Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri
| Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued March 22, 2011 Decided June 20, 2011 |
|
| Full case name | Borough of Duryea, Pennsylvania, et al., Petitioners v. Charles J. Guarnieri |
| Docket nos. | 09-1476 |
| Citations | 564 U.S. 379 (more) |
| Prior history | Motion granted, unreported 3:05-CV-1422 (M.D. Pa. 2010); affirmed, 364 Fed. Appx. 749 (3d Cir. 2010); certiorari granted, 562 U.S. 960 (2010) |
| Subsequent history | Further remanded to the district court, unreported (3d Cir. August 2, 2011) |
| Holding | |
| A petition must address a matter of public concern. Otherwise, a public employer is free to retaliate against the public employee, even if the employee won the grievance he filed and brought suit in federal court. Third Circuit reversed and remanded. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Concur/dissent | Scalia |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I | |
Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379 (2011), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held the public concern test limits Petition Clause claims by public employees. More specifically state and local government employees may not sue their employers for retaliation under the Petition Clause of the First Amendment when they petition the government on matters of private concern. To show that an employer interfered with rights under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, an employee must show that his speech related to a matter of public concern. The court held that this test also applies when the employee invokes the Petition Clause. The case is significant under the Petition Clause because 1.) it recognized that lawsuits are “Petitions” under the First Amendment and 2.) it explains that the Petition Clause and Speech Clause are not always coextensive, and leaves open the possibility that here may be additional claims under the Petition Clause which plaintiffs may invoke consistent with the purpose of that Clause.
Charles Guarnieri was terminated as chief of police for the borough of Duryea, Pennsylvania. He filed a union grievance which proceeded to arbitration per the police union collective-bargaining agreement. The arbitrator found that procedural errors had been committed in connection with the termination of Guarnieri. The arbitrator also found misconduct on the part of Guarnieri. Guarnieri was ordered reinstated following a disciplinary suspension.
After Guarnieri was reinstated, he was issued a set of directives outlining Guarnieri's responsibilities in the performance of his duties. Guarnieri claimed his grievance was a petition protected by the Petition Clause of the First Amendment. He filed lawsuit against the borough, alleging that the directives were retaliation for that protected activity.
During the lawsuit, the jury was instructed that the lawsuit and union grievance were "protected activity... under the constitution". The jury found for Guarnieri and awarded damages. The borough appealed on the ground that Guarnieri's lawsuit and grievance were not protected under the First Amendment as they did not address matters of public concern, a view affirmed by Courts outside the Third Circuit. The Court of Appeals concluded that "a public employee who has petitioned the government through a formal mechanism such as the filing of a lawsuit or grievance is protected under the Petition Clause from retaliation for that activity, even if the petition concerns a matter of solely private concern". The Supreme Court granted certiorari in order to rule on the conflicting interpretations of the Petition Clause.
...
Wikipedia