 |
|
||
 |
|||
 |
 |
 |
   | 
| |||||||||||||||||
Court weighs speech rights of public workersProsecutor alleges retaliation for whistle-blowingBy Bill Mears  YOUR E-MAIL ALERTSWASHINGTON (CNN) -- Richard Ceballos says he was only doing his job, and was punished by his superiors as a result. As a prosecutor in the Los Angeles County district attorney's office, Ceballos aggressively pursued allegations that a law enforcement officer had lied to obtain a search warrant. That started a contentious chain of events that has led all the way to the Supreme Court, and back again. Claims that public employees who face retaliation for whistle-blowing deserve free speech protection will get another hearing before the justices Tuesday. The case earlier appeared to deeply divide the court. At issue is what constitutional guarantees government workers deserve in speech done as a routine part of their job. The Bush administration supports local officials, who say internal complaints, even those involving normal work assignments, do not have sweeping First Amendment protection. The appeal was originally heard in October, before Justice Sandra Day O'Connor retired from the bench. O'Connor stepped down January 31 -- before the opinion was completed -- so under court rules her vote did not count. That apparently left a 4-4 tie, and the justices decided to rehear the case with its newest member, Justice Samuel Alito. His views could prove decisive. Liberal groups complained during his recent confirmation hearings that the 55-year-old jurist was overly deferential to the government in cases involving individual claims of discrimination and harassment. In the original October 12 argument, the justices seemed to have trouble balancing the need to preserve discretion in the workplace with the need to ensure those who expose wrongdoing are not unfairly punished. Same rules for government workers?Some of the discussion turned personal, since the justices themselves are federal employees and do much of their work behind closed doors, deliberating cases and writing orders and opinions. Chief Justice John Roberts posed a hypothetical scenario, asking what should happen if one of his law clerks criticized another justice's jurisprudence as "wacky" and Roberts then fired the clerk for such "inappropriate" comments. The attorney for Ceballos, Bonnie Robin-Vergeer replied the clerk would have no free speech protection since it did not involve a "public concern" but rather a personal exercise of "bad judgment." But Roberts countered that under that "public concern" standard, "What could be more important than how the court decides cases?" Ceballos contends that his career suffered after investigating alleged misconduct by a sheriff's deputy. After looking into a formal complaint by a defense attorney, Ceballos found cause, recommending to his bosses the criminal case be dismissed. He was asked to tone down the wording of his memo, but the revised letter still contained the conclusion of "grossly inaccurate" statements made in the deputy's affidavit. Prosecutors moved ahead with the case involving theft at an auto parts store. Ceballos said he was obliged to tell the defense of his conclusions. He testified at the trial about his investigation, which favored the defendant. Ceballos charged that his bosses later retaliated by demoting him, making threats, creating a "hostile" work environment and denying him a promotion. He sued and a federal appeals court eventually agreed with him. That prompted this latest legal challenge. Robin-Vergeer argued this case involves a "legitimate public interest" and that public workers should not fear reprisals when they speak out against misconduct or wrongdoing. Some justices are skepticalSeveral justices expressed skepticism over that statement, questioning whether Ceballos' claim of retaliation is a personal, job-related issue or instead falls under "public concern" conduct. The high court has been back and forth on this issue in the past century. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously wrote in a 1906 case that a police officer "may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman." But a 1968 ruling concluded a schoolteacher could not be fired for writing a letter to a newspaper complaining about how the school board was spending the taxpayers' money. The justices said public employees have a right to speak out on matters of public concern. Now the legal dispute centers on whether government workers speaking out internally on the job -- whether it was in the "public interest" or not -- deserve the same kind of protection as those speaking out in public as a "citizen." Several justices suggested there should be no difference. Justice John Paul Stevens said "it seems to me odd" a public employee could hold a press conference to complain about an important issue and not be punished, but doing so discretely to the boss would leave them subject to sanction. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Ceballos was doing what his job required. "Here is a person whose job includes being candid, serving justice, serving truth." Worker advocacy groups said the stakes are high, with about 100 such lawsuits filed each year by public employees. "Whistle-blowing is work-related speech," said Stephen Kohn, who heads the National Whistleblower Center. "Honest civil servants who step forward and document waste, fraud and corruption at work must have the same constitutional protections as other citizens." But Bush administration attorney Dan Himmelfarb told the court there are other remedies for workers claiming retaliation, such as filing a civil service complaint. A ruling is expected by the end of June. 
|
| |||||||||||||||||
 |
|
| © 2007 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us. Site Map. |
|
External sites open in new window; not endorsed by CNN.com
Pay service with live and archived video. 
