protections

for Public Employees

STEFANIE A. LINDQUIST

University of Georgia

STEPHEN L. WASBY

State University of New York at Albany

Agovernment employee is discharged, purportedly for poor perfor-

mance, but shortly after making a statement on a controversial topic or a

“whistle-blowing” report about misconduct within the employee’s agency.

Agency officials insist that the employee’s statements had nothing to do with

the discharge or claim that the employee’s actions disrupted the workplace,

thus undermining governmental efficiency. Believing it was the discomfort

the speech caused within the agency that led to his termination, the employee

sues for improper termination under a “whistle-blowerprotection” statute1or

for violation of his First Amendment rights of free speech.

Most such cases involve instances in which the employee has made state-

ments in public, either to the media or in settings where the statements

become widely disseminated. The federal judge deciding the case often

rejects the employee’s free speech claim, finding that the employee did not

speak on a matter of “public concern,” that the discharge was not made in

retaliation for the employee’s speech, or that the employee’s interests in free

expression are outweighed by the government’s interest in agency morale

and an efficient workplace.

It is therefore particularly interesting to encounter a case in which the

court upholds the employee’s right to free speech even when the statements

at issue are not made for public consumption but rather stem from internal

reports prepared by the employee as part of his job requirements.Baldassare

v. New Jersey (2001) is such a case. As an investigator for a county prosecu-

tor,Baldassare was directed to investigate potential criminal misconduct by

police officers in connection with a “car scam” involving the purchase at

below-market prices of cars previously leased to the county. Baldassare rec-

63

LEGAL BRIEF

Review of Public Personnel Administration,Vol. 22, No. 1 Spring 2002 63-66

© 2002 Sage Publications

at SAGE Publications on December 8, 2012rop.sagepub.comDownloaded from