The following excerpt is from Kiernan v. Town of Southampton & William Wilson, 17-212-cv (2nd Cir. 2018):
To establish a First Amendment retaliation claim, a public employee must prove: (1) his speech or conduct was protected by the First Amendment; (2) the defendant took an adverse action against him; and (3) there was a causal connection between this adverse action and the protected speech. Cox v. Warwick Valley Cent. Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 267, 272 (2d Cir. 2011).
"[A] public employee does not relinquish First Amendment rights to comment on matters of public interest by virtue of government employment." Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 140 (1983) (citation omitted). "A court conducts a two-step inquiry to determine whether a public employee's speech is protected: The first requires determining whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public
Page 5
concern." Matthews v. City of New York, 779 F.3d 167, 172 (2d Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). "This step one inquiry in turn encompasses two separate subquestions: (1) whether the subject of the employee's speech was a matter of public concern[;] and (2) whether the employee spoke 'as a citizen' rather than solely as an employee." Id. (internal quotation mark and citation omitted).
Speech on "any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community" by a public employee may be protected by the First Amendment. Connick, 461 U.S. at 146. In deciding if speech addresses a matter of public concern, we consider "whether the speech was calculated to redress personal grievances or whether it had a broader public purpose." Singer v. Ferro, 711 F.3d 334, 339 (2d Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.