Speech in Public Employment:
a)    Campaign spending:  Congress can limit what people can contribute to campaigns.  Buckley v. Valeo  (But can’t limit what a candidate may spend of his own money or how much money a supporter spends independent of the campaign, trying to get Mr. X elected.)
b)    Connick v. Meyers:  if the speech is on a matter of public concern ? court must subjectively balance the speech rights of the employee v. the government’s (employer’s) rights in promoting job efficiency.  [If not speech on matter of public concern => gov’t can pretty much fire him.]
i)    Public concern:  Rankin  when employee said about Reagan’s shooting “next time I hope they get him” it was political commentary and thus speech on a matter of public concern
c)    Connick test:  adverse employment action
i)    Is the speech fairly related to a matter of public concern?  (fairly related to a matter of political, social or other community concern) (if statement made in public, then more likely to be matter of public concern);  ?P has burden to prove was re: matter of public concern from the
(1)    Content,
(2)    Form &
(3)    Context        …of the whole record
[not just shock talk]
ii)    Apply subjective balancing test to determine whether employee may be disciplined ?burden shifts to employer
(1)    Speaker’s interests in making statement (how valuable is the speech) v.
(2)    Interest of the state as an employer in promoting efficiency of the public services the gov’t performs; does the statement…
(a)    Impair discipline structure?
(b)    Have a detrimental impact on close working relationships?
(c)    Impair the performance of the speaker’s/others’ duties or the regular operation of the enterprise?
(d)    Lower morale?
d)    We don’t know what employee said:      Waters v. Churchill
i)    What would a rzbl employer find was said?
ii)    To be a rzbl employer, the employer must conduct a rzbl investigation (formal/informal) to determine what was said.  Even if employer makes wrong conclusion, that’s okay b/c if you follow rzbl procedures, it’s safe harbor that you are the rzbl employer.
e)    Independent contractors (employed in public sector) get same protection.
f)    You cannot fire ppl solely based on their beliefs (applies to non-policy making, non-confidential employees).
g)    Immunity
i)    School board gets no immunity
ii)    Superintendent gets qualified immunity, but if bad faith (knew/should have known unC’al) => no immunity