Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, No. 09-1476

Case citation

Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...

 (2011), was a recent case in which the Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...

 held the public concern test limits Petition Clause claims by public employees.

Termination and Reinstatement

Gharles Guarnieri was terminated as chief of police for the borough of Duryea, Pennsylvania

Duryea, Pennsylvania

Duryea is a borough in the Greater Pittston area of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, USA, nine miles south of Scranton on the Lackawanna River. Duryea was incorporated as a borough in 1891. Coal mining and the manufacture of silk were the chief industries in the early years of its existence. The...

. He filed a union grievance which proceeded to arbitration per the police union collective-bargaining agreement. The arbitrator found that procedural errors had been committed in connection with the termination of Guarnieri. The arbitrator also found misconduct on the part of Guarnieri. Guarnieri was ordered reinstated following a disciplinary suspension.

After Guarnieri was reinstated, he was issued a set of directives outlining Guarnieri's responsibilities in the performance of his duties. Guarnieri claimed his grievance was a petition protected by the Petition Clause of the First Amendment. He filed lawsuit against the borough, alleging that the directives were retaliation for that protected activity.

Lawsuit

During the lawsuit, the jury was instructed that the lawsuit and union grievance were "protected activity... under the constitution". The jury found for Guarnieri and awarded damages. The borough appealed on the ground that Guarnieri's lawsuit and grievance were not protected under the First Amendment as they did not address matters of public concern, a view affirmed by Courts outside the Third Circuit. The Court of Appeals concluded that "a public employee who has petitioned the government through a formal mechanism such as the filing of a lawsuit or grievance is protected under the Petition Clause from retaliation for that activity, even if the petition concerns a matter of solely private concern". The Supreme Court granted certiorari

Certiorari

Certiorari is a type of writ seeking judicial review, recognized in U.S., Roman, English, Philippine, and other law. Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin certiorare...

 in order to rule on the conflicting interpretations of the Petition Clause.

Opinion of the Court

The court held that "a government employer's allegedly retaliatory actions against an employee do not give rise to liability under the Petition Clause unless the employee's petition relates to a matter of public concern".

Speech Clause

The Court ruled in Connick v. Myers

Connick v. Myers

Connick v. Myers, , is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees who speak on matters of possible public concern within the workplace context. It was first brought by Sheila Myers, an Orleans Parish, Louisiana, assistant district attorney...

 that a public employee must how he spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern when suing his employer under the First Amendment's Speech Clause. After making this showing, the Court ruled in Pickering v. Board of Education

Pickering v. Board of Education

Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that in the absence of proof of the teacher knowingly or recklessly making false statements the teacher had a right to speak on issues of public importance without being dismissed from...

 that the a court must balance the employee's right to engage in speech against the government's interest in being efficient and effective in the public services it performs. In this case the Court outlined the close connection between the rights of speech and petition when making its ruling.

Petition Clause

The Court wrote that "the substantial government interests that justify a cautious and restrained approach to protecting public employees' speech are just as relevant in Petition Clause cases". The Court noted that holding a different standard for the Petition Clause could result in a loophole, as "petitions are a form of expression, and employees who invoke the Petition Clause in most cases could invoke as well the Speech Clause of the First Amendment".

Partial Dissent

Justice Scalia concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part. Scalia argued that the Court "has never actually held that a lawsuit is a constitutionally protected Petition". In this case the parties did not litigate on this issue and so the Court left it an open question. Scalia also argued against the holding Petition Clause and Speech caluse being treated identically in public employment cases.