Legal

Court: Worker Not Entitled to Free Speech Protections During Employment Duties

By Judy Greenwald

Apr. 24, 2012

The Connecticut Supreme Court overturned a $10 million verdict in favor of a terminated employee April 23, holding the worker was not entitled to First Amendment protection because his speech was uttered in the course of his employment duties.

According to the unanimous opinion in G. Berry Schumann vs. Dianon Systems Inc., Schumann, had worked at the Shelton-based firm performing urine diagnostic tests in his position as a cytopathologist since 1992.

In 2005, Schumann objected to the use of a new test and the introduction of new diagnostic terms, voicing his opinions to his supervisor and others, according to the ruling. He was terminated after he missed a meeting and because of his decision not to use the new diagnostic terms, according to the ruling.

He filed suit and a jury awarded him more than $10 million, which included economic as well as punitive damages.

An issue in the case was the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2006 ruling in Garcetti vs. Ceballos, in which the high court held that “government employers, like private employers, need a significant degree of control over their employees’ words, and actions; without it, there would be little chance for the efficient provision of public services.”

In overturning the jury verdict, however, the court said it “is readily apparent that the plaintiff’s speech in its entirety was extraordinarily disruptive to his employment with the defendant and, therefore, not constitutionally protected” regardless of whether Garcetti applies. “First, all of the speech at issue took place in the work environment, rather than on the plaintiff’s own time. Second, the speech greatly interfered with the plaintiff’s job performance,” said the decision.

“Finally, because the plaintiff’s speech in opposition to the defendant’s new diagnostic codes was accompanied by his refusal to use those codes, it was insubordinate in nature, removing it from the ambit of constitutional protection,” said the ruling.

The case was remanded for a new trial limited to Schumann’s wrongful termination claim.

Judy Greenwald writes for Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email editors@workforce.com.

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Judy Greenwald writes for Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management.

What’s New at Workforce.com?

blog workforce

Come see what we’re building in the world of predictive employee scheduling, superior labor insights and next-gen employee apps. We’re on a mission to automate workforce management for hourly employees and bring productivity, optimization and engagement to the frontline.

Book a call
See the software

Related Articles

workforce blog

Compliance

Minimum Wage by State in 2023 – All You Need to Know

Summary Twenty-three states and D.C. raised their minimum wage rates in 2023, effective January 1.  Thr...

federal law, minimum wage, pay rates, state law, wage law compliance

workforce blog

Legal

New Labor Laws Taking Effect in 2023

The new year is fast approaching, and with its arrival comes a host of new labor laws that will impact ...

labor laws, minimum wage, wage and hour law

workforce blog

Legal

Wage and Hour Laws in 2022: What Employers Need to Know

Whether a mom-and-pop shop with a handful of employees or a large corporation staffing thousands, compl...

compliance, wage and hour law