California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Department of Corrections v. State Personnel Bd. (Wallace), 59 Cal.App.4th 131, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 34 (Cal. App. 1997):
The discipline imposed on a public employee may not infringe constitutionally protected free speech. (Rankin v. McPherson (1987) 483 U.S. 378, 383, 107 S.Ct. 2891, 2896, 97 L.Ed.2d 315, 324.) This does not mean public employees have an unlimited
Page 38
At the threshold, the inquiry is whether the speech which invites the discipline may fairly be characterized as involving a matter of public concern. (Connick v. Myers, supra, 461 U.S. at p. 146, 103 S.Ct. at p. 1689, 75 L.Ed.2d at p. 719.) This must be determined "by the content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record." (Id. at pp. 147-148, 103 S.Ct. at p. 1690, 75 L.Ed.2d at p. 720.)
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.