[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.The parade features, among otherbution required not only Myers to leave her things, floats with varying themes and of vary-work but others to do the same in order that ing degrees of sophistication.Local politiciansthe questionnaire be completed.award prizes to floats designated, for example, prettiest,  most original, and  funniest.For the September 7, 1998 Labor Day* * *parade, the plaintiffs, decided to enter a floatcalled  Black to the Future-Broad ChannelMyers questionnaire.is most accurately2098. The float theme, a play on the 1985characterized as an employee grievance con-time-travel film Back to the Future, depictedcerning internal office policy.The limited Firsthow Broad Channel would look in 2098Amendment interest involved here does notwhen, presumably, the community would berequire that Connick tolerate action which hemore integrated than it was in 1998.Eachreasonably believed would disrupt the office,of the float participants, including the plain-undermine his authority, and destroy closetiffs, covered their faces in black lipstick,working relationships.Myers discharge there-donned Afro wigs, and accompanied the floatfore did not offend the First Amendment.along the procession in attire ranging fromOur holding today is grounded in our long-overalls with no T-shirt underneath, to cut-standing recognition that the First Amend-off jeans and ratty T-shirts, to athletic pantsment s primary aim is the full protection ofand sweatshirts.The float itself featured twospeech upon issues of public concern, as well asbuckets of Kentucky Fried Chicken on thethe practical realities involved in the adminis-hood of a flatbed truck.The float participantstration of a government office.Although todayate a watermelon and at one point threw thethe balance is struck for the government, this isremains into the crowd, engaged in variousno defeat for the First Amendment.For it wouldchants, and simulated  break dancing.indeed be a Pyrrhic victory for the great prin-The next evening, a local news broadcastciples of free expression if the Amendment saired amateur video footage of the float insafeguarding of a public employee s right, as aa piece entitled  Racist Float. Extensivecitizen, to participate in discussions concerningpress coverage followed immediately, withpublic affairs were confused with the attemptthe New York Times reporting three daysto constitutionalize the employee grievancelater on the front of its Metro section that,that we see presented here.The judgment ofaccording to  city officials, New York Citythe Court of Appeals ispolice officers and firefighters had taken partin the float.The paper quoted Mayor GiulianiReversed.as saying, in a statement,   I ve spoken toCommissioners Safir and Von Essen and we[Dissenting opinion omitted.]all agree that any police officer, firefighteror other city employee involved in this dis-gusting display of racism should be removedfrom positions of responsibility immediately.LOCURTO.They will be fired. v.Shortly thereafter, the NYPD chargedGIULIANILocurto with  conduct prejudicial to thegood order, efficiency and discipline of the447 F.3d 159 (2d Cir.2006)Department by participating in a LaborDay parade float  which depicted African-[Citations and footnotes omitted.]Americans in a demeaning and offensivemanner. A hearing was held.After listening[The plaintiffs were formerly New York City to testimony, the hearing officer concludedpolice officers and firefighters.All three lived in that the float did not express an opinion onPART II: CASES RELATING TO CHAPTER 10 721LOCURTO V.GIULIANI a matter of public concern, but rather  was It is more sensible.to treat off-duty,designed to mimic and mock a racial group non-work-related speech as presumptivelyfor the amusement of the participants and entitled to First Amendment protectionspectators, and that  [i]n light of the egre- regardless of whether, as a threshold matter,giousness of [Locurto s] misconduct and it may be characterized as speech on a matterthe overwhelmingly negative notoriety this of public concern.has wrought upon [the] Department., But we need not today decide and hence dothe appropriate discipline was to dismiss not resolve whether it was necessary for theLocurto from the police force.] plaintiffs to satisfy the public concern test asa threshold matter.This is because, given ourresolution of the.balancing test, we canCALIBRASI, Circuit Judge.assume arguendo that the plaintiffs speechin this case did in fact relate to a matter of* * *public concern.Under our cases, the first step in the.* * *inquiry is to determine whether an employeeis speaking on a matter of public concern.We.find that the defendants interestThe question of whether a public employee sin maintaining a relationship of trust betweenFirst Amendment activity relates to a matterthe police and fire departments and the com-of public concern  is ordinarily a question ofmunities they serve outweighed the plaintiffslaw decided on the whole record by takingexpressive interests in this case.If the NYPDinto account the content, form, and contextand FDNY have any greater interests thanof a given statement. Thus, in the Supremethese, they are few.And the speech at issueCourt case of Rankin v.McPherson, a datain this case was not merely of passing interestentry employee in a county constable s officeto members of the African-American com-who said of an attempt on President Reagan smunity; rather, they were the very objects oflife,  [I]f they go for him again, I hope theythe plaintiffs derision.The First Amendmentget him, was speaking on a matter of publicdoes not require a Government employer toconcern because her comments were  madesit idly by while its employees insult thosein the course of a conversation addressing thethey are hired to serve and protect.Under thepolicies of the President s administration.circumstances,  an individual police officer sThe Court made clear that  [t]he inappropri-[or firefighter s] right to express his personalate or controversial character of a statementopinions must yield to the public good.is irrelevant to the question [of] whether itdeals with a matter of public concern.* * ** * *CONCLUSIONSome courts, including both our Courtand the Supreme Court, have questionedWe do not today endorse Justice Holmes sthe extent to which the public concern testwidely discredited dictum that one has  aapplies to off-duty speech on topics unrelatedconstitutional right to talk politics, but.hasto employment.The Supreme Court notedno constitutional right to be a policeman.in Roe that, under its previous decision inOne does, of course, have a First AmendmentTreasury Union,  when government employ-right not to be terminated from public employ-ees speak or write on their own time on top-ment in retaliation for engaging in protectedics unrelated to their employment, the speechspeech.But one s right to be a police officercan have First Amendment protection, absentor firefighter who publicly ridicules those hesome governmental justification  far strongeris commissioned to protect and serve is farthan mere speculation in regulating it..from absolute [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]