Supreme Court to Public Employees: Your Conscience or Your Job

January 01, 2006

The Supreme Court's recent ruling limiting the free-speech rights of public employees sends "a chilling warning to potential government whistleblowers," AFSCME Pres. Gerald W. McEntee says, adding that "forcing public workers to either listen to their conscience or keep their job is just plain wrong."

Prompting McEntee's reaction is the May 30, 5-4 decision establishing that public employees who make charges of official misconduct in the course of their official duties are not protected by the First Amendment. According to McEntee, "This decision gives constitutional sanction to those who would fire a public worker for stepping forward to protect the health and well-being of all Americans."

Although the ruling — which has left some whistleblower protections intact — does not affect the rights of public employees off the job, the AFSCME president adds, they "should not be asked to sacrifice their First Amendment rights to work in the public sector. If we are serious as a society about achieving accountability and openness in government, we must hold public officials responsible for their actions. That means we ought to protect rank-and-file public employees who are courageous enough to risk their own careers to speak out about possible violations of the law or ethic breaches."

The ruling stems from a case involving Richard Ceballos, a former Los Angeles prosecutor, who asserts he was denied a promotion for making statements against police misconduct as part of his day-to-day job duties. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Ceballos, noting that what he did was "inherently a matter of public concern." But the District Attorney appealed to the Supreme Court, which overturned the appellate decision.

In McEntee's view, "The court has said to public employees, in effect, 'Your conscience or your job. You can't have both.'"