Bailey v. Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, No. 05-2448 (8th Cir. June 23, 2006)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has upheld the termination of an employee's contract despite his claim that he was fired for speech on a matter of public concern. Upon implementation of new procedures designed to streamline reviews of disability applications at the U.S. Social Security Administration, consultant David Bailey expressed concerns about what he believed to be a quota system. Eventually, Mr. Bailey's supervisor called a meeting to address his unwillingness to sign off on application decisions. When Mr. Bailey expressed his opinion that the administration of the program was flawed, the supervisor ordered him to get with the program. However, Mr. Bailey began to have personality clashes and professional disagreements with other staff, and complaints about his behavior reached upper management. He also sent an official complaint to management over his supervisor's behavior. On the day this letter was received, his contract was terminated. The district court ruled that Mr. Bailey's speech was not entitled to First Amendment protection and, even if it were, failed the balancing test of
Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), under which a public employer may restrict an employee's speech on a matter of public concern where the employee's interest in the expression is outweighed by the government's interest in efficiency and avoiding workplace disruption.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, ruling that Mr. Bailey's speech was in furtherance of his own interests and not made as a citizen. The court also found that the meeting was called not to bring Mr. Bailey's concerns to light but to discuss his unwillingness to follow agency protocol. His letter to management did not touch on matters of public concern, the court determined, but rather made complaints against the supervisor. The letter expressly stated that Mr. Bailey was acting as a consultant, not a citizen. Even if Mr. Bailey's speech had been on matters of public concern, the court concluded, his claim still would fail under
Pickering because his actions caused substantial disruption to the workplace and impaired his ability to perform his duties.
Bailey v. Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, No. 05-2448 (8th Cir. June 23, 2006)
[Full Opinion][
Editor's Note: NSBA's summary of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling on public employee speech is available below.]
[NSBA School Law pages on Garcetti v. Ceballos]