finding that reports of threats to the plaintiff’s employer was a foreseeable consequence of her termination and saddled the defendant with the violation of her First Amendment rights
How later courts described this case
- finding that reports of threats to the plaintiff’s employer was a foreseeable consequence of her termination and saddled the defendant with the violation of her First Amendment rights
- construing the plaintiff’s statements that the defendant reported to her employer as threats to be statements protected by First Amendment retaliation law
- recognizing an equal protection right to be free from gender discrimination
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MERRITT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
It seems to me in this case that the police officer-appellant has just as much a First Amendment right to describe the plaintiffs statements and conduct when he stopped her as the plaintiff has to become angry and call him names. • This is just a case of two people becoming angry and letting words fly. The officer’s description of the plaintiffs angry words does not rise to the level of a First Amendment violation, and this case should be stopped in its tracks now. It should not go on to a jury trial.