First Amendment Commons^™

Innocent Beware: On Religion Clause Jurisprudence And The Negligent Retention Or Hiring Of Clergy, Mark Strasser

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Pro-Whistleblower Reform In The Post-Garcetti Era, Julian W. Kleinbrodt

Michigan Law Review

Whistleblowers who expose government ineptitude, inefficiency, and corruption are valuable assets to a well-functioning democracy. Until recently, the Connick–Pickering test governed public employee speech law; it gave First Amendment protection to government employees who spoke on matters of public concern—-such as whistleblowers-—so long as the government’s administrative concerns did not outweigh the employees’ free speech interests. The Supreme Court significantly curtailed the protection of such speech in its recent case, Garcetti v. Ceballos. This case created a categorical threshold requirement that afforded no protection to speech made as an employee rather than as a citizen. Garcetti’s problematic rule has forced …

Unemployment Insurance And The Religion Clauses Of The United States Constitution, David J. Agatstein

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Exclusion Of The Press: Herald Company Inc. V. Weisenberg, N.Y. Supreme Court Appellate Division -- First Department

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Consider The Source: A Note On Public-Sector Union Expenditure Restrictions Upheld In Davenport V. Washington Education Association, Daniel A. Himebaugh

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

When Public Employees Speak Out On Issues Of Public Concern: The Applicability Of Pickering In Garcetti V. Ceballos, Jayne Chen

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

"Speak, Go Ahead, Speak, Speak": Chamber Of Commerce V. Brown's Effect On Employment Speech Regarding Unionization , Lauren Kadish

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

This case note examines the analysis of the Supreme Court's holding in Chamber of Commerce. v. Brown and the effect the decision will have on the rights of employers to engage in noncoercive speech regarding unionization. Part II discusses the historical lineage of employer free speech guaranteed under the NLRA. Part III denotes the relevant facts and procedural history of the case and issues presented to the Supreme Court. Part IV analyzes both the majority and dissenting opinions regarding NLRA preemption over state regulations prohibiting the expenditure of state funds by employers to deter union organization. Finally, Part V considers …

Policeman, Citizen, Or Both? A Civilian Analogue Exception To Garcetti V. Ceballos, Caroline A. Flynn

Michigan Law Review

The First Amendment prohibits the government from leveraging its employment relationship with a public employee in order to silence the employee's speech. But the Supreme Court dramatically curtailed this right in Garcetti v. Ceballos by installing a categorical bar: if the public employee spoke "pursuant to her official duties," her First Amendment retaliation claim cannot proceed. Garcetti requires the employee to show that she was speaking entirely "as a citizen" and not at all "as an employee." But this is a false dichotomy - especially because the value of the employee's speech to the public is no less if she …

A New Standard Of Review In Free Exercise Cases: Thomas V. Review Board Of The Indiana Employment & Security Division, Lynn Mccutchen Gardner

Pepperdine Law Review

In Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, the United States Supreme Court was called upon to clarify the appropriate level of review to be applied in cases which examine the first amendment right to free exercise of religion. The Court ruled that the "compelling state interest" test is the proper standard to be used. The Court also accorded first amendment protection to beliefs which are not shared by other members of a religious group and which are instead the unique interpretation of an individual member and not acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others.

N.L.R.B. Campaign Propaganda: A Call For Congressional Reform, Susan Gardner

Pepperdine Law Review

With its decision in Midland National Life Insurance Company, the National Labor Relations Board no longer probes into the truth or falsity of statements made during he course of preelection campaigns. The decision marks the third policy reversal in regulating campaign propaganda during the last five years. Of concern to employers and unions is the uncertainty of Board resolutions in this area, particularly when each policy reversal was preceded immediately by Presidential appointments to the Board. This article traces the shifting Board policy of regulating campaign misrepresentations and calls for Congressional intervention to stabilize the preelection process.

Blame It On Catholic Bishop: The Question Of Nlrb Jurisdiction Over Religious Colleges And Universities, Susan J. Stabile

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Baring Inequality: Revisiting The Legalization Debate Through The Lens Of Strippers' Rights, Sheerine Alemzadeh

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

The debate over legalization of prostitution has fractured the feminist legal community for over a quarter century. Pro-legalization advocates promote the benefits attending government regulation of prostitution, including the ability to better prosecute sex crimes, increase public health and educational resources for individuals in the commercial sex trade, and apply labor and safety regulations to the commercial sex industry in the same manner as they are applied to other businesses. Some anti-legalization advocates identify themselves as "new abolitionists," and argue that government recognition of prostitution reinforces gender inequality. Often, this debate is framed in the hypothetical: What would happen if …

Compelled Investigatory And Testimonial Speech: An Overdue Clarification Of The Public Employee Speech Doctrine That Rehabilitates "All Of The Values At Stake", Molly K. Smith

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Sins Of Hosanna-Tabor, Leslie C. Griffin

Scholarly Works

The Supreme Court has lost sight of individual religious freedom. In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, the Court for the first time recognized the ministerial exception, a court-created doctrine that holds that the First Amendment requires the dismissal of many employment discrimination cases against religious employers. The Court ruled unanimously that Cheryl Perich, an elementary school teacher who was fired after she tried to return to school from disability leave, could not pursue an antidiscrimination lawsuit against her employer.

This Article criticizes Hosanna-Tabor as a profound misinterpretation of the First Amendment. The Court mistakenly protected religious institutions' …

@Socialmedia: Speech With A Click Of A Button? #Socialsharingbuttons, Alicia D. Sklan

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

"Riding With The Cops And Cheering For The Robbers:" Employee Speech, Doctrinal Cubbyholes, And The Duty Of Loyalty, Marvin F. Hill Jr., James A. Wright

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Talking Drugs: The Burden Of Proof In Post-Garcetti Speech Retaliation Claims, Thomas E. Hudson

Washington Law Review

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 …

First Amendment Protection For Union Appeals To Consumers, Michael C. Harper

Faculty Scholarship

This article explains why decisions of the National Labor Relations Board under President Obama holding non-picketing secondary appeals to consumers not to be illegal under the National Labor Relations Act were necessary under a 1988 decision of the Supreme Court, Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Construction Trades Council. The article also explains why both the Supreme Court decision and the Board’s recent decisions were compelled by the first amendment and could not be based on the language of § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act as interpreted by the Court in other cases. The …

Electronic Privacy And Employee Speech, Pauline T. Kim

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The boundary between work and private life is blurring as a result of changes in the organization of work and advances in technology. Current privacy law is ill-equipped to address these changes and as a result, employees' privacy in their electronic communications is only weakly protected from employer scrutiny. At the same time, the law increasingly protects certain socially valued forms of employee speech. In particular, collective speech, speech that enforces workplace regulations and speech that deters or reports employer wrong-doing are explicitly protected by law from employer reprisals. These two developments—weak protection of employee privacy and increased protection for …

Lutheran And Yet Not Lutheran: A Church School Tests The Dilemma Of Church And State, Marie Failinger

Faculty Scholarship

A small Lutheran church school dispute became a nationally debated case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and v. EEOC, decided by the Supreme Court on 11 January 2012. At the heart of the Supreme Court case was a controversy over the so-called "ministerial exception" to federal anti-discrimination statutes such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Until the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Hosanna-Tabor, finding that Cheryl Perich was not a minister within the exception, all circuit courts to rule on the issue had recognized a ministerial exception in order …

Employee 2.0, Pranay Samdani

Student Works

No abstract provided.

Beyond The Water Cooler: Speech And The Workplace In An Era Of Social Media, Ann C. Mcginley

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Citizens, United And Citizens United: The Future Of Labor Speech Rights?, Charlotte Garden

Faculty Articles

Within hours of its announcement, the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC came under attack from progressive groups. Among these groups were some of America's largest labor unions-even though the decision applies equally to unions and for-profit corporations. The reason is clear: there exist both practical and structural impediments that will prevent unions from benefitting from Citizens United to the same extent as corporations. Therefore, Citizens United stands to unleash a torrent of corporate electioneering that could drown out the countervailing voice of organized labor.

This article, however, takes a broader view of Citizens United to explore a …

Electronic Privacy And Employee Speech, Pauline Kim

Scholarship@WashULaw

The boundary between work and private life is blurring as a result of changes in the organization of work and advances in technology. Current privacy law is ill-equipped to address these changes and as a result, employees’ privacy in their electronic communications is only weakly protected from employer scrutiny. At the same time, the law increasingly protects certain socially valued forms of employee speech. In particular, collective speech, speech that enforces workplace regulations and speech that deters or reports employer wrong-doing are explicitly protected by law from employer reprisals. These two developments — weak protection of employee privacy and increased …

Neoformalism And The Reemergence Of The Right-Privilege Distinction In Public Employment Law, Paul M. Secunda

San Diego Law Review

The First Amendment speech rights of public employees, which have traditionally enjoyed protection under the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, have suddenly diminished in recent years. At one time developed to shut the door on the infamous privilege/rights distinction, the unconstitutional conditions doctrine has now been increasingly used to rob these employees of their constitutional rights.

Three interrelated developments explain this state of affairs. First, a jurisprudential school of thought--the "subsidy school"--has significantly undermined the vitality of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine through its largely successful sparring with an alternative school of thought, the "penalty school." Second, although initially developed in the …

Labor Values Are First Amendment Values: Why Union Comprehensive Campaigns Are Protected Speech, Charlotte Garden

Faculty Articles

Corporate targets of union “comprehensive campaigns” increasingly have responded by filing civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuits alleging that unions’ speech and petitioning activities are extortionate. These lawsuits are the descendants of the Supreme Court’s unexplained treatment of much labor speech as less worthy of protection than other types of speech. Starting from the position that speech that promotes democratic discourse deserves top-tier First Amendment protection, this article argues that labor speech--which plays a unique role in civil society--should be on an equal footing with civil rights speech. Thus, even if union advocacy qualifies as legal extortion, …

Staying Neutral: How Washington State Courts Should Approach Negligent Supervision Claims Against Religious Organizations, Kelly H. Sheridan

Washington Law Review

The torts of negligent hiring, supervision, and retention place a duty on employers to prevent their employees from using the places, things, or tasks entrusted to them to harm foreseeable victims. The negligent employment torts create an independent duty under which plaintiffs may pursue an action when suits brought under a vicarious liability or breach of fiduciary duty theory would fail. For victims of sexual misconduct by religious leaders, negligent supervision claims against religious organizations are a crucial means of remedying serious and lasting injuries. Washington state law recognizes negligent supervision, and Washington courts have applied it to religious organizations, …

Staying Neutral: How Washington State Courts Should Approach Negligent Supervision Claims Against Religious Organizations, Kelly H. Sheridan

Washington Law Review

The torts of negligent hiring, supervision, and retention place a duty on employers to prevent their employees from using the places, things, or tasks entrusted to them to harm foreseeable victims. The negligent employment torts create an independent duty under which plaintiffs may pursue an action when suits brought under a vicarious liability or breach of fiduciary duty theory would fail. For victims of sexual misconduct by religious leaders, negligent supervision claims against religious organizations are a crucial means of remedying serious and lasting injuries. Washington state law recognizes negligent supervision, and Washington courts have applied it to religious organizations, …

Staying Neutral: How Washington State Courts Should Approach Negligent Supervision Claims Against Religious Organizations, Kelly H. Sheridan

Washington Law Review

The torts of negligent hiring, supervision, and retention place a duty on employers to prevent their employees from using the places, things, or tasks entrusted to them to harm foreseeable victims. The negligent employment torts create an independent duty under which plaintiffs may pursue an action when suits brought under a vicarious liability or breach of fiduciary duty theory would fail. For victims of sexual misconduct by religious leaders, negligent supervision claims against religious organizations are a crucial means of remedying serious and lasting injuries. Washington state law recognizes negligent supervision, and Washington courts have applied it to religious organizations, …

Transforming The Public Employee Speech Standard In Posey V. Lake Pend Oreille: More Than Meets The Eye , Benjamin M. Smith

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.