holding that federal employees have First Amendment protections when petitioning the Government for redress of grievances
How later courts described this case
- holding that federal employees have First Amendment protections when petitioning the Government for redress of grievances
- first amendment right to petition for redress extends to civilian Navy employee’s letter to the Secretary of the Navy concerning favoritism in promotions
- First Amendment source of informers’ right discussed in context of discharge of federal employee for informing on superior
- plaintiff’s involuntary military discharge allegedly was caused by his exercise of First Amendment right to petition for grievances
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SKELTON, Judge
(concurring):
I concur in the result reached in the opinion of the court delivered by Judge Nichols; however, I would reach that result by a different route.
This is not a libel action for damages as was the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, but is a case where a government employee says he was unlawfully discharged for making derogatory statements about his superiors. The rights and privileges of a newspaper are different to those of a public employee and are founded on distinguishing reasons and bases. A newspaper is free from liability for an untrue defamatory statement about a public official, in the absence of malice, because it enjoys the right of fair comment and criticism; whereas, a public employee is not liable civilly or criminally for making an untrue defamatory statement to a superior about another employee, in the absence of malice, when made in the course of his employment, because such a statement is qualifiedly privileged due to the peculiar relationship of the parties.
Consequently, I do not think we should equate the rights and privileges of newspapers and those of public employees in this field.
I do not think it is necessary to decide this case on the basis of the first amendment of the United States Constitution, although it may not be error to do so. The letter which the plaintiff wrote was in the nature of a complaint to advise his superiors what was going on in his department. In any event, it was privileged since no malice on his part was ever shown.
Under these circumstances, according to the Navy’s own rules, which are discussed in the court’s opinion, the plaintiff’s punishment was too severe, and, therefore, his discharge was illegal. See Daub v. United States, 154 Ct.Cl. 434, 437 , 292 F.2d 895, 897 (1961). I do not reach the question of whether the plaintiff’s action was wrong or protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
COLLINS, Judge, joins in the foregoing concurring opinion.