Search:

Custom Search
Photo of Ralph Smith

Supreme Court Makes It Easier to Discipline "Whistleblowers"

By Ralph Smith

Wednesday, May 31, 2006

You can have daily headlines from FedSmith.com delivered right to your desktop each business morning. The service is free and you don't get junk e-mail as the price of your subscription. Just visit our newsletter page to sign up!

One way that a federal employee can sometimes avoid losing his job or being subjected to a serious disciplinary action is by successfully claiming to be a whistleblower. In other words, if an employee can successfully argue that an agency is taking action as a result of the self-described whistleblower revealing information that created problems for the agency, he may be a hero instead of just being someone who got fired from a federal job.

The problem for the third party decision-makers is being able to tell the difference between the two situations.

The US Supreme Court has now entered the fray with a new decision creating distinctions that will impact federal employees. (Garcetti et. al. v. Ceballos, No. 04-473 (May 30, 2006).

The new decision from the Supreme Court overturned an appeals court decision that concluded a Los Angeles County prosecutor was protected when he wrote a memo questioning whether a sheriff's deputy lied in a search warrant affidavit. The attorney (Richard Ceballos) had filed a lawsuit claiming he was demoted and denied a promotion for trying to expose a lie by the government for which he worked.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. He wrote that "We reject...the notion that the First Amendment shields from discipline the expressions employees make pursuant to their professional duties." He also wrote "Official communications have official consequences, creating a need for substantive consistency and clarity. Supervisors must ensure that their employees' official communications are accurate, demonstrate sound judgment, and promote the employer's mission."

In other words, when a federal employee makes a statement as a result of his official duties, that employee is not speaking as a citizen with the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constituion. In such a case, the Constitution does not prevent the employer from taking disciplinary action against an employee.

The result is that a federal employee who argues that an agency took disciplinary action in retaliation for whistleblowing activities has a new procedural argument. An agency will probably argue that the speech or action taken by the employee was within the official duties of that employee and does not prevent the agency from taking disciplinary action. The employee will probably argue the "whistleblowing" activity was not part of his official duties.

The decision by the Court will therefore make it easier for an agency to take action against an employee and harder for that employee to win a case based on whistleblowing activity.

© 2010 FedSmith Inc. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced without express written consent of FedSmith Inc.

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.

Readers' Comments

  • The HR specialist includes the word"SEEMS" in offering an opinion of the ruling, so that does not really clarify the ruling. Also true that confidence is lacking in a impartial review if the reported incident will be a major embaressment. If an employee truthfully feels illegal acts are being commit...
    Posted: June 9, 2006 6:15 AM
  • I agree. The case involves the conduct of a Govt attorney (the prosecution's side). The defense's atty was challenging a search warrant and asked him to review the sheriffs sworn statement on which the search warrant was based. The Govt atty did so and disagreed with the sheriffs statement about...
    Posted: June 6, 2006 2:48 PM
  • I went back and read the entire decision. This is very amazing. The attorney in this case was even instructed by his supervisor to conceal the irregularities that he found by rewriting his memo and leaving out information that might be exculpatory for the defense. He refused to hide the inf...
    Posted: June 6, 2006 11:41 AM

View All Comments »

MORE BY RALPH SMITH

Contact Ralph Smith or read more articles on the author's page.