ID THE CASE: Garcetti v. Ceballos
547 U.S. 410, 126 S.Ct. 1951
PARTIES TO THE CASE:
PLAINTIFF = Richard Ceballos, calendar deputy for the District county attorney office
DEFENDANT = Gil Garcetti, District Attorney
RELEVANT AND MATERIAL FACTS (LIST JUST 5 OR LESS):
1. Richard Ceballos, an employee at the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office in 1989 and his duties as a calendar deputy were described as certain supervisory responsibilities over other lawyer.
2. In February 2000, Ceballos was approached by defense attorney, who informed him, that he filed a motion for traverse but he also asked Ceballo to review this case. After examination of the affidavit, Cevallos came to conclusion that the affidavit was inaccurate.
3. Ceballos shared the results of his investigation with the deputy sheriff of Los Angeles County Sheriff's department, but was not satisfy with his answer so he shared his conclusion with his supervisors and followed up with memorandum. 3. On March 2, 2000, Ceballos submitted the memo to Sundstedt for his review. Later a meeting was held to discuss the memo he wrote. Unfortunately, Ceballos was criticized for his actions and Sundstedt proceed with the prosecution of the case pending disposition of the defense motion for traverse. 4. The trial court hold a hearing on the motion. Ceballos was called by the defense, and questioned about his observation of the affidavit, nevertheless trial court reject the challenge. 5. Ceballos alleged that he was shunned, demoted, and reassigned to a remote office for reporting misconduct by the sheriff’s office. PROCEDURAL HISTORY (LIST JUST 5 OR LESS): 1. Ceballos filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court of the Central District of California 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violation of first and fourteen amendment. 2. The District Court granted the petitioners (defendant) motion for summary judgment, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, and district attorney appealed. Court decided that Ceballos was not entitled to first amendment protection. 3. The Ninth Circuit of the United States’ Court of Appeals, reversed. Constitute protected speech under the First Amendment.” 4. The Supreme Court granted certiorari ISSUE: Whether a government employee who speaks of public concern loses his First Amendment protection because he speaks as employee rather than citizen. …show more content…
When public employee makes a statement pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens. First Amendment protects citizens who are speaking as a concerned citizens, (Pickering, supra, at 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731).
2. When a citizen enters government service, the citizen must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom.(Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661, 671, 114 S.Ct. 1878, 128 L.Ed.2d 686 (1994)). (plurality opinion)((“[T]he government as employer indeed has far broader powers than does the government as sovereign”)). Whereas, public employees can express their views and positions.
3. Ceballos shared his findings within his supervisors; expressed his view within the office environment, not publicly, and employees can sometimes received the First Amendment protection. (Givhan v. Western Line Consol. School Dist., 439 U.S. 410, 414, 99 S.Ct. 693, 58 L.Ed.2d 619 (1979)). Most citizen do their talking within their workplace and it would not serve the goal to treat public employees like "any member of the general public," (Pickering, 391 U.S., at 573, 88 S.Ct. 1731), to hold that any speech within the workplace is automatically exposed to
547 U.S. 410, 126 S.Ct. 1951
PARTIES TO THE CASE:
PLAINTIFF = Richard Ceballos, calendar deputy for the District county attorney office
DEFENDANT = Gil Garcetti, District Attorney
RELEVANT AND MATERIAL FACTS (LIST JUST 5 OR LESS):
1. Richard Ceballos, an employee at the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office in 1989 and his duties as a calendar deputy were described as certain supervisory responsibilities over other lawyer.
2. In February 2000, Ceballos was approached by defense attorney, who informed him, that he filed a motion for traverse but he also asked Ceballo to review this case. After examination of the affidavit, Cevallos came to conclusion that the affidavit was inaccurate.
3. Ceballos shared the results of his investigation with the deputy sheriff of Los Angeles County Sheriff's department, but was not satisfy with his answer so he shared his conclusion with his supervisors and followed up with memorandum. 3. On March 2, 2000, Ceballos submitted the memo to Sundstedt for his review. Later a meeting was held to discuss the memo he wrote. Unfortunately, Ceballos was criticized for his actions and Sundstedt proceed with the prosecution of the case pending disposition of the defense motion for traverse. 4. The trial court hold a hearing on the motion. Ceballos was called by the defense, and questioned about his observation of the affidavit, nevertheless trial court reject the challenge. 5. Ceballos alleged that he was shunned, demoted, and reassigned to a remote office for reporting misconduct by the sheriff’s office. PROCEDURAL HISTORY (LIST JUST 5 OR LESS): 1. Ceballos filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court of the Central District of California 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violation of first and fourteen amendment. 2. The District Court granted the petitioners (defendant) motion for summary judgment, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, and district attorney appealed. Court decided that Ceballos was not entitled to first amendment protection. 3. The Ninth Circuit of the United States’ Court of Appeals, reversed. Constitute protected speech under the First Amendment.” 4. The Supreme Court granted certiorari ISSUE: Whether a government employee who speaks of public concern loses his First Amendment protection because he speaks as employee rather than citizen. …show more content…
When public employee makes a statement pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens. First Amendment protects citizens who are speaking as a concerned citizens, (Pickering, supra, at 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731).
2. When a citizen enters government service, the citizen must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom.(Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661, 671, 114 S.Ct. 1878, 128 L.Ed.2d 686 (1994)). (plurality opinion)((“[T]he government as employer indeed has far broader powers than does the government as sovereign”)). Whereas, public employees can express their views and positions.
3. Ceballos shared his findings within his supervisors; expressed his view within the office environment, not publicly, and employees can sometimes received the First Amendment protection. (Givhan v. Western Line Consol. School Dist., 439 U.S. 410, 414, 99 S.Ct. 693, 58 L.Ed.2d 619 (1979)). Most citizen do their talking within their workplace and it would not serve the goal to treat public employees like "any member of the general public," (Pickering, 391 U.S., at 573, 88 S.Ct. 1731), to hold that any speech within the workplace is automatically exposed to