![]() Whether the defendant would have reached the same employment decision in the absence of the protected conduct.Whether the protected speech was a motivating factor in the adverse employment action and.Whether the government’s interests, as employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public service are sufficient to outweigh the plaintiff’s free speech interests.Whether the speech was on a matter of public concern.Whether the speech was made pursuant to an employee’s official duties.The Court’s case law distills down to five factors, summarized in 2018 by a 10th Circuit court as: ![]() Board of Education and tweaked most recently in 2006 with Garcetti v. The precise mechanism of balancing those two competing interests falls to the line of Supreme Court cases that began with 1968’s Pickering vs. Just any private workplace is free to make employment decisions that best serve stakeholders (within the constraints of contract and similarly applicable law, of course), state actors must properly balance the needs of serving the public against whatever possible speech rights an employee might be claiming. While Huggins and any other public employee can claim free speech rights in the context of their employment, it doesn’t mean those rights are unbounded. Yet in surveying the relevant case law, it seems likely that Huggins would be out of luck if he tried to cling to the Constitution in hopes of preserving his employment, wringing money damages out of WVU or even fighting the disciplinary measures the university has heaped upon him. You can unsubscribe at any time.Īnd while the question of whether the university has First Amendment concerns or the allure of more arena banners to explain its underwhelming punishment is unclear, it’s at least worth considering Huggins’ free speech rights. But if he was to lose his job for his comments, it would be a marked departure from those peers Knight’s tenure at Indiana and Pitino’s run at Louisville were both ended by actions rather than what can be called the “pure speech” of Huggins’ interview - speech that, while undoubtedly offensive, is fully protected by the Constitution.īy clicking subscribe, you agree to our privacy policy. ![]() Huggins wouldn’t be the first coach to be axed for an off-the-court issue - just ask Bobby Knight and Rick Pitino. Nothing in a public university’s student code of conduct or employee agreement can completely trump the core speech freedom contained in the First Amendment. ![]() That’s why the University of Alabama-Huntsville had to change a policy on “speech zones” when it was sued by a student and why Auburn had to pay one of its professors more than $600,000 after he successfully argued that the university punished him for speaking out on possible corruption. After WVU administrators debated his fate for two days, the university decided to restructure his contract, reduce his pay by $1 million and suspend him for the first three games of next season - all along with a promise that similar language in the future will result in “immediate termination.”Īs a starting point, when public universities act as arbiters of speech and ideas, they are bound by the terms of the First Amendment, whether that’s in dealing with students or employees. If Bob Huggins - the coach of more than 900 wins, 24 NCAA tournament appearances and a 2022 Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame induction - currently worked at a private college rather than West Virginia University, he might already be cleaning out his office.īut his status at a public institution and subsequent constitutional rights complicate things to at least some small degree, even as many groups are calling for his dismissal following Huggins’ use of a homophobic slur during a Monday interview. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |