holding that, although the Assistant District Attorney’s critical comments about the District Attorney touched on important issues that fell within the purview of the First Amendment, the Pickering balance did not tilt in his favor because “the effectiveness of the employment relationship between employee-speaker and employer-target [was] so completely undermined”
How later courts described this case
- holding that, although the Assistant District Attorney’s critical comments about the District Attorney touched on important issues that fell within the purview of the First Amendment, the Pickering balance did not tilt in his favor because “the effectiveness of the employment relationship between employee-speaker and employer-target [was] so completely undermined”
- holding that, even though speech leading to public employee's discharge “concerned matters of grave public import," the balance weighed against finding that speech protected by the First Amendment when it had "completely undermined” the effectiveness of the employer-employee relationship
- finding that a First Assistant District Attorney’s public comments about the District Attorney “completely undermined” their working relationship, which was essential to the proper functioning of the office
- finding that the “crucial variant in [the Pickering ] balance appears to have been the hierarchical proximity of the criticizing employee to the person or body criticized”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Chief Judge SEITZ
concurs in the result because of the particular facts involved. He does so on the understanding that the majority is not holding, in effect, that the disruptive factor tips the scales in all such cases.