• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

A word of warning to all government employees: The First Amendment right to free speech no longer applies to you.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote Tuesday, ruled that public employees are not entitled to free speech while on the job, opening the door for employer retaliation against whistleblowers who speak out about government misconduct and inefficiency.

In the words of Stephen Kohn, chairman of the National Whistleblower Center, “The ruling is a victory for every crooked politician in the United States.”

The ruling involved the case of Richard Ceballos, a deputy Los Angeles district attorney who levied a lawsuit after being reassigned and denied a promotion, actions he contends were retaliation for his having challenged the legitimacy of a search warrant to his superiors in 2000.

The Supreme Court ruling said that a citizen who enters government service accepts “certain limitations on his or her freedom” and that free speech does not apply to the course of their official duties.

In other words, public employees do not have the right to constitutional protection against retaliation if their employer is unhappy that the employee exposed them for illegal or improper practices.

The effects of the ruling will be to deter police officers from reporting department corruption, keep quiet laboratory employees who see hazardous viruses being handled and stored in an unsafe manner, and silence other federal employees who see problems and inefficiencies in their agencies but fear retribution.

The UC Office of the President said Tuesday that the University of California – as a public university system – has its own policies that will not be affected by the ruling. The current policy provides guidance for employees to “blow the whistle” on “improper governmental activities” and for whistleblowers to file and address complaints.

However, if the UC ever did take a whistleblower to court, it could now potentially lean on the new federal standard, which supersedes the university’s own internal policies.

The loss of protection for whistleblowers against retaliation is particularly disconcerting given the recently uncovered scandals at the UC: executive compensation, UCLA’s willed body program, UC Irvine’s liver transplant program, mismanagement at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and improper hiring practices by former UC Provost MRC Greenwood.

The UC has demonstrated that it is far from a perfect system. Now, Tuesday’s ruling may allow it to fire or demote any employees who bring misconduct to light and is protected from retaliatory legal action from whistleblowers.

The ruling also fails to clearly differentiate between when a public employee is acting within the course of their official duties and when they are acting as ordinary citizens, speaking out on a matter of public concern.

The Supreme Court does uphold the right to free speech for the latter, but does not show where the line is drawn or when whistleblowers have the necessary protection and when they do not.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that the ruling could have the “perverse” incentive for public employees to speak out publicly and to the media, acting as concerned citizens, rather than taking matters to their superiors where they are now afforded no job protection. And if that’s what happens, then so be it.

But there are plenty of cases of bureaucratic inefficiency that can be solved internally and do not warrant a media circus.

Comments

Post a comment