By Derek Lipkin
BRUIN SENIOR STAFF
dlipkin@media.ucla.edu
The free-speech rights of University of California employees may
be called into question as the Supreme Court takes on a case
involving the First Amendment and the workplace for government
employees.
Over the next several months, the Supreme Court will hear a
case, brought by a Los Angeles County prosecutor, that will decide
whether the 20 million U.S. government workers have a First
Amendment right to voice concerns about work-related issues.
The case was brought by prosecutor Richard Ceballos, who said he
was demoted and denied a promotion for trying to expose a lie by a
county sheriff’s deputy in a search warrant affidavit.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled
that Ceballos’ speech, a memo questioning the affidavit, was
constitutionally protected and that Ceballos could pursue a
lawsuit.
The case poses the possibility of limiting public employees,
including UC staff and faculty, from expressing opinions or dissent
about workplace disputes.
The case also has the possibility of limiting professorial
teachings in the classroom, as well as the ability of professors to
dispute punishment for their teachings.
In previous decisions, the First Amendment was found to protect
government workers from being punished for conduct involving a
“public concern,” such as illegal governmental
activities, rather than personal, job-related issues. The court is
hearing this case in order to clarify the protection.
Even though there is debate over whether “public
concern” would include professorial teachings, many doubt
that professors would be greatly affected by the case due to the
nature of their positions.
“I can’t imagine that the Supreme Court would issue
a decision that would compromise speech rights of teachers and
professors,” said Peter Scheer, executive director of the
California First Amendment Coalition.
Scheer said that professors are supposed to be controversial and
outspoken.
“A secretary does not necessarily have that job
description,” Scheer said.
“My prediction is that, if they would rule against
employees, (it) would be narrow so that it would not jeopardize
free-speech rights of teachers and their teachings,” he
said.
When asked about the case, Ravi Poorsina, a spokeswoman for the
UC, referred to the UC Faculty Code of Conduct and the General
University Policy Regarding Academic Freedom, but could not be
reached for further comment.
According to the UC Faculty Code of Conduct, there are
professional rights of faculty that support their ability “to
present controversial material relevant to a course of
instruction.”
Even so, there is debate as to whether controversial
professorial teachings may deny students access to instruction or
discriminate against students, which are violations of UC
policy.
A ruling in favor of employers would also limit the ability of
whistleblowers to win lawsuits claiming retaliation, because it
would disallow employees to speak out against work-related
punishments.
The UC Whistleblower Policy and Policy for Protection of
Whistleblowers From Retaliation outlines steps to report improper
governmental activity conducted by fellow staff or faculty, and
says whistle-blowers are protected from undue retaliation from
accused parties. This protects employees’ First Amendment
rights to speak out against the UC, so long as there are grounds
for such allegations of improper activities.
In general, many are uncomfortable with giving public employees
blanket protection for the things they say.
“We live in a world where people are leaking things all
the time,” said Justice Stephen Breyer, during an hour-long
discussion about the case.
But Stephen Kohn, a leader with the National Whistleblower
Center, said a victory for the government would mean
“whistleblowers who expose waste, fraud and corruption will
have less constitutional protection than Ku Klux Klan members who
burn crosses on their front lawns.”
With reports from Bruin wire services.